EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Societal Impact: Beyond Frameworks
Elizabeth J. Rozell
Haywood Spangler

Abstract
Our research maps the quickly
evolving discourse regarding
how organizations (corporate,
non-profit, and governmental)
should define human andenvironmental impacts andmetrics used to assess impact.
Our approach is crossdisciplinary, examining empirical
work from social scientificscholars and practitioners.
Likewise, the sources wereviewed are multinational andmulticultural. We identify fivecategories of societal impact
frameworks currently in use:human rights-based frameworks,
environment/climate changebased, hybrid frameworks,
business-centric frameworks, andframeworks specifically designed
to assess the societal impactof research. We nonethelessoffer two recommendations.
First, we make a meta-ethicalclaim that two principles arecommon to the five categories
of frameworks. The principles
are: 1) support and advancehuman rights and 2) attend
to environmental issues. By
articulating underlying principles,
we suggest shifting how societal
impact may be defined. Rather
than define societal impact using
a framework, which our research
identifies as the most common
approach among empiricalsources, we suggest that societal
impact may be defined interms of principles underlying
multiple frameworks. Second, werecommend praxis, describing amethod for designing metrics that
may be associated with multiple
frameworks.
10

Key Words: Societal impact,
frameworks, human rights,
environmental issues

Introduction
Practitioner and academic discourse regarding organizations’ societal impacts
occurs in a broader context, which includes an emerging new theory of the
firm. For example, 36 U.S. states now
have a particular category of corporation, the Benefit Corporation. Investors
in benefit corporations agree that managers should sometimes subordinate profit
maximization to maximizing some othersocial good (or minimizing harm).
This broader context involves exploring meta-questions, such as whether thefirm functions as an individual, with anindividual's negative and positive duties (beyond profit maximization). This
broader context involves rethinking theformulas of classical economics, such as
the ways economists measure growth andprogress. While answers to such questions will inform the decisions organizations make, exploring these topics is beyond the scope of our current research.
We organized this paper around thefollowing research strategy: review andanalysis of primary and secondary scholarly sources; and review and analysis ofpractitioner sources, i.e., think tanks
and non-governmental organizations(NGOs). Our research found that approaches to defining organizations’ societal impact are often praxis-oriented,
taking the form of a framework, i.e., aspecific plan to create societal impact.
Such frameworks may focus on how anorganization’s work affects people (physical well-being, exercise of rights), the environment, or both.
A particular framework may also articulate the metrics an organization should
employ to measure its progress in achieving specific societal impacts. Metrics may
be used within the organization to adjust
the framework and externally to provide
relevant stakeholders with information.
To be sure, some frameworks are
more mature than others, meaning someframeworks are developed to a greater
degree of specificity than others. In ourestimation, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are the mostcomprehensive and mature framework.
Nonetheless, even a cursory internet
search for definitions of societal impact
yields references to other frameworks,
often represented by the acronyms ESG
and CSR. References to these framehttp://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

works similarly circulate widely in academic and practitioner
literature related to societal impact.
Recognizing the differences between SDG, ESG, and CSR canbe helpful. SDG refers to the specific societal impact framework
developed by the United Nations.The UN’s SDGs are ultimately
grounded in the UN’s 1947 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
While SDG refers to the UN’s specific framework, the definition of “sustainable” is evolving. A decade ago, “sustainable” explicitly referred to addressing the impact of an industry on theenvironment, e.g., reducing a firm’s carbon footprint. Increasingly, “sustainable” refers to an industry or specific organization’s human and environmental impacts. This shift has occurredbecause efforts to reduce ecological effects have sometimes
created negative human impacts, e.g., building a more environmentally friendly factory may have displaced a village of several
hundred farmers, who are then deprived of a livelihood and are
reduced to poverty. (Diez-Spelz and Ramirez-Garcia, 2022, pp.
77-98)
In contrast to SDG, ESG and CSR do not refer to a single
specific framework. ESG essentially refers to three variables –environment, society, and governance – that businesses should(and increasingly, legally must) consider when creating a societal
impact strategy and implementation plan. In the literature, several different frameworks may be labeled “ESG.” (Esposito andAntonucci, 2022, pp. 609-619)
De facto, a particular ESG framework developed by a company might have goals similar to the UN SDG goals. De jure,
however, the ESG acronym de-links societal impact from theUnited Nations and the UN’s specific focus on protecting andpromoting universal human rights. The business-centric frameworks we identified in the academic literature (described below)
are each a particular articulation of an ESG framework. Theseframeworks, rhetorically at least, continue to assert maximizing
stakeholder value as of primary importance, with protecting human rights and the environment in service of this ultimate good.
Like ESG, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) does notrefer to a specific framework. In the literature, several different frameworks may be labeled “CSR.” Frameworks labeled
CSR are generally based on the idea that firms, like individuals,
have a social responsibility. The debate about the validity of thisidea continues in academic literature. In the past 40 years, many
companies have developed a strategy for conducting themselves
responsibly (although definitions of what actions qualify as socially responsible vary widely).
In general, we found that ESG frameworks endeavor to create a more systemic societal impact than frameworks labeled
CSR. For example, an organization might require employees
to volunteer at a food pantry as a CSR initiative. In contrast,
a company’s ESG framework might articulate the way that thecompany can reduce food dependence or hunger so that there
are fewer socio-economic situations requiring food pantries. In
simplest terms, CSR initiatives are often about “giving back,” essentially supporting the status quo. In contrast, ESG frameworks
are oriented to create systemic changes, addressing long-term
economic and/or environmental challenges.
As of the writing of this paper, some practitioner sources are
moving away from the ESG label because it may not provide
enough distance from the social and political ideologies sometimes attributed to the UN’s SDGs. Due to the fluidity among(and reaction to) the definitions and usages of the terms ESG,
CSR, framework, and ranking, we propose defining societal impact in terms of underlying principles common to all iterationsof frameworks we found.
11Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Findings from Primary and Secondary Scholarly
Sources
By analyzing the theoretical underpinnings of the various frameworks, we identified among scholarly and practitioner sources,
we identified five categories: human rights-based, environment/climate change-based, business-centric, hybrids of human rights, and environment/climate change-based, and specifically focused on business school research. Human rights-based
frameworks (Table 1, p. 12) tend to define societal impact asefforts and initiatives that advance human rights (typically rights
as defined by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although a specific source may not necessarily referdirectly to the UN declaration). Environment/climate changebased frameworks (Table 2, p. 12) tend to define societal impact as efforts and initiatives that address climate change andreduce or eliminate other forms of environmental degradation.
Other concerns, such as protecting human rights, are subordinated to preserving the environment and seeking to manage
climate change. Hybrid frameworks (Table 3, p. 13) place equal
emphasis on protecting and promoting human rights, managing climate change, and reducing or eliminating other forms ofenvironmental degradation. Business-centric Frameworks (Table 4, p. 14) tend to define societal impact as initiatives that
advance the interests of businesses and, in some cases, free enterprise more generally. These frameworks often take a broad
view of business interests, employing a stakeholder rather thana stockholder theory of the firm. In these frameworks, otherconcerns, such as protecting the environment and human rights,
are subordinated to safeguarding business interests. However,specific sources argue that protecting the interests of businesses
also protects human rights and the environment. An unexpected
finding is the fifth category of frameworks: frameworks specifically designed to assess the societal impact of business school
research (Table 5, pp. 14-15). Our research reveals there is currently a robust scholarly discussion related to the methods business schools should use to determine the value of research inachieving societal impact. (Siguroarson, 2019, 71-78)
The scholarly sources we reviewed did not include metrics
and often expressly indicated they could not because a specificorganization's interests often drive the performance measurement structure.
Practitioner Sources
We examined two types of practitioner sources: think tanks andnon-governmental organizations (see tables 6-10, pp. 15-18).
We analyzed the research priorities and publications of 50 globally influential think tanks. We identified think tanks by crossreferencing three sources: The University of Pennsylvania Library’s Global Think Tank Index, the Wellesley College Career
Education Center Think Tank Index, and The London School of
Economics Think Tank Index.
Although think tanks produce publications, their work differs
fundamentally from academic sources. Think tanks tend to publish responses to current political or economic situations. Theirpublications appear similar to "Op-Eds" when compared withscholarly sources. Think tanks also produce data, e.g., unemployment rates in a given region, for use by policymakers. Many
think tanks explicitly state that their mission is to provide data
supporting policymakers' work, but not to advocate for specificpolicies (such as a particular framework). Therefore, our reviewof think tank research and publications did not provide societal
impact frameworks, as did the academic literature review.
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Human Rights-based Frameworks
These frameworks focus on the severity and magnitude of the challenges to global human rights. Although some are quite
comprehensive (e.g. SDGs), other frameworks are more narrow in scope (e.g. TEFCE Toolbox).
Framework
United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs)

