Search results

Sustainability has become an integral part of the real estate industry, alongside advancing globalization and demographic development. Due to real estate's influence on greenhouse gas emissions throughout its life cycle, both the regulatory and legal requirements concerning the sustainability of real estate are growing and, as a result of social responsibility, the interest of tenants and investors in sustainable real estate. However, criteria for measuring the ecological sustainability of a real estate investment in the purchase process in order to reduce the risk of including “stranded assets” in the portfolio are missing. This paper aims to address the need to integrate the issue of carbon stranding into existing sustainability rating tools.

Existing tools are examined based on defined criteria to determine whether they are suitable for purchasing a property before suitable tools for purchase are compared. Strengths and weaknesses are identified, which are to be remedied with the scoring tool. Taxonomy regulation is integrated into the existing valuation basis as a legal regulation.

The result is a scoring tool that enables real estate companies to measure and evaluate the ecological sustainability performance of a property during the acquisition process, taking into account the three aspects of sustainability and considering them when determining an appropriate purchase price in line with market conditions. Moreover, the developed tool helps to minimize the risk of acquiring a stranding asset.

The environmental, social and governance (ESG) framework employed in this study does not incorporate governance considerations. While the analysis extensively evaluates the building's environmental and social aspects, it does not extend to examining the governance practices of the companies involved. Thus, the assessment is confined solely to the physical attributes of the property without accounting for broader corporate governance factors.

The developed scoring tool represents a valuable tool for the real estate industry, offering insights into sustainability performance during property acquisitions and providing a structured framework for decision-making. By addressing both certification and taxonomy regulation requirements, the tool contributes to the industry's evolution toward more sustainable and environmentally responsible real estate practices.

In response to the growing importance of sustainability in the real estate industry, this paper introduces a novel scoring tool for evaluating the sustainability of real estate investments during the acquisition process.

The University of Saskatchewan (UofS) has indentified five areas of campus life critical to improving the university's sustainability performance: education, research, operations, governance, and community engagement. In recognition of the need to track and assess the university's performance in all of these areas, a study was conducted to identify an effective sustainability‐benchmarking tool for the UofS. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In order to indentify an effective benchmarking tool for assessing sustainability for the context of the UofS, two academic‐focused tools and two tools with a broader scope were reviewed. The academic tools are Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF), while the general tools are the College of Sustainability Report Card (CSRC) and the Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System (STARS). Each tool was rated on the basis of 27 questions developed to directly relate to indicators of sustainability in the five areas of campus life. The highest rated tool was recommended as the most effective tool for assessing and tracking sustainability for the UofS.

Each benchmarking tool was developed to address specific goals. Accordingly, one tool may have strength in one area but weakness in another area. The study has shown that CSRC is the best tool for addressing governance and operations, although overall CSRC earned the lowest score in terms of its potential application to the UofS as it is not an effective tool for addressing sustainability in the context of education and research. Both academic tools – SAQ and CSAF – do not adequately address issues of sustainability in campus operations. STARS obtained the highest scores in all areas of campus life. Hence, STARS was identified as the most effective tool for assessing and tracking sustainability in all areas of campus life at the UofS.

Extrapolating from the UofS assessment, the STARS would appear to be the most effective benchmarking tool for assessing and tracking sustainability for higher educational institutions that want to assess and track sustainability across the breadth of campus life in education, research, operations, governance, and community engagement.

This study aims to understand New Zealand sheep farmers’ readiness toward sustainability transition by assessing their intentions of transition and adoption of sustainability tools, with information collection considered to mediate the intention–adoption relationship.

Based on the data collected from a survey of New Zealand sheep farmers in 2021, the empirical analysis was developed to investigate farmers’ perceptions of and attitudes toward readiness to move toward a sustainability transition. Structural equation modeling associated with principal component analysis was used to empirically test the theory of planned behavior constructs.

The results show that pressure from the public and the sheep industry, and the perceived controls of transition drive the intention of sustainability transition; farmers with higher intention of sustainability transition are found to be more likely to adopt sustainability tools. However, there is an attitude–behavior gap, wherein positive attitudes toward sustainability transition may not lead to a higher likelihood of adopting sustainability tools. There is no evidence of the mediating role of information collection on the intention–adoption relationship, while a positive effect was found in information collection on the adoption of sustainability tools.

