Why the triple bottom line is important?

Why the triple bottom line is important? : Corporate social responsibility , the triple bottom line, and ESG all have a close connection . Importantly, from a business standpoint, the triple bottom line suggests that all three of the “p’s”—people, planet, and profit—are interdependent.
[lightweight-accordion title=”Read Detail Answer On Why the triple bottom line is important?”]

The world of business is filled with a variety of terms, jargons, and odd phrases along with an ample supply ofacronyms. The term bottom line is often used and refers to the profitability of a business after all expenses are deducted from revenues. Bottom line profits are net profits after all the costs of the business have been accounted for. The remainder is either a positive or negative figure.

Table of Contents

The Bottom Line Is the Outcome of All of the Work of the Business

It is not uncommon to hear some variation of the phrase, “we are managing to the bottom line.” It is a misnomer. A company may set bottom line profit targets, but circumstances in the marketplace (and the firm’sstrategy and operations) ultimately combine to create the revenues and costs that determine the bottom line.

For example, an organization chooses to invest its resources in a strategy to find and keep customers. It develops products or servicesand markets those offerings, supports its customers and then repeats the cycle again and again. At the end of each accounting period, the company calculates what it received from customers (and other revenue sources) and subtracts all the costs incurred in the process. After accounting for these costs (including taxes, interest on debt, and various accounting-driven numbers including depreciation and amortization) the company arrives at a bottom line number. It is either the netprofit or net loss number. 

Planning for the Long-Term

What a company can (and should) do to stay healthy is monitor and control expenses while striving to minimize unnecessary (or wasteful) expenses. It should all be done while, concurrently, optimizing the allocation of resources to support the company’s strategy. This type of “managing to the bottom line” is reasonable and healthy. Organizations thatfocus predominantly on costs and choose not to invest in current strategies (or fund investments to support future initiatives) often struggle in the long-term.

The Bottom Line as an Indicator of Business Performance

The bottom line numbers are animportant component of the scorecard for management. Positive and growing profitability over time is a testament to a variety of factors including:

  • Good market and customer selection
  • The creation and delivery of products and services valued bycustomers
  • Effective allocation of investment dollars in support of targeted customers
  • Efficient control of costs across the organization 
  • Positive marketplace and macroeconomic factors 

As an alternative, management should look into declining or low bottom line numbers over time as they may be a sign of difficulties in one or more of the aforementioned areas.

Shareholders, the board of directors,and employees all rely on the bottom line numbers after each accounting period (usually quarterly) to assess the effectiveness of the company’s marketplace strategy and internal management. Of course, when bonuses or annual salary increases are tied to bottom-line results, employees naturally pay more attentive to these numbers.

The Limitation of Bottom Line Numbers as an Indicator of Performance

Profitability figures are important indicators of a company’s current success (and are used to compare previous time periods), but they do not tell the whole story. They keep information about what succeeded or failed from management, directors, shareholders, and employees.

Poor profitability numbers are a sign that something is wrong, which could be anything from fierce competition to unfavorable economic conditions to a failed strategy to escalating costs.

Positive numbers, likewise, do not show which aspect of the business’s overall strategy is effective. Even with poor cost control or a weak long-term strategy, a strong economy (or a competitor’s failure) has the potential to boost revenues and improve profits.

In financial reporting for publicly listed and traded firms, it is important to look at the detailed notes including footnotes. It helps management (and other stakeholders) understand the assumptions,accounting approaches, and final derivation of the bottom line number.

The result of every activity an organization engages in is profit. It is a crucial sign of the general state of the target markets for the company. It serves as a gauge of how well management performs in terms of choosing strategies, making investments in goods and services, marketing, and cost control. Profit should be compared over time, and those involved should carefully consider all variables to understand the factors influencing a company’s bottom line.


Why the triple bottom line is important?

