Toward a methodology for social sustainability assessment: A review of existing frameworks and a proposal for a catalog of criteria

Richter, Fanny; Gawenko, Wladislav; Götze, Uwe; Hinz, Michael Article Toward amethodology for social sustainability assessment: Areview of existing frameworks and aproposal for acatalog of criteria Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (SBUR) Provided in Cooperation with: Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e.V. Suggested Citation: Richter, Fanny; Gawenko, Wladislav; Götze, Uwe; Hinz, Michael (2023) : Toward amethodology for social sustainability assessment: Areview of existing frameworks and aproposal for acatalog of criteria, Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (SBUR), ISSN 2366-6153, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 75, Iss. 4, pp. 587-626, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41471-023-00174-y This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/289521 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ORIGINAL ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1007/s41471-023-00174-y Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 Toward a Methodology for Social Sustainability Assessment: a Review of Existing Frameworks and a Proposal for a Catalog of Criteria Fanny Richter · Wladislav Gawenko · Uwe Götze · Michael Hinz Received: 20 May 2022 / Accepted: 12 October 2023 / Published online: 14 November 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Social sustainability and, in particular, its measurement and reporting are gaining importance in society, politics and business but are facing major challenges. This is because there are no standardized and uniform approaches or frameworks. The existing approaches cover social issues, but no systematic presentation has been proposed. Moreover, there is no approach that can be applied in both management accounting and financial reporting. The aim of this paper is to present a catalog of criteria for addressing this issue and thus to close the research gap. For this purpose, frameworks utilizing catalogs of criteria for social sustainability assessment and reporting are analyzed and critically reviewed. One major weakness found is that all frameworks are oriented around only socially protected values in their catalogs. As social sustainability is focused on the impact on stakeholders, these are frequently missed. One solution to this problem is to adopt a 1:1 ratio of socially protected values to stakeholders, which is developed and described in this paper via a catalog of criteria. Furthermore, a systematic presentation of social issues using a four-level Availability of data and materials Not applicable Fanny Richter · Uwe Götze Management Accounting and Control, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology, Thüringer Weg 7, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany E-Mail: [email protected] Uwe Götze E-Mail: [email protected] Wladislav Gawenko · Michael Hinz International Accounting and Auditing, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology, Thüringer Weg 7, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany Wladislav Gawenko E-Mail: wladislav.gawenk[email protected]tz.de Michael Hinz E-Mail: [email protected] K 588 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 structure is proposed. Social indicators are, in turn, assigned to subcategories, to supercategories, and finally to stakeholders. This not only improves transparency and comprehensibility but also simplifies decision-making. A procedure model for the application of the catalog is also suggested. Such a catalog has not been described in previous research. Keywords Social sustainability assessment · Catalog of criteria · Social sustainability reporting · SLCA · Social sustainability framework comparison · Global Reporting Initiative 1 Introduction Measuring, assessing and reporting on sustainability are becoming increasingly important for companies. This is mainly because a growing number of stakeholders are interested in transparent sustainability-related information to obtain a better overview of the situation of either the company or of society (Tkaczyk et al. 2014; Duque- Grisales and Aguilera-Caracuel 2021; Wen and Deltas 2022). Therefore, companies endeavor to accurately assess sustainable opportunities and risks as part of their planning process. Additionally, companies intend to satisfy stakeholders and to provide them with concrete information through their sustainability reports (Schaltegger and Hörisch 2017; Gangi and D’Angelo 2016; Benoit-Norris et al. 2019). Furthermore, since 2017, large European listed companies have been obligated to publish information related to corporate sustainability (European Commission 2014). This is attributed to the Directive of the European Union on nonfinancial reporting, which was published in 2014 and revised in 2022. The new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive was published in December 2022 and is set to be applied in fiscal year 2024. In this context, a new common European concept for unified sustainability reporting is being developed (European Commission 2022). In particular, the social dimension of sustainability is a major challenge for companies in terms of their assessment and reporting (Benoit-Norris et al. 2012;Weidema Pedersen 2018). In contrast to environmental and economic sustainability, the social dimension often