PurposeReference (selection)

The Sustainable Development Goals
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
or Global Goals are a collection of 17
interlinked global goals designed to be a"shared blueprint for peace and prosperity
for people and the planet, now and into
the future".

The European Framework for Community TEFCE Toolbox is a reference tool toEngagement in Higher Education (TEFCE) understand the dimension of community
engagement in a university context. It isa framework for universities to determine
how well they perform according to eachdimension and where they can improve.

Farnell & Culum Ilic, 2021

Social Quality Configuration of
Ontological, Epistemological andProcedural Frameworks

Economic development (including
ending extreme poverty), social inclusion,
environmental sustainability, and good
governance (including security).

Nijhuis, van der Maesen, 2021

Framework for Civil Rights, Environmental
Justice, and Health Equity

To promote equal access to publicly
funded resources and prohibit
discrimination based on race, color,
national origin, income, gender, disability,
and other factors.

Garcia et al, 2018

		
Table 1. Human Rights-based Frameworks.

Environment/Climate Change-based Frameworks
These frameworks provide a conceptualization for an organized exploration of environmental/ecological issues. Theoreticalunderpinnings can be found in decision theory, game theory, systems science, and sustainability science.
Framework

PurposeReference (selection)

Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response(DPSIR)

Develop an improved understanding of,indicators for, and appropriate responses
to impacts of human activities on theenvironment along with casual chain
drivers-pressure-state-impact-response.

Carr et al. 2007, Svarstad et al. 2008,
Binder et al, 2013

Earth Systems Analysis (ESA)

Focus on the global interactions in anddynamics of the earth system as well as
its sustainable evolutions.

Schellnhuber 1998, 1999, Schellnhuber et
al. 2005, Binder et al, 2013

Ecosystem Services (ES)Analyzes the integral, dynamic, andcomplex interactions of biotic and abiotic
components of an ecosystem concerning
the supply of services this systemprovides to support life on Earth.

Costanza et al. 1997, Daily 1997, de Grootet al 2002, Limburg et al. 2002, Binder etal, 2013

Material and Energy Flow Analysis(MEFA)

Analyzes the metabolic profiles ofsocieties. Analyzes the material andenergy flows as representing themetabolism of a society, region, or nation.

Ayres 1978, Baccini and Bader 1996,
Haberl et al. 2004, Brunner andRechberger 2005; Binder et al, 2013

Management and Transition Framework(MTF)

Focus on understanding water systems,
management regimes, and transition
process toward more adaptive
management; enable comparative
analyses of diverse case studies; andfacilitate the development of simulation
models based on empirical evidence.

Pahl-Wostl 2009, Knieper et al. 2010, PahlWostl and Kranz 2010; Binder et al, 2013

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD
Guidelines for Multinational EnterprisesPSR framework)

Provides an overview of the pressures
Tapio & Willamo, 2008of human activities on the environment,
the state of the environment and natural
resources, and the responses of economicand environmental agents to the state of
the environment.

Table 2. Environment/Climate Change-based Frameworks.

12

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Hybrid Frameworks
Perhaps the largest group of frameworks, most incorporate both environmental and human rights themes. Few frameworks arelaser focused and most intertwine aspects from a sustainability and vulnerability perspective.
Framework

PurposeReference (selection)

Social-Ecological Systems Framework(SESF)

Provide a common language for casecomparison for organizing the many
variables relevant in the analysis of
SES into a multitier hierarchy that canbe unfolded when needed and forfacilitating the selection of variables in acase study.

Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA)

Analyze which combination of livelihood Ashley and Carney 1999, Scoones 1998
assets enables the following of what
combination of livelihood strategies withsustainable outcomes.

The Natural Step (TNS)

Provides a framework for planning
Burns and Katz 1997, Robèrt 2000, Upham
toward sustainability based on
2000, Missimer et al. 2010
constitutional principles (how thesystem is constituted), outcomes(principles for sustainability), andprocesses to reach this outcome(principles for sustainable development).

Vulnerability Framework (TVUL)

Analyzes who and what are vulnerable
to multiple environmental and humanchanges and what can be done to
reduce these vulnerabilities.

Turner et al 2003a,b

Human Environment Systems
Framework (HES)

Provide a methodological guide or
template for analyzing the structureof social-ecological systems andunderstanding the processes anddynamics between the social andecological systems and with different
scales of the social system.

Scholz and Binder 2004, Scholz et al. 2011aFramework for Sustainable Finance

Incorporates interactions between theeconomy (financial return and risk), andthe impact on society-environmental
factors.

Schoenmaker, 2017

Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4)

Encourages the understanding ofinteractions between human society
and the environment across scales andover time.

Bakkes et al, 2022

Citizen Science Evaluation Framework

Examines three core dimensions:scientific, participant, and socioecological and economic.

Kieslinger etal, 2018

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI
Sustainability Reporting Standards)

The GRI Standards allow an organization https://www.globalreporting.org/
to report information that covers all
its most significant impacts on theeconomy, environment, and people or
to focus only on specific topics, suchas climate change or child labor. GRI
recommends reporting under the GRI
Standards.

The International Integrated Reporting
Council (IIRC International Framework)

Established guiding principles andidentified capitals by the IIRC: financial
capital, manufactured capital, intellectual
capital, human capital, social andrelationship capital, and natural capital.
Together they represent stores of valuethat are the basis of an organization'svalue creation.

Ostrom 2007, 2009https://www.integratedreporting.
org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/
InternationalIntegratedReportingFramework.
pdf

Table 3. Hybrid Frameworks.

13

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Business-centric Frameworks
Theoretical underpinnings can be found in ESG principles where business organizations are viewed as entities that have
responsibility to the world in which they live. However, there appears to be no general agreement about its definition nor acommon method of quantifying CSR at the firm level.
Framework

PurposeReference (selection)

Business School Impact Survey (BSIS)

A tool designed to determine the extent of Shenton, 2014a school’s impact on its local environment.

Environmental, Social, and Governance(ESG) Principles

A focus on ensuring that a businessendures, with societal support, in asustainable, environmentally viable way.

Well-Being In the Nation (WIN) with
Business Framework

Outlines contributions that businesses can Well-Being In the Nation (WIN) Network,
make to the well-being of people, places, https://winnetwork.org/, Pitts et al, 2022
and equity and racial justice.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)several specific frameworks exist

Theoretical foundations in stakeholder
theory, legitimacy theory, and particular
contract theory. The responsibility ofenterprises for their impacts on society.

United Nations Global Compact(Communication on Progress)

It consists of nine principles, distilled from Ramasastry, 2015
key environmental, labor, and humanrights agreements, that businesses mustabide by. An initiative where CSR and BHR(Business and Human Rights) converge.

Framework to Study Grand Challenges

Explores the study of grand challenges
from an organizational and management
perspective.

George et al, 2016

International Organization forStandardization (ISO 26000 Guidance onsocial responsibility)

ISO 26000:2010 is intended to assist
organizations in contributing tosustainable development. The framework
encourages organizations to go beyond
legal compliance, recognizing thatcompliance with the law is a fundamental
duty of any organization and an essential
part of their social responsibility.

https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-socialresponsibility.html

Tierney, 2022

For various frameworks see Raczkowski
et al, 2016

Table 4. Business-centric Frameworks
Research Impact Frameworks
Many frameworks view research quality by its social impact. The expectation is that publically funded research deliver benefits
to the wider community rather than simply its impact on academia. These frameworks emphasize the growing interest in higher
education institutions and the role that scholars hold in creating impactful research.
Framework

PurposeReference (selection)

UK Research Excellence Framework(REF)

Three distinct elements are assessed:
the quality of outputs (e.g., publications,performances, and exhibitions), theirimpact beyond academia, and theenvironment that supports research.

https://www.ref.ac.uk/

Responsible Research in Business andManagement (RRBM) Network

Dedicated to transforming business andmanagement research toward achieving
humanity’s highest aspirations for a betterworld.

https://www.rrbm.network/

Australian Research Quality Framework(RQF)

A framework for assessing research
quality and the impact of research andensuring that public funding is being
invested in research that would deliver
real benefits to the wider community.

https://www.business.unsw.edu.au/

New Zealand Performance-Based Review
Fund (PBRF)

Designed to increase the quality of
research by encouraging and rewarding
excellent research in New Zealand’sdegree-granting organizations. It does notfund specific research projects directly
but provides bulk funding to support
an organization’s research capability,
including postgraduate-level teachingsupport.

https://www.tec.govt.nz/funding/fundingand-performance/funding/fund-finder/
performance-based-research-fund/14

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Italian Peer Review Assessment

Assesses research output, teaching,
Akbaritabar et al, 2021
administrative performance, social impact,
and university student competence.

European Performance-Based Research
Funding

Programs vary widely. Some consider
socio-economic impact or diversityrelated assessments. Both quantitativeand qualitative assessments are utilized.

Zacharewicz et al, 2019

Model of Interweaving Scholarship andPractice

Provides a conceptualization ofinterweaving scholarship and practiceand how impact can emerge.

Spencer et al, 2022

Framework for Qualitative Analysis
based on the Distinction between Three
Dimensions of Societal Impact

Examines epistemological, artefactual,and interactive-institutional dimensions.
Addresses the relevance gap in academic
research.

Miettinen et al, 2015

Responsible Innovation Complex

Expansion on RRI. Provides ananalytical model for a context-sensitive
understanding of responsible innovation.
Innovation that meets economic, social,
ethical, and environmental goals.

Jakobsen et al, 2019

An Analytical Framework and Operational
Framework for Scientific and Societal
Impact of Research

Incorporates individual, organizational,
and process-context factors to explain
distinct configurations of scientific andsocietal impacts from research.