What are the 3 pillars of sustainability? : Diagrams are a common way to depict sustainability. The top of this page’s graphic suggests that social equity, environmental preservation, and economic viability are the three cornerstones of sustainability.
What are the 4 types of sustainability? : The term sustainability is broadly used to indicate programs, initiatives and actions aimed at the preservation of a particular resource. However, it actually refers to four distinct areas: human, social, economic and environmental – known as the four pillars of sustainability.
[lightweight-accordion title=”Read Detail Answer On What are the 4 types of sustainability?”]

If we are to have a reasonable chance of managing the growth of the urban habitat, and at the same time achieve a balance of economic development with the conservation of the earth’s natural systems, we must expand our definition of the principles of sustainability, and, we must see the problem in a systems context.

Since the inception of the ideas and language (i.e. e , the Bruntland Commission of the United Nations, 1987), sustainable development has consistently been portrayed as having three domains: the environment, economics, and the socio-cultural context, and that they must be treated interdependently for a sustainable balance to occur. Many business and political leaders have expressed skepticism about equating any field with economics. The resources available within these three domains are frequently insufficient, even for those who will eventually adopt the values of living in harmony with nature.

Whether the scale of the development is at the macro level of the habitat (such as a city or a region of urban habitats), or at the micro level (such as a single building or neighborhood), there are limitations to achieving real sustainability. The networks, ingredients, information, tools, and alternatives for solutions are not all contained within just these three domains, so the designer, planner, developer, civic official, or NGO leader who is genuinely interested in facilitating a sustainable solution in the urban context will not find them all there.

Consider, for instance, a new development that has all the funding required, a sound environmental plan that safeguards and restores important natural ecosystems, and it enhances and improves the lives of numerous potential residents, but it lacks a dependable, affordable method of getting its residents to their places of employment. The three domains of economics, environment, and sociocultural criteria have been provided; however, a fourth domain—transportation technology—has not been included. In a different fictitious scenario, the same development might have been successfully built, equipped with modern transportation technology, successfully inhabited, and operated for a while when all of a sudden, a nearby site would be approved for a polluting industrial development, posing health risks to the development’s occupants. Public policy, or the regulatory context of the habitat that would have forbade the incompatible land use, is in this case the fifth missing domain.

There are many instances of human invention or intervention that can be noted as having either facilitated or slowed down community progress toward sustainability within these two additional domains of technology and policy. The automobile, a technological advancement whose use has put the world’s natural systems in danger, and the idea that people should own their own land, a political decision that has had a negative impact on the planet’s ecological systems, are two extreme but debatable examples. The important thing is not whether or not we as individuals value these conditions. Technologies exist, have an impact on modern life, and will only advance faster thanks to human ingenuity. The guidelines that govern our interactions with one another and how we access the earth’s resources will change as well. Both domains are pervasive, affective, and inextricably linked in a cause-and-effect manner to the other three domains.

Environmental, Social/Cultural, Social/Cultural, Technological, Economic, and Public Policy are thus the Five Domains of Sustainability that are advised. Furthermore, these domains ought to serve as the organizing principles for regional and urban sustainable development, urban design, and planning, as well as for urban growth management.

All communities around the world, whether they are small, large, mega, or intermediate in size, or developed or developing, can relate to these questions. We are leaving a time when the global conflict has been between the rich and the poor or about poverty. This terminology dates back to the industrial revolution and represents only one of the five domains, with economics preceding all other considerations. The poor may have lower economic status but may be wealthy in cultural history and basic quality of life. The rich may have significant financial wealth but may lack access to environmental resources or sociocultural characteristics. (This scenario does not, however, deny the existence of extreme imbalances or the fact that history has documented numerous cultures and communities that were unable to survive as a result of extreme imbalances. ).

READ  How to Use the Notifications and Actions Center in Windows 10

Only a set of values that seek to represent and balance each of the five domains in all activities—whether they be problem identification and assessment, problem solving, design, planning, management, or administrative—can achieve the desired balance. These efforts will be guided into a consistent, ongoing awareness of whole-systems strategies by grouping the five domains together in terms of both language and organizational principles. Our institutions, organizational structures, science, and technologies have traditionally been described in a task-centered, incremental, and frequently independent manner. Such management regimes frequently result in unintended, unexpected consequences, inefficiencies, bureaucratic duplication, and very frequently irreparable harm to the local natural systems.