involves many stakeholders, issues and data that are difficult to quantify (Gawenko et al. 2020). There is also a strong dependence on the scope of use; e.g., different user groups have different intentions and goals (Jørgensen et al. 2009). A systematic presentation of social issues and stakeholders can be leveraged to resolve these challenges. These should be structured in such a way that supports reporting as well as assessment (for planning, preparing decisions and maintaining control). Although some social approaches exist, they are neither fully developed nor standardized (UNEP 2020; Gawenko et al. 2020; Goedkoop et al. 2018; WBCSD 2016; Schmidt et al. 2004;McElroy2008). Furthermore, there is no social approach that can be used in both management accounting and financial reporting, although taking such an approach could avoid the duplication of work and divergent interpretations in companies. Based on this, the main aim of this paper is to present a systematic structuring of social issues and stakeholders. This is done by developing a catalog of criteria. K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 589 In the development process, as part of our literature review, we first searched for the existing approaches to social sustainability assessment and reporting. We noted that there are frameworks that include a catalog of criteria for measuring and/or reporting social sustainability. Then, we compared the contents and conducted a critical review based on the specific requirements for these frameworks and their catalogs. Such a procedure has not yet been applied in the literature but seems to be highly relevant in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the existing catalogs.1 Using the results of the analysis as a basis, we then developed and described our own catalog of criteria. As mentioned above, it offers a systematic presentation of social issues and stakeholders for companies. It can be used for sustainability assessment for planning, decision-making and control (management accounting) and for sustainability reporting to stakeholders outside the company (as an extension of financial reporting) (European Commission 2022). Thus, the catalog contains relevant information for both internal and external stakeholders. This consequently simplifies the assessment of social sustainability and improves the transparency of those social impacts caused by corporate actions. To clarify the application of the catalog, a procedure model is also proposed. Previous studies have not (concretely) taken this aim. Furthermore, there are different definitions for social sustainability, and they can be systematized in regard to the purpose and perspective considered. In this paper, we address this problem, and based on the findings, we provide our own, more detailed understanding of social sustainability. In particular, the catalog of criteria (and its procedure model) is aimed at more specifically and transparently operationalizing the ambiguous concept of social sustainability, including its social issues, indicators and stakeholder groups to form the conceptual basis for sustainability assessment and reporting. Thus, this paper advances a further theoretical contribution. For these purposes, the work is structured as follows: In Sect. 2, we illustrate the theoretical background and provide our own definition of social sustainability. Section 3 deals with the analysis of assessment and reporting frameworks and their catalogs of criteria, thus laying the foundation for Sect. 4, where we present, critically discuss and describe a systematic way of applying our catalog of criteria. Section 5 provides a brief conclusion. 2 Theoretical Background and Current State of Research The term sustainability was first used in 1713 by Carl von Carlowitz, who was the head of the Saxon mining authority, in his work about the long-term use and preservation of raw wood material in the field of forestry, Sylvicultura Oeconomica. 1Only the framework of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) presents a brief comparison of the content of some of these frameworks, and this is in tabular form. However, there is no critical review (WBCSD 2016). Jørgensen et al. 2009 also conducted a review comparing SLCA approaches. However, that study deals with approaches published before 2008 and only covers methodological differences. K 590 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 By his definition, the number of trees logged should be limited to the number of trees projected to grow again (von Carlowitz 1713). Currently, there are various understandings of what sustainability means (Valdivia et al. 2021; Moore et al. 2017). However, the definition of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development is widely accepted. According to the Brundtland Report of 1987, development is sustainable if “[..] it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN 1987). Sustainable development concerns economic, environmental and social goals, which can be understood as the three pillars (dimensions) of sustainability (Purvis et al. 2019; Azapagic et al. 2016). To achieve sustainable development, companies should align their activities with these three dimensions. These dimensions should not be considered in isolation from one another (Hinz 2014). The economic dimension represents the economic activities of companies undertaken with the aim of securing economic continuity (the going