The empirical evidence indicates that policymakers need to help increase the awareness of sustainable production and help farmers overcome barriers to achieving sustainable production by finding ways to turn intentions into adoption.

Being the first attempt to empirically assess farmers’ readiness toward sustainability transition, the study fills the gap of limited understanding of the link between sustainability transition intention and sustainable tools adoption in sustainability transition.

The purpose of this paper is to show the relevance attributed to sustainability management control tools (SMCTs) and their real use. Mainly, this study aims to shed light on the approaches, motivations and difficulties encountered in SMCTs adoption by the most sustainable Italian companies, as well as their effectiveness.

Using a pre-structured qualitative survey method, the authors grasped information about external and internal dimensions of sustainability management in light of institutional and resource-based view theories. Data are elaborated with two methods: a regime analysis to assess the relevance of SMCTs and a descriptive analysis to investigate the “aim”, “which” and “how” of the SMCTs' use by companies listed in sustainability indices.

Informal SMCTs prevailed over formal ones. There is a discrepancy between attention paid to some tools praised in the literature and their knowledge and use. In addition, a significant gap exists between what is desired and what is achieved in terms of effectiveness. Further, although sustainability management is primarily oriented towards the external perspective, SMCTs can be key to improving both the disclosure and management of sustainability.

The criteria for the selection of the sample resulted in a small number of analysed companies, which allowed us to gain insight into what happens inside the listed Italian companies in the most important sustainability indices. These companies have sustainability-oriented management, which also probably safeguards their advantage linked to inclusion in these indices.

This paper provides food for thought for companies engaged in non-financial disclosure and for those who aim to implement SMCTs. It shows the need to reinforce formal sustainability control tools, also through dissemination of major knowledge about the implementation of these tools, and to encourage sponsorship from top levels of management.

Compared with SMCT research using a theoretical or case study approach, this study uniquely undertakes extensive research on the perceived effectiveness of SMCTs in achieving sustainability goals and the difficulties in implementing them, thereby highlighting a discrepancy between some tools emphasised in the literature and those infrequently used in sustainability-oriented companies.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct an empirical analysis among large German companies to enhance the understanding of whether and which institutional factors influence the application of sustainability management tools. Stepping from corporate sustainability visions to implementation requires the application of management tools. A multitude of sustainability management tools have been proposed in literature. Research on their application in corporate practice is, however, scarce.

Based on a survey of large German companies and publicly available data, this paper tests the influence of corporate sustainability networks, indices, standards and the awareness of sustainability management tools on their application in corporate practice.

A particularly strong positive relation exists between awareness and application of sustainability management tools. Standards are also found to have a positive influence, while the influence of networks and indices is less strong. Our findings suggest that the application of sustainability management tools can be fostered through the promotion and increasing awareness of tools.

The analysis is based on a survey of large German companies. Factors of institutional isomorphism are tested. Further research is needed for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the influence of further aspects such as competitive and psychological factors.

The findings of this paper suggest that the application of sustainability management tools can be fostered particularly well through increasing awareness and the active promotion of tools. Networks, indices and standard help increase awareness.

The analysis unveils the role of institutional factors influencing the application sustainability management tools in corporate practice.

This paper analyzes recent efforts to measure sustainability in higher education across institutions. The benefits of cross‐institutional assessments include: identifying and benchmarking leaders and best practices; communicating common goals, experiences, and methods; and providing a directional tool to measure progress toward the concept of a “sustainable campus”. Ideal assessment tools identify the most important attributes of a sustainable campus, are calculable and comparable, measure more than eco‐efficiency, assess processes and motivations and are comprehensible to multiple stakeholders. The 11 cross‐institutional assessment tools reviewed in this paper vary in terms of stage of development and closeness to the “ideal tool”. These tools reveal (through their structure and content) the following critical parameters to achieving sustainability in higher education: decreasing throughput; pursuing incremental and systemic change simultaneously; including sustainability education as a central part of curricula; and engaging in cross‐functional and cross‐institutional efforts.

This chapter discusses the pilot study of an Education for Sustainable Development Self-Evaluation Tool (ESD-SET), created by the Quality Enhancement Directorate (formerly the Learning and Teaching Development Unit) at Cardiff Metropolitan University, as both a means of auditing the extent to which academic programs embed ESD and a catalyst for curriculum development.