The majority of cities throughout the world have structured their governments around distinct spheres of responsibility, such as those related to housing, tourism, agriculture, education, health, and justice. , and coordination between any of the task-defined agencies is very challenging. Coordinated efforts for sustainable development will succeed or fail in large part due to the abilities, personalities, and morals of the leaders within the governmental institutions. Planning and administrative decisions almost always result in more haphazard and short-term outcomes than long-term and preplanned ones that even remotely resemble truly sustainable, balanced conditions. Under these conditions, maintaining coordination and creating sustainable conditions is very challenging.

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that city government could be set up so that it is focused on achieving sustainable balance rather than on performing vital tasks. All city managers, administrators, and, most importantly of all, the general public would all share this expectation, making it a universal one. Instead of independence, specialization, duplication, and competition, there would be coordination and teamwork. Planning in the long term would take the place of hasty decisions, mistakes, and trials. Imagine a sustainable development governance model that established a council of administrators for each of the five sustainability domains—environment, socioculture, technologies, economics, and public policies—in addition to a division of administrative services to provide the qualified and specialized human resources necessary to implement and sustain the development patterns.

The leaders of the Sustainable Development Council would possess the necessary expertise, values commitment, political will, human and financial resources, and support from the regional stakeholders. In order to implement and coordinate new visions for future development, maintenance of valuable existing infrastructure, and growth management for a sustainable city, or for a collection of sustainable neighborhoods and places, it will be necessary to have these qualities and resources. The most important aspect of all is that it would leave future generations with a useful framework for development as opposed to a useless inheritance.

The tasks that have already been identified must obviously be completed. If the outcome of the city’s efforts in education were expected to be a) life-long in duration, b) inclusive for all citizens, c) guided by the goal of public participation in the goals of a sustainable society (or, some other broad, coordinated goals established by a S-D Council), I suspect that n education should not be framed through the coordinated, interdependent, framework of the five domains. Every task-oriented agency or department that is currently defined for a city’s administration could theoretically be defined for realignment to one of the six units (five domains plus administrative services) of a sustainable development council.

[/lightweight-accordion]What are the 3 social factors of sustainability? : The least quantifiable component of sustainability according to the triple bottom line (TBL) model is social sustainability. The TBL is a framework for accounting that consists of three sections: social, environmental, and financial. Organizations have started using the TBL framework to assess performance.
[lightweight-accordion title=”Read Detail Answer On What are the 3 social factors of sustainability?”]

Social sustainability (SocSus) is defined as a measure of the human’s welfare. SocSus is not a concern regarding simple existence, but a wish to flourish and have the best lifestyle for which could dream. The socioculturally most prominent issue that influences sustainability is intergenerational equity, which means that we just use the natural resources we need and leave the rest to futuregenerations. Therefore, we must endeavor to increase the standards of living of people who lack shelter, clean water, and adequate food to survive. Additional elements for consideration are population growth, human health, cultural needs, and a clean environment in which to live, which have a general direct impact on human well-being and should not be ignored in favor of economic prosperity in the short term.

Topromote SocSus, we need to (1) encourage community participation; (2) emphasize measuring the full accounting cost of the life cycle of products cradle-to-grave, including associated social costs; (3) promote improvements in social organization systems and community well-being over measurable economic benefits; (4) use natural and recyclable materials in a way that increases impartiality and fairness and reduces societal disturbances; and (5)transfer funds, know-how, and technology to those who need them.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128095829000013