concern) (Müller and Pfleger 2014; Correia Salome 2019). The environmental dimension addresses the responsible use of natural resources; hence, this dimension concerns the impact of corporate actions on the environment. Topics such as water and energy consumption, CO2emissions, and biodiversity belong to this dimension (Correia Salome 2019; Vezzoli 2018). Compared to the economic and environmental dimension, the social dimension is the least developed, but in recent years, an increasing number of studies have been discussing the term social sustainability (Lee and Jung 2019). Nevertheless, no common understanding of it has been established. There are several reasons for this: on the one hand, the field of social sustainability is a dynamic one, and this dynamism is partly due to attitudes toward social sustainability as well as changes of society and/or in legal norms. At the beginning of its emergence, the understanding of social sustainability primarily covered protecting livelihoods in rural areas. Over the past decades, an increasing number of additional social issues have been identified. In particular, human, employment and intercommunity issues have become more important. In the last few years, the assessment of social sustainability has emerged more prominently (Lee and Jung 2019). On the other hand, when considering the existing studies that deal with social sustainability, it is notable that the definitions of social sustainability can be systematized in terms of the purpose of the study and the perspectives in question. From this perspective, studies can be theory-based, practical and/or empirical, so different definitions of social sustainability can arise. Furthermore, the common adoption is either of a general view regarding the well-being of society (e.g., McKenzie 2004) or a corporate view where social sustainability is defined as “[..] the relationship between a firm and the (broader) community the company operates within” (Sisson 2020). The purpose of this study is to contribute to the methodology for measuring the (positive and negative) impacts of corporate actions through the use of specific indicators, so the corporate view is adopted. This should, among other things, clarify our understanding of social sustainability. Therefore, we use the following self-developed and specific definition in this paper: social sustainability means attaining the social well-being of the stakeholders K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 591 of a company, who are socially affected by the company’s actions. Companies must act in such a way that satisfies their stakeholders. It should be noted that social wellbeing includes the subjective perceptions of stakeholders, which in turn have to be included in the assessment process. Additionally, the perception of when and to what extent satisfaction/social well-being is achieved is a subjective one. Conflicts among objectives may arise in the decision-making process; in particular, the maximization of the social well-being of one stakeholder may be achieved at the expense of another (Cap et al. 2023). As a result, trade-offs are probably unavoidable and have to be considered in decision-making processes (see the suggested procedure model in Sect. 4.2.). This definition and these insights serve as the basis for the catalog of criteria developed in Sect. 4. There are already assessment approaches for measuring economic and environmental sustainability. Some of them are even standardized and partly applied by companies in practice (Gawenko et al. 2020). Examples include life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO 2006a) and carbon footprint (Günther 2008) for the environmental dimension and life cycle costing (LCC) (Götz 2010) for the economic dimension. To obtain an overview of the social dimension, we searched for social approaches to sustainability assessment and synonyms in all the available literature databases (Google Scholar, Science Direct, EconBiz and EBSCOhost). We identified that the most well-known approaches in the literature are social footprint, SEEbalance and social life cycle assessment (SLCA). These approaches were mentioned in approximately 80% of the studies found. The remaining 20% include approaches such as social value, social return on investment and value to society. Notably, these approaches have not yet been standardized or established in practice (UNEP 2020). This is mainly due to the challenge of assessing and reporting social issues, which are mostly represented qualitatively and need to be quantified for decision-making and reporting purposes. The social footprint was first described by McElroy in his publication in 2008. Thereby, McElroy proposed transferring the ecological footprint to the social dimension. Even though he describes a procedure model for the evaluation of the social footprint, only a few social issues are considered in this method. Weidema presents a further developed and compressed method for assessing the social footprint but does not propose any criteria for assessing social impacts (Weidema Pedersen 2018). The SEEbalance approach was developed by Schmidt et al. and is used by BASF SE. It covers socioeco-efficiency but does not assess pure social sustainability (Schmidt et al. 2004). The social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is primarily the most considered approach in the literature. It was first presented by Benoit et al. 2007 (Benoit et al. 2007). The idea in SLCA is to transfer the standardized LCA to the social dimension. Thus, the stages of SLCA are basically based on those of LCA, namely, (1) goal and scope definition, (2) inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment and (4) interpretation. Each of these stages can be described as follows (ISO 2006a; UNEP 2020): K 592 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 1. Determination and definition of the goal, functional unit, system boundaries, affected stakeholders and impact categories of the social assessment. 