Environment and Planning A 2000, volume 32, pages 1 ^ 8
DOI:10.1068/a3201com
provided
Editors announcement
The Editors are sorry to announce that Professor Paul Knox has resigned as an Editor
of this journal. They would like to thank him for the extraordinary efforts he has made on
behalf of the journal over the last eight years. They wish him well in his further career.
On corporate social reporting
Ecoefficiency as a corporate interpretation of sustainability is being superseded by the
incorporation of the social dimension into business. The major players could easily
handle ecoefficiency. It fitted neatly into environmental reporting via the voluntary
codes of ISO 14001 and environmental auditing and management systems of the EU
(EMAS). It also encouraged firms to adopt better management strategies for environ-
mental regulation, for proactive technological investment in clean technology and
energy conservation, and for glossy environmental report cards aimed at assuaging
shareholders and market analysts. Virtually every company worth its salt has embarked
on the ecoefficiency trade, with more or less enthusiasm.
Drivers for ecoefficiency
We shall see that meeting a social responsibility criterion is an altogether different
matter, and much more demanding of the sustainability ideal. Before this issue is
explored further, let us look a little more clearly at the motives for promoting ecoeffi-
ciency, because these motives spill over into corporate social reporting.
There are three primary drivers pushing for ecoefficiency.
Regulatory intervention is becoming more invasive, costly, and time consuming. The
smart companies are seeking deals with the regulatory bodies to meet a more compre-
hensive 'sustainability package' that would reduce the need for expensive visits by
regulatory officials to the premises. The US Environmental Protection Agency has
promoted its ⅛el' approach through which companies agree to meet a portfolio of
commitments `beyond compliance'. They establish their own on-line monitoring instru-
mentation with a link to the local regulatory office. By mutual agreement they hire
validators who take on the ISO 14001 reviews and translate them into pollution control
and waste management packages'. And they establish an in-house management routine
to accomplish this. Such an approach is looked on with some suspicion by UK
counterparts, though there is certainly a push from major companies to experiment
with similar procedures. Needless to say, environmental groups are also very wary.
They do see an opportunity for much more explicit and interactive environ mental
reporting through the Internet as a result of such deals. But they are yet to accept
that a corporatist approach such as 'xcc1' would avoid ⅛gulatory capture'.
The markets are beginning to recognise that an ecoefficient company is also a well-
managed one. In general, companies that report fully with the formal support of major
environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature, or
Friends of the Earth International, now believe that they will obtain better credit
ratings from analysts, and more beneficial publicity from investors and customers.
This is a slowly evolving field, for markets are notoriously agnostic in the face of
sustainability. But there are signs that the investment fund business is adopting a series
of measures to identify ecoefficiency measures, and to advise clients accordingly.