D ’Este et al., 2018

Table 5. Research Impact Frameworks.
Think Tanks with a Human Rights Focus
The political perspectives and policy analysis areas of these think tanks vary. But, they share an emphasis on protecting andadvancing human rights, essentially as defined by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the ultimate objective of both
domestic and international public policies.
Think Tank

Research Emphasis

WebsiteBrookings Institution - US

Covers a wide range of specific policy
topics related to climate change,
economic development, civil liberties;
specifically support UN SDG framework

www.brookings.edu

Fundacio Getulio Vargas – Brazil

Poverty reduction

https://portal.fgv.br

Peterson Institute for International
Economics – US

Monetary policy

www.piie.com

Woodrow Wilson Center – US

Humanitarian issues, such as refugee
resettlement, healthcare, economic
impacts of globalizationwww.wilsoncenter.org

Center for American Progress – US

Racial equity, healthcare access,economic impacts of climate change

www.americanprogress.org

Konrad Adenauer Foundation – Germany

European unity, educationwww.kas.deCato Institute - US

Protecting civil liberties defined from a
www.cato.org
politically conservative perspective (liberalindividualism)

Carnegie Middle East Center

Extending Enlightenment/liberal view ofhuman rights in traditional cultures that
tend to be patriarchal

https://carnegie-mec.org

Observer Research Foundation - India

Extending Enlightenment/liberal view ofhuman rights in India

www.orfonline.org

Human Rights Watch – USInternationally, documenting politicallymotivated abuses of human rights among
vulnerable populations: migrants andasylum seekers, women, children, theelderlywww.hrw.org

African Center for Constructive Resolution Extending Enlightenment/liberal view ofof Disputes
human rights in African nations

www.accord.org.za

Barcelona Center for International Affairs

Sustainable development (does not
specifically endorse UN SDG framework)www.cidob.org

American Enterprise Institute - US

Protecting civil liberties defined from a
www.aei.org
politically conservative perspective (liberalindividualism)

15

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Amnesty International – Great Britain

Arms control, documenting politicallymotivated abuses of human rights,
migrants, and asylum seekers,

www.amnesty.org

German Development InstituteSpecifically embraces UN SDG framework www.idos-research.deInstitute for Economic Affairs – Ghana

Extending Enlightenment/liberal view ofhuman rights in African nations

https://ieagh.org

Imani Center for Policy & Education Ghana

Extending Enlightenment/liberal view ofhuman rights in African nations

http://imaniafrica.org

London School of Economics – Ideas
Think Tank

Specifically embrace sustainable
development as defined by the UN SDG
framework

www.lse.ac.uk

Urban Institute - US

Race relations, equal access to economic
opportunities and economic development

www.urban.org

Food Agriculture and Natural Resources
Policy Network – South Africa

Food security; managing natural
resources; environmental issues;sustainable development

http://fanrpan.org

African Economic Research Consortium- KenyaSpecifically embrace sustainable
development as defined by the UN SDG
frameworkhttps://aerafrica.org

Table 6. Think Tanks with a Human Rights Focus.
Think Tanks Focused on Environment/Climate Change
These think tanks address policy areas ranging from economic development, to healthcare access, to global security. However,they share a focus on supporting policies that prioritize addressing climate change and other environmental issues, as the keystone
for addressing other challenges, such as sustainable economic development and international security. They distinguish climatechange from other environmental issues. For example, a clothing manufacturer may pollute a water source with its dyes. This isan environment issue, which does not directly relate to climate change. Conversely, addressing climate change would not address
specific environmental issues, e.g., safely storing radioactive compounds used to treat cancers.
Think Tank

Research Emphasis

WebsiteCenter for Strategic and International
Studies - US

Environment as it relates to energy policy; www.csis.org
migration; defense

French Institute of International Relations

Climate change; human health; healthcare www.ifri.org

Council on Foreign Relations - US

Climate change; globalization; spread of
authoritarian governmentswww.cfr.org

Asian Development Bank - Japan

G-7 developing nation engagement;
economic development in developing
Asian countries that account for climatechange, and other environmental issues;sustainable food productionwww.edb.org

Kiel Institute for the World Economy Germany

International economic policy from theperspective of environmental economics

www.ifw-kiel.de

Table 7. Think Tanks with an Environment/Climate Change Focus.
Think Tanks with a Business-Centric Focus
These think tanks address policy areas ranging from economic development, to domestic and international monetary policy, tomicro- and macro-economic analysis. They share a focus on supporting policies that prioritize the success of businesses above
other concerns (e.g., human rights and environmental issues /climate change)
Think Tank

Research Emphasis

WebsiteFraser Institute - Canada

Embraces ESG framework

www.fraserinstitute.org

Korea Development Institute – Korea

Economic trend forecasting

https://kdi.re.kr

Center for Economic Policy Research - UK Embraces ESG framework

https://cepr.net

Center for European Policy Studies –Belgium

Economic development of the EU, e.g.,
regulations related to international trade,
intellectual property, regulating theinternetwww.ceps.eu

East Asia Institute – South Korea

Advancing democracy and market
economy in East Asia

www.eai.or.kr

Table 8. Think Tanks with a Business-centric Focus.

16

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Think Tanks with a Security Focus
None of these think tanks address societal impact as a specific policy or research area. However, their research area andpublications imply that they define societal impact as policies that promote global peace and security (e.g., reduction of conflicts
and suppression of terrorism). Their specific areas of research may include human rights/treatment of refugees, climate change,
environmental issues, and economic development, but the value of these is consistently assessed as they enhance or reduce global
security.
Think Tank

Research Emphasis

WebsiteChatham House – UK

Impact of trade imbalances, environmental www.chathamhouse.org
issues and climate change on national
security, with a focus on the UK andWestern Europe

International Institute for Strategic Studies– UK

Defense strategies; analysis of militaries,
www.iiss.org
armed conflicts, international power shifts,
the impact of changing cultures, norms,
values, alliances

RAND Corporation – USUS National Security, particularly as
impacted by energy supplies and humanhealthwww.rand.org