2. Preparation of a social life cycle inventory, with data identification and collection for all unit processes within the system boundaries. The impact categories and indicators are determined. 3. Evaluation of the social impacts of a product throughout its life cycle (resulting from company activities and product use). For this, the results of the life cycle inventory are applied. The links between impact categories and indicators are identified, and measurements are made. 4. Interpretation of the results from stages 2 and 3 and the subsequent derivation of recommendations for improvements. The main focus of SLCA is on recording the impact of the company’s actions on the affected stakeholders (UNEP 2020). This SLCA approach of Benoit et al. was adapted by some organizations in their frameworks and further developed. These organizations include Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP Guidelines, UNEP 2020), Roundtable Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment by Goedkoop and Indrane and de Beer (Roundtable Handbook, Goedkoop et al. 2018) and Social Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD Social Metrics, WBCSD 2016). A framework is considered a stand-alone concept that provides a structured template for applying an assessment approach or reporting to achieve a specific objective (European Commission 2017;IASB2018). The structured template is usually presented in the form of a so-called catalog of criteria. A catalog of criteria is a list of criteria that can be structured through the use of different categories. Social sustainability includes various social issues and stakeholders. It provides indicators for the considered social issues that can be used to assess the social impact of companies. Such a catalog is therefore important for a transparent sustainability assessment. Accordingly, only those studies that contain a catalog of criteria are relevant for the purpose of this paper. These are: UNEP Guidelines, Roundtable Handbook, WBCSD Social Metrics. Therefore, in Sect. 3, we analyze these frameworks, and the results are used as the basis for developing our own catalog (Sect. 4). Since these frameworks include assessment approaches, they are referred to as “assessment frameworks” throughout the manuscript. Furthermore, primarily in external reporting, there are some frameworks that contain a catalog of criteria but do not describe an assessment approach. These frameworks enable transparent reporting on social sustainability, among other things. They are aimed at providing stakeholders with relevant information about K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 593 the company. Among them, the most extensive and commonly used frameworks by companies worldwide2are further considered in detail in this paper as follows: The standards of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) The standards of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). In the following, these are referred to as “reporting frameworks.” 3 Social Sustainability Framework Analysis 3.1 Framework Description and Comparison We start our analysis with a description and comparison of these frameworks. Three assessment frameworks, namely, UNEP Guidelines, Roundtable Handbook and WBCSD Social Metrics, are considered first, followed by the GRI and SASB reporting frameworks. The comparison includes the basic characteristics of the frameworks, including their target, conceptual foundation, reference object and considered stakeholders. Thereafter, the structure and content of the catalogs of criteria of the frameworks, with subdivisions into (number of) level divisions, supercategories, subcategories, indicators and stakeholder assignment, are examined. We perform a comparison from general to specific features to achieve a comprehensible presentation. 3.1.1 Basic Characteristics The UNEP, Roundtable Handbook and WBCSD frameworks present a methodology for measuring social sustainability related to products. WBCSD refers especially to chemical products. The UNEP framework may be considered the first to comprehensively address SLCA (UNEP 2020). It is based on the ISO 14040 life cycle assessment standard (ISO 2006a) and has been adapted to the social sustainability dimension. The first version was published in 2009, and it was revised in 2020 (UNEP 2020). In addition to the framework, so-called Methodological Sheets were published in 2010 (and updated in 2013 and 2021) to complete these guidelines. According to UNEP, the framework and the Methodological Sheets are to be used together when carrying out SLCA (United Nation Environment Programme and Society of Environmental Toxicology and and Chemistry (UNEP SETAC) 2013). The Roundtable Handbook was published in 2014 and has been updated several times. 