CRO Association Our mission is to accelerate the profession of corporate responsibility.
Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/139175
Deep Reporting Comparative construct is not always appropriate, much less true. Using less fossil-fuel-based energy, for example, might not in the strictest sense of the term be more sustainable. Instead it might only be less unsustainable. As discussed in the preceding pieces and also in Figure 2.1, ought to be in order to ensure stakeholder well-being. measurements taken using context-based metrics (CBMs) result in scores that can either be less than 1.0, equal to 1.0, or greater Imagine a case where an organization's sustainability score for, than 1.0. These scores, in turn, can be plotted on a sustainability say, an impact on natural capital of some kind was 1.7. According performance scale (see Figure 2.2). As will be discussed in future to the logic above, such a score would signify unsustainable pieces, scores associated with impacts on natural capital are performance, because it would mean that a natural resource interpreted such that any score of less than or equal to 1.0 signifies was being used at a rate that exceeds the organization's fair or sustainable performance, since it means that the use of natural proportionate share of it. Now let us imagine that a year later, capital resources is less than or equal to an organization's fair share the organization's score improved to 1.3, still unsustainable but of them; scores of greater than 1.0, in turn, signify unsustainable an improvement. Could we say that the score of 1.3 was more performance, since it means an organization's use is greater than sustainable than 1.7? That is the question. its share. For impacts on anthro capitals, the logic reverses: scores of less than 1.0 signify unsustainable performance, since it means Strictly speaking, the answer is no, since in neither year was an organization's impacts on producing and/or maintaining them the organization's score sustainable—more, less, or otherwise. are less than they should be; scores of greater than or equal to The more correct characterization of the 1.3 score would be to 1.0, in turn, signify sustainable performance, since it means an say that it was less unsustainable than the year before, but still organization's impacts on anthro capitals are at least what they unsustainable. The phrase more sustainable can only be used to [14] CR MAGAZINE | MAY/JUNE 2013