Japan Institute for International Affairs

International political, economic andsecurity issues such as global power
shifts, nuclear non-proliferation, regional
integration, terrorism, and energy

www.jiia.or.jp

Friedrich Ebert Foundation – Germany

Foreign affairs, economic and labor
relations, and progressive politics

http://dc.fes.de

Clingendael – The Netherlands Institutefor International Relations

Armed conflict; trade and globalization;
sustainable development; migrationwww.clingendeal.org

Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace

Security policy; nuclear nonproliferation;
Russia; economic policy

www.carnegieendowment.org

Center for International Governance
Innovation – Canada

Impact of digitalization on global security,
trade, IP laws, innovationwww.cigionline.org

Stockholm International Peace ResearchInstituteImpact of trade (real or perceived tradeimbalances) on global conflict

https://sipri.org

Danish Institute for International Studies

Armed conflicts; migration; managing
www.diis.dk
natural resources; economic development

Italian Institute for International Political
Studies

Climate change/environmental issues, asthese impact security, mainly in Western
Europehttps://ispionline.it

Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis– IndiaInternational relations, defense

www.idsa.in

Hudson Institute – US

Assessing the impact of various ideologies www.hudson.org(religiously based and secular) on global
security

Bonn International Center for Conversion– Germany

Non-violent conflict resolution researchwww.bicc.de

Atlantic Council – US

Economics, business, energy,
environment, resilience, and society

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Transparency International – Germany

Anti-corruption in finance, banking, andbusiness

www.transparancy.org

International Crisis Group – Belgium

Gather and analyze data related toongoing global conflicts

www.crisisgroup.org

Royal United Services Institute – UK

Military defense; armed conflicts

www.rusi.org

German Council on Foreign Relations

Economics, business, public
administration, military

https://dgap.org

Istituto Affari Internazionali

Defense, energy and climate, global
government and multilateralism

www.iai.it

Table 9. Think Tanks with a Security Focus.

17

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Think tanks, nonetheless, have underlying perspectives
and philosophies that align with the categories identified inacademic literature. Moreover, several of the most prominent
think tanks, such as Brookings and LSE’s Ideas, specifically support UN SDG goals.
Analysis of think tank research areas and publications suggests a category for defining societal responsibility not found inacademic literature. For many think tanks, societal responsibility is a question of maintaining global security (human rights
and environment/climate change are filtered through the question "What erodes or protects global security?").
The think tanks we reviewed did not publish or otherwise
recommend metrics, which aligns with their overall stated mission of providing data and informed opinions to policymakers
rather than articulating or recommending specific policies.
In addition to analyzing the work of 50 global think tanks, weanalyzed the initiatives and publications of two types of nongovernmental organizations. We identified the NGOs by crossreferencing The University of Pennsylvania Library’s index
of NGOs, the United States Library of Congress’s Research
Guide to Intergovernmental Organizations, and a list of theten most influential global NGOs maintained by the non-profit
Development Aid. NGOs identified by these sources are of two
types: 1) para-government organizations, i.e., established by acoalition of national governments; 2) independent non-profit
organizations (Table 10, p. 18).
Our analysis found that para-governmental organizations
define societal impact using a Corporate Social Responsibility
Framework. Independent non-profit organizations, several ofwhom focus on ending poverty, tend to explain societal impact
using a human-rights-based approach, although not always specifically UN SDGs.
A rich body of scholarly literature examines the relationships between NGO types and their interactions with business.
This literature is a subset of a broader discipline, Social Impact
Assessment (SIA). Researchers and scholars in this field haveformed a professional association, the International Associationof Impact Assessment (www.iaia.org).
Measuring Societal Impact
Our purpose in this section is not to specify metrics but tosuggest guidelines for creating quality societal impact metrics.
Scholars in the field of Social Impact Assessment define social
impact mainly in terms of human rights. “The SIA communityof practitioners considers that all issues that affect people, directly or indirectly, are pertinent to social impact assessment.”(Frank Vanclay, “International Principles for Social Impact Assessment,” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 21,
Para-governmental NGOs

Independent NGOs

International Monetary Fund

BRAC International

World Bank

Doctors Without Borders

World Trade Organization

Open Society Foundations

World Health Organization

AshokaNorth Atlantic Treaty
Organization

Danish Refugee Council

European Union

Mercy Corps

African Union

JA International
Landesa

Table 10. NGOs.
18

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

number 1, March 2003, p. 7) Such issues include “people’s wayof life, their culture, their community, their political systems,
their environment, their health and wellbeing, their personal
property rights, their fears and aspirations.” (Vanclay, 2003, p.
8)
In 2010, the European Union commissioned a study of how
member states measure societal impact. The study found,among other things, that “social IA is still in its infancy in most
European IA systems. Where it takes place at all, the assessment of social impacts is often less well developed than the assessment of economic or financial impacts.” (Study on Social
Impact Assessment, European Commission, June 2010, p. 1).
The study also found a "tension between the quantitative ambitions of most IA systems and the qualitative reality of mostsocial IAs.” The study concluded, “it is important to set realistic
expectations as to which kinds of social impacts can more easily be quantified, and for which the analysis will in most cases
have to remain qualitative, and to facilitate thorough and robust qualitative social IA for the latter.” Developing accuratesocietal impact metrics requires a robust conception of “whatconstitutes qualitative ‘analysis’ (as opposed to just a cursory
mention),” and expanding “the available evidence base throughwider and better use of stakeholder consultation.” (Study on
Societal Impact Assessment, 2010, pp. 3-4)
Since then, research regarding societal impact assessment has
evolved. The most “significant recent change in international
understandings around projects is the growing prominence ofhuman rights,” as articulated in the 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. (Frank Vanclay,“Reflections on Societal Impact Assessment in the 21st Century,” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 38, number 2, March, 2020, p. 126; cf., J.P. Smith and L.K. Hessels,(2021). The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods. Oxford University Press, 30 (3), 323-25.) Nonetheless,consequences of climate change, climate change mitigation andadaptation actions for people “remain under-developed and deserve more attention.” (Vanclay, 2020, p. 128)
Given the state of social impact assessment, we propose thatreferring to guidelines developed by The Global Reporting Institute (GRI) will be helpful for institutions creating a systemof societal impact measurements. The GRI has developed aflexible, modular approach to creating metrics designed to be
implemented by many organizations. (A. Toppinen, & K. Korhonrn-Kurki, “Global Reporting Initiative and societal impact
in managing corporate responsibility: a case study of three multinationals in the forest industry,” Business Ethics: Environment
and Responsibility, 22(2), 2013, pp. 202-217.)
The GRI emphasizes that all metrics should be based on eight
principles: accuracy, balance, clarity, comparability, completeness, sustainability context, timeliness, and verifiability. (GRI
Standards, Foundation, 2021) Furthermore, it recommends
organizing measurement systems around three standard types:
Universal, Sector, and Topic.
As the name suggests, Universal Standards apply to all typesof organizations and involve “disclosures that the organization
uses to provide information about its reporting practices andother organizational details, such as its activities, governance,and policies.” (Consolidated Set of GRI Standards, 2021) Sector
Standards and Topic Standards, defined by GRI, are based on anorganization’s material topics.
The GRI articulates a four-step process an organization may
use to identify its material topics: 1) understand the organization’s context; 2) identify actual and potential impacts (positive
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