The chapter evaluates the effectiveness and usefulness of the self-evaluation for both auditing ESD and curriculum development. Responses to the self-evaluation questions by Programme Directors were analyzed and follow-up interviews carried out with the Programme Directors to explore their experiences of the tool.

Results indicate that the self-evaluation tool is fit-for-purpose as a means of auditing the integration of ESD within academic programs. The self-evaluation exercise promoted team discussion around sustainability issues and raised staff awareness and understanding of the concept of ESD and how to effectively embed sustainability-related themes within their discipline. The exercise had a transformative impact on the way some program teams approached curriculum design and delivery. There was evidence that engagement with the tool contributed to further embedding of sustainability within curricula across all disciplines involved in the pilot study.

The present study aims to inform the requirements for developing a sustainable rating tool for small-scale infrastructure projects (SSIPs) through research findings.

A review-based comparative study of existing infrastructure sustainability (IS) rating tools for assessment of SSIPs is presented. Key stakeholder participants of the existing IS rating tools, are interviewed to identify existing barriers and requirements for sustainability rating. The study further presents possible rating tool options to optimise the sustainable performance evaluation of SSIPs.

Findings of this study indicated that prevalent IS rating tools are majorly applied to large-scale infrastructure projects and sustainability of SSIPs are seldom assessed. Based on a literature review and series of interviews, it was found that user friendliness, efficient structure, training and technical support, cost effectiveness and stakeholder recognition are the five key requirements of a sustainability rating tool for SSIPs. Additionally, six sustainability assessment options were proposed for SSIPs which range from pathways for existing tools through to new, customisable tools. Upon comparison, a new modified tool with verification process and revised tool with defined grouping of sustainable criteria was more effective for evaluation of SSIPs.

Use of case specific information for validation and framework development may lack generalisation. However, methodology can be used for future decision-making by making necessary adjustments to suit different local regional requirements.

Despite lack of generalisation, the findings can lead to future general studies on sustainability of SSIPs. Findings of the study provide foundation knowledge and awareness for sustainability evaluation of SSIPs.

The purpose of this paper is to first empirically illustrate the construction of accounting for sustainable development tool (Bebbington and Gray, 2001) and, second, to discuss the operationalization of accounting for sustainable development (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014).

This research is based on a unique intervention-research approach, the main author having worked part-time for four years on the development of the tool for a business organization in the organic food sector.

This paper proposes an operationalization of sustainable development within an accounting tool and presents the results of the calculations. It also touches briefly upon the organization’s decision not to adopt the tool. The research concludes on the difficulty of operationalizing the economic, social and environmental capitals while proposing results that demonstrate “unsustainability”.

This research in operationalizing sustainable development paves the way for future potential use of the tool described, and future developments to address the model’s current shortcomings, notably in interconnecting social and economic capitals with natural capital.

The non-adoption of the accounting tool raises questions about the acceptability among practitioners of visualizing the unsustainability of their own organization, in particular within “green” and “socially responsible” businesses. Moreover, it raises the question of growth and decoupling of the organization’s impact from its economic growth.

This paper makes three contributions to the current literature. First, it furthers the discussion on how to operationalize accounting for sustainable development, notably by trying to implement capital as a liability (a debt), placing its “maintenance” at the very heart of the design. Second, it offers an initial operationalization of “system thinking” within a tool to account for sustainable development. Finally, it contributes to the literature on “engagement research” through a four-year intervention-research project.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse 12 assessment tools of sustainability in universities and develop the structure and the contents of these tools to be more intelligible. The configuration of the tools reviewed highlight indicators that clearly communicate only the essential information. This paper explores how the theoretical concept of a sustainable university is translated into more measurable variables to support practitioners and academics in assessing sustainability in universities.

The main method for this paper was a desk study approach, which incorporated reviewing research papers, graduate theses, academic books, network platforms and websites.

The tools reviewed share similar traits in terms of criteria, sub-criteria and indicators. Five benchmarks are essential for a holistic framework: management; academia; environment; engagement and innovation.

This research can not only be used to improve existing assessment tools but also as a means to develop new tools tailored for universities that face a variety of challenges and lack the ability to measure their sustainability policies.

Making higher education more sustainable through all the criteria mentioned influences students, as well as staff, to maintain a culture of sustainability.

This study contributes to the literature by simplifying and detailing the structure and contents of the tools in a way which indicators are shown, giving a full picture of these tools to enable universities to be more aware of the sustainability issues that affect them.