In search for ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods: Ensuring construct validity

Erik Roos Lindgreen; Walter J.V. Vermeulen

doi:10.1016/j.indic.2023.100275

In search for ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods: Ensuring construct validity

Erik Roos Lindgreen^*
, Walter J.V. Vermeulen^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

Product value chains cause environmental and social impacts, of which many are currently unaccounted for in the price of products. Several methods exist to calculate the pressures of such impacts, as well as their monetization. In the context of life cycle assessment (LCA), expressing environmental and social impacts in monetary terms allows for aggregation and easier communication. Many methods for monetization exist, with fundamental differences in their underlying monetization approach, accuracy, availability and application. Scientific and private sector initiatives have introduced full cost accounting methods that also use different monetization approaches. We reflect on the differences between such existing methods. First, we review the foundations of monetization and introduce a new categorization to align terminologies. We summarize the connections between monetization and life-cycle assessment methods, since both categories of methods can be seen as the building blocks of existing full cost accounting methods. We then sketch the monetization landscape and its challenges. Next, we inventory current product-oriented full cost accounting methods and, through interviews with their developers, provide insights into their underlying monetization philosophy, data sources and quality, scoping, aggregation, and transparency. From this review, we propose four provisional ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods in the discussion section, addressing theoretical framing, the time dimension, the integration of positive impacts and the methods’ transparency.

Original language	English
Article number	100275
Number of pages	13
Journal	Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
Volume	19
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2023.100275
Publication status	Published - Sept 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The observed lack of applying logic models in the field of monetization links to another problem: the lack of theoretical underpinnings of the approaches. In our comparison of monetizing approaches, we also need to reflect on theoretical foundations of the use of the concept of sustainability itself and its implications for indicator development. The concept of ‘indicator’ is generally described as a well-justified measurement, representing a wider and more complex reality, but based on a convincing reasoning assumed to be valid for describing that complex reality (Vermeulen, 2018). Sustainability assessment (SA) and sustainability indicators (SI) play an important role as decision-supporting tools in the pursuit of sustainable development (White, 2013; Waas et al., 2014; Zanni et al., 2020), and have five main functions: (1) structuring information, easing decision making and indicating clear pathways for action, (2) simplifying reality, which reduces complexity and therefore facilitates understanding, (3) operationalizing sustainability through the development of indicators and serving as a forum for participation and debate, and (5) providing a social learning process, linked to the notion that sustainable development is not an end-state, but rather an ever-evolving process influenced by social and cultural contexts.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy
SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production

Keywords

Monetization
Full cost accounting
LCA
LCSA
Construct validity
Sustainability assessment

Access to Document

10.1016/j.indic.2023.100275Licence: CC BY

1-s2.0-S2665972723000521-mainFinal published version, 1.67 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{f11e76368f78443eac611a744e3cdc6c,

title = "In search for ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods: Ensuring construct validity",

abstract = "Product value chains cause environmental and social impacts, of which many are currently unaccounted for in the price of products. Several methods exist to calculate the pressures of such impacts, as well as their monetization. In the context of life cycle assessment (LCA), expressing environmental and social impacts in monetary terms allows for aggregation and easier communication. Many methods for monetization exist, with fundamental differences in their underlying monetization approach, accuracy, availability and application. Scientific and private sector initiatives have introduced full cost accounting methods that also use different monetization approaches. We reflect on the differences between such existing methods. First, we review the foundations of monetization and introduce a new categorization to align terminologies. We summarize the connections between monetization and life-cycle assessment methods, since both categories of methods can be seen as the building blocks of existing full cost accounting methods. We then sketch the monetization landscape and its challenges. Next, we inventory current product-oriented full cost accounting methods and, through interviews with their developers, provide insights into their underlying monetization philosophy, data sources and quality, scoping, aggregation, and transparency. From this review, we propose four provisional ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods in the discussion section, addressing theoretical framing, the time dimension, the integration of positive impacts and the methods{\textquoteright} transparency.",

keywords = "Monetization, Full cost accounting, LCA, LCSA, Construct validity, Sustainability assessment",