and negative); 3) assess the significance of the impacts; 4) prioritize the most significant impacts for reporting. (GRI Standards, Material Topics, 2021).
Our proposal does not necessarily mean that all organizations conform to GRI's Sector and Topic standards. Instead, wesuggest that GRI’s method of establishing levels of standards
and allowing organizations to adopt standards based on theirmaterial topics would be helpful for organizations regarding
their measurement of societal impacts. Moreover, the eight
principles would be an effective way to ensure integrity inmeasurement and reporting.
Conclusion
Our research began with a question of praxis: how can organizations' social and environmental impacts be assessed (and possibly changed)? To answer this, we analyzed empirical scholarly
and practitioner sources from around the globe. Our research
revealed a complex landscape of terms, criteria, perspectives,and priorities. Based on our discoveries, our question became:
how can this vast discourse be mapped or systematized to provide clearer answers to praxis questions like that with which
we began?
In our subsequent effort to systematize, we turned to ethical theory as a tool. Based on our literature review, we assertthat definitions of societal impact and related frameworks weanalyzed share two general underlying principles: protecting
and advancing human rights and addressing environmental/
climate-change issues. As Giddings, Hopwood, and O’Brien(2002, p. 191) noted, “Nearly all our actions have an impact on
the environment.” Inescapably and intertwined with environmental impact is the concept of human rights.
Regardless of how societal impact is conceptualized, we argue that, at its core, the notion centers around these two underlying principles. In other words, an organization may assess
and improve its societal impact by applying two prima facie
principles: protect and advance human rights and address environmental and climate change issues. Like other pluralistic,principle-based approaches to applied ethics (e.g., biomedical
and some business ethics), we maintain that these two principles emerge from “ordinary, shared moral beliefs” found in theempirical sources we examined. (Beauchamp and Childress,
2012, p. 100)
Although there is ongoing debate among philosophers regarding the status and content of specific human rights, wefound in the empirical cross-cultural literature wide acceptance of the concept of rights as inalienable and inherent to all
humans. Moreover, our mapping of sources found that humanrights are often specified as basic standards for a life of dignity
and the notion that all humans are created equal. While there
is debate in the philosophical literature regarding the definition(and thus usefulness) of human dignity, in the social scienceand practitioner literature we examined, dignity and equality
are inescapably interconnected and scarcely controversial. Our
analysis found that other actions derived from the principle ofprotecting and promoting human rights include promoting andprotecting freedoms, respect for others, non-discrimination,and tolerance. While acknowledging that conceptions of rights
are still developing in ethical and legal thought, we want tohighlight that attending to rights is a principle that emerges
across empirical sources as a specific action guide organizations
should use to make decisions.
The other principle common to the frameworks examined
addresses environmental and climate change issues. The schol19

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

arly and practitioner sources we reviewed share that policy
mechanisms are necessary to modify human behaviors that cannegatively impact the physical environment, which ultimately has
adverse implications for humans. Indeed, Giddings et al. (2002,
p. 191) note that “human life itself depends on the environment.”
The principle of addressing environmental and climate changes
is often specified as sustainable production, protection of bothnatural resources and ecosystems, balance and synergy in humandevelopment activities and natural systems, corporate responsibility for the continued viability of biological systems, and building a knowledge base that supports a greater understanding of
the environment.
Further philosophical analysis can clarify how these two principles may be specified and balanced. As in other principle-based
approaches to applied ethics, these prima facie principles may
conflict when applied to specific cases, e.g., when a decision toprotect an ecosystem would negatively affect the rights of thepeople living in or near that ecosystem. Such analysis is crucial
but beyond the scope of our research.
Because our research began as an examination of the ways thehuman and environmental impact of organizations could be assessed, we also considered several questions relevant to leaders oforganizations, such as the evolving understanding of the purposeof the firm and the relationship between the global economy andthe two underlying principles. Further research can also explore
the relationship between economic effects and the two primaryprinciples we have presented here. The fact that the economy
directly impacts people (i.e., business profits ultimately affectindividuals’ standard of living) and the environment (i.e., firms’
decisions can significantly impact the environment) suggests a
dynamic relationship between the global economy and what we
propose as the principles of societal impact. We provide the following illustration of our conclusion (Figure 1, p. 19).
While many organizations are increasing attention to their social and environmental impact, business models, in particular,
are shifting. Indeed, our research supports the notion of creating
a balance between profit maximization and societal impact. Although profit maximization is still important, businesses realize
they do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, business entities area part of a larger global society, with impacts on the economy
leading to direct and/or indirect effects on human rights and theenvironment. Similarly, organizations are increasingly pressured
by stakeholders of businesses, governments, and non-profits toaddress various societal problems.
As our research shows, societal impact can be defined in multiple ways. Many entities use the concept of societal impact asan umbrella term to cover many types and forms of activities
that can positively impact society. Many organizations desire to

Figure 1. Factors Affecting Societal Impact.
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

show their positive impact on the world around them. Being “aforce for good,” which includes human-rights-based issues andVol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

environmental matters, coupled with attention to profits, may
become the new modus operandi of tomorrow’s organizations.