Materials and Social Sustainability

Prabhu Kandachar, in Materials Experience, 2014


Social sustainability is the neglected component of sustainability. Our world during the last decades has focused, however, only on economic sustainability. Although this approach has delivered extensive material welfare to some parts of the world, a large part of the world is still struggling to make a decent living. Even in the richer parts of the world, the current financial crises are fueling inquiries whether economic growth can be automaticallyregarded as a self-evident good. Meanwhile, as a result of population explosion and concomitant increase in affluence, including in some developing countries, the ecological footprint is expected to drastically rise accompanied by resource strain. This calls for worldwide measures. Some developing countries are investing in mastering of industrial design competences. In addition, they possess and have the capacity to grow natural and renewable resources such as natural fibers. These rawmaterials have the potential to contribute toward the social sustainability of people living in these countries. These fibers are already providing livelihood for millions of farmers. By appropriate policy measures coupled with “scientific design” approaches, industrial designers can contribute to the quality of life of millions of poor by designs appropriate to the local context.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080993591000072

Sustainable Built Environment & Sustainable Manufacturing

Yu-Ting Tang, Chih Huang, inEncyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies, 2017

Social Sustainability

Social sustainability emphasized by communities may vary(Muga and Mihelcic, 2008). Two mainstream aspects can be considered in the social sustainability of urban waste treatment technology. The first is the issue of maintaining public health. In quite a few developing countries, the open (or even illegal) dumping is still the primary method of urban waste disposal. This low-cost method cannot contain or stop the spreading of infectious disease. The social and economic cost of human lives suffered from contracting the infectiousdisease, however, is externalized and has not been properly quantified. On the other hand, in developed countries or a relatively affluent community, for the sake of amenities, the residents usually would prefer the waste treatment facilities to be far away from their residence (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013). The degree of opposition to having a waste treatment facility nearby may be differed pending on the types of the treatment technologies (Lober and Green, 1994),but it was not necessarily consistent with the scientific understanding of the economic and environmental benefit of the technology. For example, the waste to energy plant (incinerator) was being rejected at higher percentages than the ash landfill (Lober and Green, 1994). This also echoes the point mentioned previously that investing in enhancing public understanding of the waste treatment is needed in order to improve the sustainability of SWM strategies.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124095489101812

Classification of Biorefineries Taking into Account Sustainability Potentials and Flexibility

E. Gnansounou, A. Pandey, inLife-Cycle Assessment of Biorefineries, 2017 Social Sustainability

Social sustainability criteria are those that are most difficult to define. They are mainlyqualitative. The following indicators are given as an example:

Increasing transparency, reducing risk, and ensuring effective stakeholder participation all contribute to social acceptability.

Prosperity, safety, health, and food security are all aspects of social well-being that can be improved or maintained.

Energy security and external trade: Reducing dependence onforeign risky energy import, access to affordable energy, demonstrating a positive net energy balance relative to fossil fuels, improving the balance of trade between imports and exports for energy-related materials

Resource conservation involves minimizing the use of nonrenewable resources in comparison to renewable resources and improving the return on investment for energy.

Enhancing rural livelihoods, developing job opportunities, and training a skilled bioenergy workforce are all part of rural development and workforce training.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444635853000012

Sustainability of Perennial Crops Production for Bioenergy and Bioproducts

Ana L. Fernando, … Calliope Panoutsou, inPerennial Grasses for Bioenergy and Bioproducts, 2018 Social Sustainability

Social sustainability evaluates the impacts of the value chain on societyand rural development. The analysis in OPTIMA took into account the following criteria:

Contribution to rural economy: Employment is a big problem for rural economies. Other value chains may be more geared toward large-scale industry, frequently under the control of foreign players or multinationals, while still others may encourage more regional job creation and boost the rural economy.

Local embedding: The ability of the local economy to create and run the entire value chain or a specific segment of it (e. g. production of perennial crops in the OPTIMA case).

READ  What are two disadvantages of cloud?

Proximity to markets: The indicator illustrates the difference between a more local approach that involves short distances (feedstock converted and consumed locally) and a more global/industrial approach that involves transporting the feedstock to sizable industrial sites or to harbor areas for export.

All under study perennial crops are considered highly beneficial to the three social sustainability criteria as they are expected to diversify farming activities, provide new opportunities for farmers and the rural economy, and facilitate improved infrastructure for harvesting, storage, transport, and logistics.

Table8.5 illustrates the performance of the under study value chains in the social sustainability criteria.