2Based on a stand-alone analysis of the largest companies worldwide (measured by market capitalization) by Thomson Reuters in 2021 and a study by KPMG in 2022 (KPMG International 2022). Due to the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the European Union intends to publish a stand-alone framework. The first part of drafts was adopted by EFRAG in November 2022, as the so-called European Sustainability Reporting Standard (ESRS). Since the full version is expected to be published in summer 2024, it will not be considered further. The first (general) set was adopted by the European Commission in July 2023 and has still to be approved by the European Parliament and the European Council. When accepted, it is expected to be used by companies for their sustainability reports of the financial year starting on or after January 1, 2024. K 594 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 The current version is from 2018 (Goedkoop et al. 2018). The WBCSD Social Metrics were published in 2016 and have not yet been revised (WBCSD 2016). It is worth mentioning that the Roundtable Handbook and the WBCSD Social Metrics refer to the 2009 UNEP Guidelines (Goedkoop et al. 2018; WBCSD 2016), and the WBCSD Social Metrics rely on the first version of the Roundtable Handbook published in 2014 (WBCSD 2016). Therefore, there are connections between all three frameworks. According to all three assessment frameworks, the potential impacts on concrete stakeholders need to be measured or recorded. The frameworks consider different numbers and groups of stakeholders. The UNEP framework generally differentiates six types of stakeholders: workers, local communities, value chain actors, society, consumers and children (UNEP 2020). The Roundtable Handbook addresses four stakeholder groups: workers, local communities, small-scale entrepreneurs and users (Goedkoop et al. 2018). The WBCSD is limited to only three stakeholders: workers, local communities and consumers (WBCSD 2016). The GRI and SASB reporting frameworks are structured differently than the other frameworks, as their target is to present standards and indicators for corporate sustainability reporting. The GRI Standards have been developed over time, and the current version is from 2022. The SASB standards were first published in 2015. Over the years, new standards were added, and the latest version is from 2022. It should be mentioned that the SASB was taken over by the ISSB in August 2022. They are currently developing their own framework that will replace the existing SASB standards. In contrast to the UNEP, Roundtable Handbook and WBCSD frameworks, the reference object of reporting frameworks is the corporate level (GRI 2022;SASB 2022). Furthermore, these frameworks consider all three dimensions of sustainability and thus address a wide range of stakeholders, such as business partners, civil society organizations, consumers, etc (GRI 2022). However, the SASB does not explicitly name stakeholders, who can only be derived from the indicators listed in the respective standards. The basic characteristics of the considered frameworks are summarized in Table 1. 3.1.2 Structure and Content of the Catalogs of Criteria To measure the impact on individual stakeholders, social issues are identified in all three assessment frameworks but are only partially grouped into categories and quantified by indicators. Moreover, the frameworks differ in terms of how they classify these social issues, which results in structure and content differences among the assessment approaches. When analyzing the catalogs of criteria of the assessment frameworks, we identified that there are either two- or three-level divisions. These can be superordinated as indicators, subcategories and supercategories. However, they are named differently among the respective frameworks. This is visually summarized in Fig. 1. The UNEP Guidelines use three levels when measuring social impact (UNEP 2020), differentiating between six impact categories (as supercategories), 40 subcategories and some inventory indicators. The subcategories include specific key social issues and are measured using inventory indicators (UNEP 2020). However, K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 601 (UNEP 2009), the Roundtable Handbook (Roundtable for Product Social Metrics 2014) and the GRI standards (GRI 2014) and therefore appears outdated. 3.2.3 Applicability Applicability indicates the extent to which the catalog of criteria can be used to make rational decisions. This means that a catalog of criteria should be presented clear to reduce time and financial expense and should be flexible to facilitate adaptation to changing conditions (e.g., sector-specific, regulatory, etc.) (Schmidt 2014). Thus, applicability is primarily determined by flexibility and clarity (Rudolph et al. 2021). Flexibility describes a model’s adaptability (Schmidt 2014). The catalogs of criteria of the UNEP and the Roundtable Handbook are flexibly applicable to the assessment of the social impacts of products across all sectors. Furthermore, the UNEP explicitly mentions that a SLCA can be used either in isolation or in combination with an LCA (UNEP 2020). In contrast, the WBCSD framework is specifically designed for products in the chemical industry only. Adapting this framework to products from other sectors seems to be rather difficult, so the application scope is limited. The GRI standards are meant only for financial/nonfinancial reporting. However, they can be applied by companies in all sectors. Additionally, they