References
Akbaritabar, A., Bravo, G., & Squazzoni, F. (2021) 'The impactof a national research assessment on the publications ofsociologists in Italy', Science and Public Policy, 00 (0), pp.
1-17. [Online] Available at: https://www.doi.org/10.1093/
scipol/scab013
Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999) 'Sustainable livelihoods:
lessons from early experience', Department for International
Development, Vol. 7(1), Russel Press, Nottingham, London,
UK.
Ayres, R. U. (1978) Resources, environment and economics.
Applications of the materials energy balance principle, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA.
Baccini, P. and Bader, H.-P. (1996) Regionaler Stoffhaushalt,
Erfassung, Bewertung und Steuerung, Spectrum Verlag,
Heidelberg, Germany.
Bakkes, J., Cheatle, M., Mžavanadze, L.P. & Witt, R. G. (2022)
Keeping the World’s environment under review: An
intellectual history of the global environment outlook,
Central European University Press. [Online] Available at:https://doi.org/10.7829/j.ctv209xmzx.9
Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. (2012) Principles ofBiomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press.
Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W. & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013)'Comparison of Framework for analyzing social-ecological
Systems', Ecology and Society, 18 (4), pp. 26. [Online]
Available at: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426
Brunner, P. H. and Rechberger, H. (2005) Practical handbook ofmaterial flow analysis, Lewis, New York, New York, USA.
Burns, S. and Katz, D. (1997) 'ISO 14001 and the natural step
framework', Perspectives, World Business Academy, 11, pp.
7-20.
Carr, E. R., Wingard, P. M., Yorty, S. C., Thompson, M. C.,
Jensen, N. K., & Roberson, J. (2007) 'Applying DPSIR tosustainable development', International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, 14, pp. 543-555. [Online]
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469753
Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B.
Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo,
R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. (1997). The
value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital.
Nature, 387, 253-260. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/387253a0
de Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. M. J. Boumans. (2002).
A typology for the classification, description and valuationof ecosystem functions, goods, and services. Ecological
Economics, 41, 393-408. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
D’Este, P., Ramos-Vielba, I., Woolley, R. & Amara, N. (2018).
How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts?
Toward an analytical and operational framework. Scienceand Public Policy, 45(6), 752–763. [Online] Available at:https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy023
Dielini, M. (2020). Evolution of business ethics: From generalphilosophical principles to corporate social responsibility.
Skhid, 169(1), 18-23. [Online] Available at: https://doi.
org/10.21847/1728-9343.2020.5(169).215304
Esposito, P. & Antonucci, G. (2022). NGOs, corporate social
responsibility, and sustainable development trajectories in a20

new reformative spectrum: ‘New wine in old bottles or oldwine in new bottles. Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, 29(3), 609-619.
European Union Study on Social Impact Assessment, June 2010.
Farnell, T. & Ilić, B.C. (2021). International Perspectives
on Knowledge Democracy. Brill. [Online] Available at:https://10.1163/9789004459076_021
García, R., Morales, Z. & Magaña, M. (2018). Strategies for
HEALTH JUSTICE: Lessons from the field. Poverty & Race
Research Action Council. [Online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep27198.9
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A. & Tihanyi, L. (2016).
Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges
through management research. The Academy Management
Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007
Giddings, B, Hopwood, B, & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment,
economy, and society: Fitting them together into sustainable
development. Sustainable Development, 10, 187-196.
Global Reporting Institute: Consolidated Set of GRI Standards,
2021.
Global Reporting Institute: Foundation, 2021.
Global Reporting Institute: Material Topics, 2021.
Haberl, H., M. Fischer-Kowalski, F. Krausmann, H. Weisz, and
V. Winiwarter. (2004). Progress towards sustainability?
What the conceptual framework of material and energy
flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Policy, 21,
199-213. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2003.10.013
Jakobsen, S.E., Fløysand, A. & Overton, J. (2019). Expanding thefield of responsible research and innovation (RRI) – from
responsible research to responsible innovation. European
Planning Studies, 27(12), 2329-2343. [Online] Available at:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1667617
Kieslinger, B., Schäfer, T., Heigl, F., Dörler, D., Richter, A. &Bonn, A. (2018). Evaluating citizen science: Toward an open
framework. UCLPress, 81-95. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339
Knieper, C., G. Holtz, B. Kastens, and C. Pahl-Wostl. (2010).
Analysing water governance in heterogeneous case studies:
experiences with a database approach. Environmental
Science and Policy, 13, 592-603. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.002
Limburg, K. E., R. V. O’Neill, R. Costanza, and S. Farber. (2002).
Complex systems and valuation. Ecological Economics, 41,409-420. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-8009(02)00090-3
Miettinen, R., Tuunainen, J. & Esko, T. (2015). Epistemological,
artefactual and interactional-institutional foundationsof social impact of academic research. Springer
Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 37(2), 125-133.
[Online] Available at: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11024015-9278-1
Missimer, M., K.-H. Robèrt, G. Broman, and H. Sverdrup.
(2010). Exploring the possibility of a systematic andgeneric approach to social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 18, 1107-1112. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.024
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Nijhuis, H. G. J. & van der Maeasen, L. J. G. (2021). The societal
impact of the covid-19 pandemic explained via threeframeworks. International Journal of Social Quality, 11(1&2),
5-20. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.3167/
IJSQ.2021.11010201
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond
panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America, 104, 15181-15187. [Online]
Available at: http://dx. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzingsustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325,
419-422. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1172133
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing
adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes inresource governance regimes. Global Environmental
Change, 19, 354-365. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
Pahl-Wostl, C., and N. Kranz. (2010). Editorial to special issue:
Water governance in times of change. Environmental Science& Policy, 13, 567-570. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.004
Pitts, J., Milstein, B., & Saha, S. (2022). The role of business insupporting vital conditions necessary for the well-being ofpeople, places and racial justice. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 36(6), 1050-1060. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171221092576c
Raczkowski, K. Sułkowski, Ł. & Fijałkowska, J. (2016).
Comparative critical review of corporate social responsibility
business management models. International Journal ofContemporary Management, 15(2), 123-150. [Online]
Available at: https://doi.org/10.4467/24498939IJ
CM.16.014.5554
Ramasastry, A. (2015). Corporate social responsibility versus
business and human rights: Bridging the gap between
responsibility and accountability. Journal of Human Rights,
14(2), 237-259. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.108
0/14754835.2015.1037953
Robèrt, K.-H. (2000). Tools and concepts for sustainable
development, how do they relate to a general frameworkfor sustainable development, and to each other? Journal of
Cleaner Production, 8, 243-254. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00011-1
Sachs, J., et al. (2021). “Six Transformations to Achieve the SDGs.”
Nature Sustainability. [Online] Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41893-021-00729-y
Schellnhuber, H.-J. (1998). Discourse: Earth system analysis - thescope of the challenge. Pages 3-195 in H.-J. Schellnhuber,
and V. Wenzel, editors. Earth systems analysis - integrating
science for sustainability - complemented results of a
symposium organized by the Potsdam Institute (PIK).
Springer, Berlin, Germany. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3- -642-52354-0_1
Schellnhuber, H.-J. (1999). “Earth system” analysis and thesecond Copernican revolution. Nature, 402, 19-23. [Online]
Available at: http://dx. doi.org/10.1038/35011515
Schellnhuber, H.-J., P. J. Crutzen, W. C. Clark, and J. Hunt.
(2005). Earth system analysis for sustainability. Environment:
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(8),10-25. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/
ENVT.47.8.10-25
Schoenmaker, D. (2017). Investing for the common good: A
sustainable finance framework. [Online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28603.6
21