Table 8.5. Performance of the under study value chains in social sustainability

Contribution to rural economyLocal embeddingProximity to markets

Domestic heat
CHP (1 MWe small)
CHP (30 MWe large) ∗∗
Pyrolysis oil ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Biochar ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
2G bioethanol ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗

∗, higher rank; ∗∗, medium rank; ∗∗∗, lower rank; 2G, second generation; CHP, combined heat and power.

With the production of perennial crops, the manufacturing and/or increased market for biomass boilers and related equipment, and the provision of service for their operation and maintenance, domestic heat and small-scale CHP rank highly in all three criteria. Additionally, the entire value chain and the end product offer very good prospects to the rural economy.

While the majority of the biomass supply and plant equipment are imported into the region from other regions or countries, large-scale CHP value chains rank moderately in their contribution to the local economy because they can be advantageous for it in terms of partially supplying the plant with raw materials and creating jobs for building and operating the plant.

The value chain ranks highly in terms of integration into the local system and proximity to markets because it can supply heat for district heating (if available) and electricity to the grid or industrial sites/businesses.

The value chains of pyrolysis oil, biochar, and second-generation bioethanol rank low in embedding to the local system and proximity to markets as they are larger plants and the major part oftheir raw materials and respective sales of end product will be from outside the region/local economy.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128129005000084

Sustainability Considerations on the Valorization of Organic Waste

L. Six, … S. De Meester, inBiotransformation of Agricultural Waste and By-Products, 2016

Social sustainability assessment

Social sustainabilityis calculated by S-LCA. This method is also based on the LCA methodology, taking into account all life cycle stages, from production to consumption and end-of-life (Dreyer et al., 2005). Its aim is to improve social and socioeconomic conditions (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009).

S-LCA is more complex than E-LCA in the sense that E-LCA deals exclusively with quantified data defining in- and outputs, while S-LCA also takes intoaccount a lot of qualitative data and relationships between different factors. Social impacts are a function of politics, economy, ethics, psychology, legal issues, culture, etc. (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009). This makes data gathering and formulation of conclusions much more complicated than is the case with E-LCA and has led to more diverse methodologies and differences of opinion within the S-LCA community, leading to difficulties in comparing study results (Jørgensen et al.,2007).

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128036228000112

27th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering

Federico Scotti, … Davide Manca, inComputer Aided Chemical Engineering, 2017

5 Social sustainability

Social sustainability represents an innovative and peculiar field in the design of chemicalprocesses/plants. The necessity to incorporate the third pillar of sustainability in the optimization procedure calls for the definition of a new objective function capable of describing quantitatively the social features at the preliminary design stage. This requirement brought us to zoom in the battery limits of the plant and focus our attention on the fundamental building block of society, i.e. the human being. Consequently, our approach considers the social sustainabilityfrom a health-and-safety point of view, which involves both plant operators and neighboring population. This approach covers the inherent safety aspect that tries to accomplish safer processes/plants at lower capital and operating costs (Khan and Amyotte, 2004).

The safety level of an industrial plant can be assessed by means of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) techniques and quantified by suitable indicators. The present work adopts the HIRA methodology (Khan andAbbasi, 1998), later integrated by the SWeHI one (Khan et al., 2001), to quantify the damage index (DI) of the process/plant, which includes both FEDI (Fire and Explosion Damage Index) and TDI (Toxic Damage Index). The computation of FEDI and TDI calls for classifying the process units into five classes (i.e. storage, physical, reactive, transportation, other hazardous substances). For each class, the energy factors are calculated as a function of the handledchemicals, their properties and phase, and the operating conditions. Then, penalties are assigned to take into account other parameters as plant capacity, flammability, toxicity, and surrounding characteristics. The evaluation of the energy factors and most of the penalties is derived from thermodynamics and fluid-dynamic models. These allow calculating the damage radius for both fire/explosion and toxic releases, i.e. FEDR and TDR, which are the radii of the zones with a 50%probability of causing fatalities. The damage radii are then converted into FEDI and TDI for each process unit. The objective function, called Hazard Potential (HP), is then calculated as the weighted sum of DIs over the probability of failure of each single unit. The failure probability depends on the typical frequency of occurrence of the failure event. It is available in the scientific literature and is normalized over the lowest probability by means of a logarithmic ratio. Finally, HP isexpressed as follows:


Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444639653501082

Sustainability Issues in Biomass-Based Production Chains

Şebnem Yılmaz Balaman, inDecision-Making for Biomass-Based Production Chains, 2019

4.1.3 Social Sustainability

Social sustainability can be defined asspecifying and managing both positive and negative impacts of systems, processes, organizations, and activities on people and social life. The topics that social sustainability concept integrates include but are not limited to; health and social equity, human rights, labor rights, practices and decent working conditions, social responsibility and justice, community development and well-being, product responsibility, community resilience, and cultural competence. Although few conceptualframeworks have been developed, these changes cannot be quantified easily and accurately due to the complex and dynamic social, physiological, and anthropological factors inherent, and quantitative evaluation methodologies for such social perspectives is still immature. This may be one of the reasons that social sustainability issues have gained considerably less attention from researchers and decision-makers in comparison with economic and environmental sustainability issues, although theseissues have a critical importance for the human life.

On the corresponding areas, habitats, and residents, biomass-based production chains may have a variety of social effects. Depending on the degree to which social sustainability issues are taken into account during design, planning, and management processes, these impacts could have either positive or negative effects on human life, health, personal rights, well-being, and community.

The mainsocial performance indicators of a supply chain are, job creation and contributions to the employment pattern of the associated region, social and cultural acceptability, contribution to the rural development, and energy and food security. Some of the indicators such as job creation and employment affect as well as contribute to rural development, and can be seen as socioeconomic indicators, because they involve the interaction between the economic and social factors. Among all socialsustainability indicators, job creation (and accordingly income creation) in biomass-based production chains is the most quantifiable one that is commonly used to measure the social impact of the chain. Job creation can be represented by quantity and quality of jobs created after the establishment of biomass-based production systems and supply chains. Strategic decisions about the size and configuration of the chain (i.e., the numbers, capacities, andlocations of the production, storage, preprocessing, and distribution units), as well as the tactical decisions on the production and transportation levels and operational conditions made in design, planning, and management of the chain elements, specifies the quantity and quality of direct, indirect, and induced jobs created. Direct jobs can be described as the immediate or on-site jobs created, for example, jobs for constructing the production, storage, and other processing units, on-sitecontractors, and hired personnel for operational purposes are direct jobs. The establishment of the chain results in an indirect increase in economic activities that leads to indirect jobs, that is, the activities that occur when investors, producers, or contractors pay other suppliers in their business environment for necessary goods and services to be used in the production chain. Examples of this may include the suppliers of energy and other materials, bankers, and accountants who providefinancial services. Induced jobs are the jobs induced by the increase of wealth and well-being, as a result of the increase in the number of the people who are directly or indirectly employed, in the elemental or in the business environment of the biomass-based production chain. The total employment effect raised by the establishment of the production chain units can be estimated by summing up the three types of effect. To systematically calculate and evaluate the social impact associated withjob creation and to quantify the contributions to the local employment pattern of the region, both the yearly impacts from the permanent operations, such as production, distribution, and maintenance that continue along the lifetime of the units in the supply chain and the impacts from temporary activities, such as construction, should be taken into account.

Besides job creation, another important indicator of the social impact of biomass-based productionchains is the contribution to the development of rural communities and its poverty alleviation potential. Contribution to rural development can be described as the contribution of the chain to the well-being and wealth of the rural population and residents in the environment of the chain. Such improvements can be achieved through supply of renewable energy and fuel for domestic and agricultural purposes and increasing the income per capita as a result of increased jobs. To measure and evaluatethe potential social impact of the chain to the development of the rural community, it should be determined how the income generated from supply chain activities will be allocated and where it will be distributed and used (in the local community or somewhere else). Biomass-based production chains are typically constructed around rural areas that have the potential to produce agricultural biomass resources. These areas may be under the control of subsistence farmers with small-scale agriculturalfields. Distribution of the income generated by the supply chain activities can create equity and improvement in the quality of life of nearby communities. A planned and scheduled development program along with a scheme that includes attractive biomass prices to farmers should be placed to gain the maximum benefit from such investments.