author = "\{Roos Lindgreen\}, Erik and Vermeulen, \{Walter J.V.\}",

note = "Funding Information: The observed lack of applying logic models in the field of monetization links to another problem: the lack of theoretical underpinnings of the approaches. In our comparison of monetizing approaches, we also need to reflect on theoretical foundations of the use of the concept of sustainability itself and its implications for indicator development. The concept of {\textquoteleft}indicator{\textquoteright} is generally described as a well-justified measurement, representing a wider and more complex reality, but based on a convincing reasoning assumed to be valid for describing that complex reality (Vermeulen, 2018). Sustainability assessment (SA) and sustainability indicators (SI) play an important role as decision-supporting tools in the pursuit of sustainable development (White, 2013; Waas et al., 2014; Zanni et al., 2020), and have five main functions: (1) structuring information, easing decision making and indicating clear pathways for action, (2) simplifying reality, which reduces complexity and therefore facilitates understanding, (3) operationalizing sustainability through the development of indicators and serving as a forum for participation and debate, and (5) providing a social learning process, linked to the notion that sustainable development is not an end-state, but rather an ever-evolving process influenced by social and cultural contexts. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors",

year = "2023",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1016/j.indic.2023.100275",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

journal = "Environmental and Sustainability Indicators",

issn = "2665-9727",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In search for ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods: Ensuring construct validity

AU - Roos Lindgreen, Erik

AU - Vermeulen, Walter J.V.

N1 - Funding Information: The observed lack of applying logic models in the field of monetization links to another problem: the lack of theoretical underpinnings of the approaches. In our comparison of monetizing approaches, we also need to reflect on theoretical foundations of the use of the concept of sustainability itself and its implications for indicator development. The concept of ‘indicator’ is generally described as a well-justified measurement, representing a wider and more complex reality, but based on a convincing reasoning assumed to be valid for describing that complex reality (Vermeulen, 2018). Sustainability assessment (SA) and sustainability indicators (SI) play an important role as decision-supporting tools in the pursuit of sustainable development (White, 2013; Waas et al., 2014; Zanni et al., 2020), and have five main functions: (1) structuring information, easing decision making and indicating clear pathways for action, (2) simplifying reality, which reduces complexity and therefore facilitates understanding, (3) operationalizing sustainability through the development of indicators and serving as a forum for participation and debate, and (5) providing a social learning process, linked to the notion that sustainable development is not an end-state, but rather an ever-evolving process influenced by social and cultural contexts. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors

PY - 2023/9

Y1 - 2023/9

N2 - Product value chains cause environmental and social impacts, of which many are currently unaccounted for in the price of products. Several methods exist to calculate the pressures of such impacts, as well as their monetization. In the context of life cycle assessment (LCA), expressing environmental and social impacts in monetary terms allows for aggregation and easier communication. Many methods for monetization exist, with fundamental differences in their underlying monetization approach, accuracy, availability and application. Scientific and private sector initiatives have introduced full cost accounting methods that also use different monetization approaches. We reflect on the differences between such existing methods. First, we review the foundations of monetization and introduce a new categorization to align terminologies. We summarize the connections between monetization and life-cycle assessment methods, since both categories of methods can be seen as the building blocks of existing full cost accounting methods. We then sketch the monetization landscape and its challenges. Next, we inventory current product-oriented full cost accounting methods and, through interviews with their developers, provide insights into their underlying monetization philosophy, data sources and quality, scoping, aggregation, and transparency. From this review, we propose four provisional ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods in the discussion section, addressing theoretical framing, the time dimension, the integration of positive impacts and the methods’ transparency.

AB - Product value chains cause environmental and social impacts, of which many are currently unaccounted for in the price of products. Several methods exist to calculate the pressures of such impacts, as well as their monetization. In the context of life cycle assessment (LCA), expressing environmental and social impacts in monetary terms allows for aggregation and easier communication. Many methods for monetization exist, with fundamental differences in their underlying monetization approach, accuracy, availability and application. Scientific and private sector initiatives have introduced full cost accounting methods that also use different monetization approaches. We reflect on the differences between such existing methods. First, we review the foundations of monetization and introduce a new categorization to align terminologies. We summarize the connections between monetization and life-cycle assessment methods, since both categories of methods can be seen as the building blocks of existing full cost accounting methods. We then sketch the monetization landscape and its challenges. Next, we inventory current product-oriented full cost accounting methods and, through interviews with their developers, provide insights into their underlying monetization philosophy, data sources and quality, scoping, aggregation, and transparency. From this review, we propose four provisional ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods in the discussion section, addressing theoretical framing, the time dimension, the integration of positive impacts and the methods’ transparency.

KW - Monetization

KW - Full cost accounting

KW - LCA

KW - LCSA

KW - Construct validity

KW - Sustainability assessment

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85164359576

U2 - 10.1016/j.indic.2023.100275

DO - 10.1016/j.indic.2023.100275

M3 - Review article

SN - 2665-9727

VL - 19

JO - Environmental and Sustainability Indicators

JF - Environmental and Sustainability Indicators

M1 - 100275

ER -

In search for ground rules for product-oriented full cost accounting methods: Ensuring construct validity

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this