Vol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Scholz, R. W., and C. R. Binder. (2004). Principles of humanenvironment systems research. Pages 791-796 in C. Pahl, S.
Schmidt, and T. Jakeman, editors. iEMSs 2004 International
Congress: Complexity and Integrated Resources
Management. International Environmental Modelling and
Software Society, Osnabrueck, Germany.
Scholz, R. W., C. R. Binder, and D. J. Lang. (2011). The
HESFramework. Pages 453-462 in R. W. Scholz.
Environmental literacy in science and society: fromknowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework
for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Institute ofDevelopment Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Smári Sigurðarson, E. (2019). Capacities, capabilities, and thesocietal impact of the humanities. Oxford University Press,
29(1), 71-76. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/
reeval/rvz031
Smit, J.P. & Hessels, L.K. (2021). The production of scientificand societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal
impact assessment methods. Oxford University Press, 30(3),323-335. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/
resevval/rvab002
Spencer, L., Anderson, L. & Ellwood, P. (2022). Interweaving
scholarship and practice: A pathway to scholarly impact.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(3),1-42. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/
amle.2021.0266
Svarstad, H., L. K. Petersen, D. Rothman, H. Siepel, and F.
Wätzold. (2008). Discursive biases of the environmental
research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy, 25, 116125. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2007.03.005
Tapio, P. & Willamo, R. (2008). Developing interdisciplinary
environmental frameworks. Springer on behalf of Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences, 37(2), 125-133.
The Sustainable Development Goals Report. (2022). The
United Nations.
Tierney, B. (2022). Shortlist: As criticism of ESG grows, so does
the business case for doing it right. Global management
consulting. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from McKinsey &Company
Toppinen, A. & Korhonen-Kurki, K. (2013) “Global Reporting
Initiative and social impact in managing corporate
responsibility: a case study of three multinationals in
the forest industry.” Business Ethics: Environment andResponsibility, 22(2), 202-217.
Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R.
W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson,
A. Luers, M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A.
Schiller. (2003a). A framework for vulnerability analysis insustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, 100(14), 8074-8079. [Online] Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1231335100
Turner, B. L., P. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L.
Christensen, N. Eckley, G. Hovelsrud-Broda, J. X. Kasperson,
R. E. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, S. Mathiesen,
R.. Naylor, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, A. Schiller, H. Selin,and N. Tyler. (2003b). Illustrating the coupled humanenvironment system for vulnerability analysis: three casestudies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,100(14), 8080-8085. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1231334100
Upham, P. (2000). An assessment of the natural step theory of
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 445-454.
[Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09596526(00)00012-3
Vanclay, F. (2003). “International Principles for Social Impact
Assessment.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(1),
5-12.
Vanclay, F. (2020). “Reflections on Social Impact in the 21stVol. 29, No. 1 (2024)

Century.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2),126-131.
Zacharewicz, T., Leori, B., Reale, E. & Jonkers, K. (2019).
Performance-based research funding in EU Member States– comparative assessment. Science and Public Policy, 46(1),105-115. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/
scipol/scy041

Authors
Dr. Elizabeth Rozell received her Ph.D. in Business Administration (Management) from the University of Mississippi. She is an Associate
Dean and Professor of Management at Missouri State University. She has taught Organizational Behavior at both the graduate andundergraduate levels. Her primary research and consulting interests include business ethics, international entrepreneurship, learned
helplessness, and emotional intelligence. Articles she has written have appeared in elite publications such as Personnel Psychology,
Group and Organization Studies, and the Journal of Psychology. Dr. Rozell has authored over 60 publications and received several
outstanding teaching and research awards.
Address: Missouri State University College of Business Administration 901 South National Avenue Springfield, MO 65897 USA.
E-mail: ERozell@missouristate.edu
Haywood Spangler, Ph.D., is the founder and principal of Work & Think, LLC. He is a consultant, researcher, and author. He was formerly
a biomedical ethicist at the University of Virginia Medical Center and an instructor of business ethics at the University of Virginia
McIntire School of Commerce. Dr. Spangler started his company by creating two psychometric instruments:Spangler Ethical Reasoning
Assessment® (SERA®) and Innovation Inventory®. SERA® shows individuals their preferences for six types of ethical reasoning, andInnovation Inventory® shows their tolerance for uncertainty and nonlinear thinking. Recent Work & Think clients include Bloomberg,
Morgan Stanley, The Mellon Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, The
Woodrow Wilson Institute, and The United Nations Pan-American Health Organization. Before founding Work & Think, Haywood served
eight years as a chief executive officer. He holds a master’s degree, magna cum laude, from Yale University and a Ph.D. from The
University of Virginia.
Address: 1101 Skipwith Road Henrico, Virginia 23229 USA.
E-mail: haywood@workandthink.com
22

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/