READ  How to Fix Audio Cuts Off Automatically During a Call in Microsoft Teams

Social and cultural acceptability of biomass-based production systems, as wellas the other types of renewable sources-based systems, are objects at issue in recent decades due to public perceptions concerning the esthetic, recreational, and cultural values of the local community. These concerns have a significant effect on the social sustainability of the production chain, because of the fact that a system can only be seen as a sustainable system on condition that it is acceptable by the local community. Social acceptability has a vital role in the existence, scale, andlocation decisions of biomass-based systems specifically in the design and planning phase. Social perceptions of biomass-based systems are mostly influenced by the issues that may be induced by the establishment of large-scale production systems and supply chains such as, land-use change for biomass production purposes and its potential indirect effects on the supply of food and animal fodder, loss of biodiversity, concerns about genetically modified energy crops, possible effects on humanhealth and environment, and esthetics (including bad odor). Land-use change, biodiversity, and crop modification issues are generally encountered in plant-based biomass systems, whereas the latter two issues can be generally observed in waste biomass-based production chains (e.g., anaerobic digestion plants that convert waste biomass into energy and fuel). For the woody biomass-based systems (e.g., forest biomass and forestry residues), esthetics of the harvest areas, loss of biodiversity, andecological restoration and wildfire risk might be included in this list. The other factors that influence the perception of local community and accordingly the social impact of the chain are, trust in the stakeholders, information-sharing and participation of the local community in the planning and design processes, effects on natural properties, and perceptions on community benefits. Furthermore, social acceptability of the system is also influenced by the possible effects of the system onsocial resources, such as water resources and the public areas that are utilized by the community. For this reason, location and distance of the biomass-based production, storage, preprocessing, and distribution plants should be planned by taking into account the distance to water bodies, wetlands and lakes, residential areas, natural reserves and protected areas, parks and recreational areas, coasts and touristic areas, natural heritage, archeological sites, and airports. Distance and locationplanning have critical importance in the establishment of large-scale systems. In addition, a reliable, clean, and sustainable system for water utility and treatment of wastewater from the supply chain should be constructed since clean and fresh water has vital importance for public health. Adapting appropriate systems scales, increased knowledge and awareness of public interest and the ecosystem, along with appropriate technical solutions in design, planning and management of biomass-basedproduction chains, can enhance the social acceptability of the system.

Another social concern, namely food security, has been generated by the change of land for growing food crops into biomass production fields for energy, fuel, and other purposes, which has also resulted in food versus fuel debate. This issue is especially a matter for the production of bio-fuels such as bio-diesel and ethanol, which uses foodcrops (e.g., corn, sugarcane), grain, sugar, and oil crops as feedstock. Competition between food and fuel may result in increased food prices, as in the case of 2007–2008 global food crises (UN, 2011), however, several recent studies stated that bio-fuel production is responsible for a much smaller effect on food prices than initially expected (Dale et al., 2013; Trostle et al., 2011). There is a strong relationship between food security and social acceptability of thebiomass-based production project in that the local community may object to the establishment of biomass plantations and may not want their arable lands to be used for feedstock production for energy, fuel, and other bio-product purposes. Food security can be measured by; (1) food price volatility, which depends on the food supply and demand in a region, (2) the level of land-use competition between food and fuel, which can be estimated by the proportion of food crop uses to the total amount ofprocured crops. The food security and sustainability of producing food crops should be considered in decision-making for the design, planning, and operation of biomass-based production chains.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128142783000042

23rd European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering

Tamara Popovic, … Yury Avramenko, inComputer Aided Chemical Engineering, 2013

2.3 Social sustainability

The objective of social sustainability is to secure people’s socio-cultural and spiritualneeds in an equitable way. Every individual has different needs and the needs depend on the present state of society (Assefa and Frostell, 2007). It can be said that social sustainability is one of the most important dimensions of sustainability, since the goal of sustainable development is to make the environment, both societal and natural, a better place for people. Indicators of social sustainability are worker stress, work satisfaction and attitudes to achievingsustainability (Stavroula et al., 2004; Palme et al., 2005). Table 3 presents examples of questions considered when evaluating social sustainability.

