Hybrid Bottom Line: another perspective on the sustainability of organizations

References

• Alcott B. 2008. The sufficiency strategy: would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecol Econ. 64:770–786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander S. 2013. Voluntary simplicity and the social reconstruction of law: degrowth from the grassroots up. Environ Values. 22:287–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archel P, Fernández M, Larrinaga C. 2008. The organizational and operational boundaries of triple bottom line reporting: a survey. Environ Manage. 41:106–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azapagic A, Perdan S. 2000. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework. Process Saf Environ Prot. 78:243–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braungart M, McDonough W, Bollinger A. 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions – a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J Clean Prod. 15:1337–1348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callens I, Tyteca D. 1999. Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: a productive efficiency perspective. Ecol Econ. 28:41–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman JS. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Soc. 94:S95–S120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coradini LO. 2010. The divergences between Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s notions of social capital and their epistemological limits. Soc Sci Inf. 49:563–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly H. 1996. Beyond growth. Boston (MA): Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Demaria F, Schneider F, Sekulova F, Martinez-Alier J. 2013. What is degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement. Environ Values. 22:191–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. 2007. Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the role of competitive positioning. Int J Res Marketing. 24:224–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggenberge M, Partidário MR. 2000. Development of a framework to assist the integration of environmental, social and economic issues in spatial planning. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 18:201–207.
   Google Scholar
• Elkington J. 1999. Triple bottom line revolution: reporting for the third millennium. Australian CPA. 69:75
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (EU). 2011. A renewed EU strategy 2011–2014 for corporate social responsibility [Internet]. p. 3–15. [cited 2014 Mar 12]. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:PT:PDF
   Google Scholar
• Figge F, Hahn T. 2004. Sustainable value added – measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol Econ. 48:173–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figge F, Young W, Barkemeyer R. 2014. Sufficiency or efficiency to achieve lower resource consumption and emissions? The role of the rebound effect. J Clean Prod. 69:216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filho WL. 2000. Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. Int J Sustain Higher Edu. 1:9–19.
   Google Scholar
• Frondel M, Vance C. 2013. Energy efficiency: don’t belittle the rebound effect. Nature. 494:430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gharajedaghi J. 2005. Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity. A platform for designing business architecture. In: Chester P, Roumeliotis R, editors. 3rd ed. Burlington (MA): Elsevier, p. 374.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson RB. 2006. Sustainability-based assessment criteria and associated frameworks for evaluations and decisions: theory, practice and implications for the Mackenzie gas project review: Mackenzie joint review panel.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson RB, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G. 2005. Sustainability assessment: criteria and processes. London: Earthscan; p. 180–188.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J. 1999. Environmental impact assessment: impact on decisions. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science; p. 121–144.
   Google Scholar
• Gowdy J, O’Hara S. 1997. Weak sustainability and viable technologies. Ecol Econ. 22:239–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern BS, Klein CJ, Brown CJ, Beger M, Grantham HS, Mangubhai S, Ruckelshaus M, Tulloch VJ, Watts M, White C, Possingham HP. 2013. Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 110:6229–6234.
   Google Scholar
• Harte MJ. 1995. Ecology, sustainability, and environment as capital. Ecol Econ. 15:157–164.
   Google Scholar
• Holbrook MB. 2006. ROSEPEKICECIVECI versus CCV. In: Lusch RF, Vargo SL, editors. The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions. Armonk (NY): M.E. Sharpe; p. 208–221.
   Google Scholar
• International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1997. An approach to assessing progress towards sustainability. Cambridge: IUCN, IDRC, SDC, NID.
   Google Scholar
• Kolk A. 2010. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. J World Bus. 45:367–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loorbach DA, Huffenreuter LR. 2013. Exploring the economic crisis from a transition management perspective. Environ Innov Soc Transit. 6:35–46.
   Google Scholar
• Loorbach DA, Wijsman K. 2012. Business transition management: exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. J Clean Prod. 45:20–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney M, Potter JL. 2004. Integrating health impact assessment into the triple bottom line concept. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 24:151–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-Alier J, 2005. The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez Alier J, Munda G, O’Neill J. 1998. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol Econ. 26:277–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumayer E. 1999. Global warming: discounting is not the issue, but substitutability is. Energy Policy. 27:33–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumayer E. 2010. Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Peloza J. 2009. The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. J Manage. 35:1518–1541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrosillo I, Costanza R, Aretano R, Zaccarelli N, Zurlini G. 2013. The use of subjective indicators to assess how natural and social capital support residents’ quality of life in a small volcanic island. Ecol Indic. 24:609–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapley M. 2003. Quality of life research: a critical introduction. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rapoport A. 1986. General system theory: essential concepts & applications. cybernetics and systems series. Tunbridge Wells (Kent): Abacus Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrigo L. 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J Clean Prod. 16:1838–1846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubenstein-Montano B, Liebowitz J, Buchwalter J, McCaw D, Newman B, Rebeck K. 2001. A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decis Support Syst. 31:5–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs I. 1984. The strategies of ecodevelopment. FAO Ceres. 17:17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Schaltegger S, Burritt RL. 2006. Corporate sustainability accounting. In: Schaltegger S, Bennett M, Burritt R, editors. Sustainability accounting and reporting. Dordrecht: Springer; p. 37–59.
   Google Scholar
• Schiuma G, Carlucci D, Sole F. 2012. Applying a systems thinking framework to assess knowledge assets dynamics for business performance improvement. Expert Syst Appl. 39:8044–8050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheate WR, Dagg S, Richardson J, Aschemann R, Palerm J, Steen U. 2003. Integrating the environment into strategic decision-making: conceptualizing policy SEA. Eur Environ. 13:1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Stiglitz JE. 2012. The price of inequality: how today’s divided society endangers our future. New York (NY): W. W. Norton & Company; p. 449.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations (UN). 2012. The future we want. Rio de Janeiro. [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jan 10]. Available from: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html
   Google Scholar
• Veleva V, Ellenbecker M. 2001. Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology. J Clean Prod. 9:519–549.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver PM, Rotmans J. 2006. Integrated sustainability assessment: what is it, why do it and how? Int J Innovation Sustainable Dev. 1:284–303.
   Google Scholar