Table 3. Social sustainability indicators

IndicatorsUnit of measurementDetermination method – (Questionnaire based)References

Worker stress Qualitative method How much work does the worker have to do in his/her daily job?; How much responsibility does that type of work have? (NISH GJSQ)
Satisfaction Qualitative method What are the working conditions?; Does the worker think that he/she is paid enough for the work? (NISH GJSQ)
Attitude to achieving sustainability Qualitative method How certain is worker about his/her contribution to the process which they are involved to?; Does the worker understand what his/her job is?; (NISH GJSQ)

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444632340501561

Sustainability issues in upcoming wastewater treatment plants at Patna

Nityanand Singh Maurya, … Astha Kumari, inCognitive Data Models for Sustainable Environment, 2022

5.3 Social sustainability

The idea of social sustainability can be achieved ifthere is scope for public involvement in the projects. Wherever the constructions of WWTPs have been envisaged, the concerned people residing in those locations could have been involved. However, the initiatives for the upcoming projects have been directly undertaken by the government, without involving the general public. Public participation has been found to be missing, starting from the inception to the execution of the projects. Therefore, it is quite difficult to gauge how far theseprojects can be evaluated on the parameter of social sustainability.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128240380000122


Additional Question — Why the triple bottom line is important?

Who created the 3 pillars of sustainability?

Our Common Future is the 1987 publication by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) credited for introducing the concept of sustainable development, with Gro Harlem Brundtland chairing the UN-sponsored Commission.

Which pillar of sustainability is most important?

The concept doesn’t only apply to the environment, which is considered the most pressing pillar of sustainability today, but also to other aspects, including the people and the economy.

What are the three pillars of sustainability PDF?

encompassing economic, social, and environmental (or ecological) factors or ‘goals’.

What is the environmental pillar of sustainability?

The environmental pillar refers to the laws, regulations, and other policy mechanisms concerning environmental issues. These issues include air and water pollution, solid waste management, ecosystem management, maintenance of biodiversity, and the protection of natural resources, wildlife and endangered species.

What are the 5 factors of sustainability?

The five key drivers of sustainability—social impact, targeted business strategy, economic viability, adaptability, and capacity to deliver—are what Community Wealth Partners advise nonprofit organizations to evaluate their performance across.

What are the 7 dimensions of sustainable development?

Another model proposes that humans make an effort to satisfy all of their needs and desires through seven modalities, including physiology, culture, occupational groups, government, and the environment.

What is a good example of sustainability?

The cornerstones of environmental sustainability are conserving water, using renewable energy, cutting waste, using recyclable packaging, reducing or eliminating plastic use, using sustainable transportation, recycling paper, and preserving flora and fauna.

What’s another word for sustainability?

endurance, supportability, resilience, vitality, achieveability, stability, acceptability, practicability, autonomy, profitability, cost-effectiveness, effectiveness, equilibrium, stabilization, perseverance, and tenacity.

What is the difference between sustainability and sustainable development?

In order to create a more sustainable future, educational systems must be involved globally. We can sum up by saying that sustainable development refers to the various methods and routes taken to achieve sustainability, whereas sustainability is seen as a long-term goal.

How do you maintain sustainability?

Before you shop, think it over. Inspect the environmental benefits of your major purchases. Go plastic-free. AVOID purchasing wildlife-endangering products. Examine labels carefully. Be water-smart. Go green and drive less. Your home should be environmentally friendly.

What makes a good sustainability plan?

Effort, cost, impact, and feasibility should be taken into consideration when ranking the initiatives. Regarding energy, waste, buildings, products, packaging, supply chains, transportation, food, water, community and employee well-being, they should take into account processes, materials, people, policies, and projects.

Leave a Comment