can be used in accordance with two different options. On the one hand, companies can claim that their reports are prepared according to GRI standards. In this case, the company must comply with nine requirements in the Standards (e.g., apply the reporting principles, report disclosures in GRI 2, determine material topics, etc.). Reporting according to GRI standards provides a comprehensive picture of companies’ actions in the sustainability dimensions (GRI 2022). Nevertheless, the use of this option limits flexibility. However, it is possible to omit certain disclosures (with the appropriate justifications) and still use this option (GRI 2022). On the other hand, the GRI standards can be partially applied by companies; in this case, the phrase in reference to the GRI standards is used. However, companies must comply with three requirements: they must publish a GRI content index, provide a statement of use and notify the GRI that the standards have been used (GRI 2022). This option allows for more flexibility than the previous option. The SASB standards can be voluntarily applied by companies in the 77 considered sectors. They must select their relevant standards and choose the disclosure topics as well as the accounting metrics that are important to them. This means that they have greater flexibility than the GRI standards. However, their use is also intended for financial/nonfinancial reporting only. Clarity refers to the simple readability of a model and a comprehensible, transparent and traceable presentation of the information it contains (Becker et al. 2012). For each framework, we evaluated how clearly the respective catalog of criteria is displayed and explained. In particular, we examined the structure of the catalog. For example, the division of social issues (e.g., three levels recommended by UNEP) has an impact on the traceability and transparency of information. Subsequently, we investigated the assignment of categories. Maintaining links between categories and stakeholders is important for good clarity. We also examined the extent of the K 602 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 definitions and explanations and the covered/affected stakeholders for each category (supercategories, subcategories, indicators). With regard to the clarity of the structure itself, the UNEP provides no assignment of subcategories to supercategories. This limits the transparency of the information presented. In addition, UNEP considers the supercategories as important and mentions them but does not define them. Therefore, it is not clear what exactly they mean by the term. Subcategories are also mentioned but only partially explained. In addition, UNEP refers to the outdated Methodological Sheets from 2013 for detailed definitions of the subcategories (UNEP 2020). In this context, it is important to note that the current UNEP Guidelines contain new subcategories that are not included or defined in those outdated Methodological Sheets. Definitions for those subcategories were published only afterward in the Methodological Sheets from 2021. In comparison to UNEP, the Roundtable Handbook does not consider any supercategories. Thus, the clarity of the information is reduced. Only subcategories are presented (so-called social topics), which are then assigned to stakeholders. However, in comparison to the UNEP, the subcategories are described in greater detail. As stated above, the stakeholder group small-scale entrepreneur is mentioned only in this framework. Although a brief definition of this stakeholder group is provided, it is not obvious what is truly meant. Furthermore, it is not precisely explained why this stakeholder group in particular and not others (such as suppliers or value chain actors) is included in this framework. As noted, there are three levels in the WBCSD Social Metrics and the assignments among them. In this context, however, it is not clear why certain subcategories that could fit into the employment category were assigned to other supercategories (e.g., fair wages were assigned to basic rights and needs). Neither is it explained why employment was included as a separate supercategory, as it overlaps with other categories. Furthermore, the assignment of some subcategories to relevant stakeholders is not clear. For example, the WBCSD links the subcategory job creation to the supercategory employment but states that it has an impact on the local community as a stakeholder. It is not clear why it has no impact on workers as stakeholders. Against this, it should be emphasized that the WBCSD Social Metrics provide definitions for all subcategories. Furthermore, the supercategories (so-called social areas) are defined, for the most part, in the WBCSD Social Metrics, and thus, generally, they provide a higher level of comprehensibility than the UNEP or the Roundtable Handbook. Nevertheless, the supercategory employment is not properly explained and not precisely distinguished from other categories. As mentioned above, there are no categories in the GRI standards. However, they contain a list of significant social issues, particularly the GRI 400 series. For each social issue, the standards include requirements and recommendations (for financial/ nonfinancial reporting) that use specific indicators. Furthermore, there are guidance sections for each standard containing background information, explanations and examples provided for better understandability (GRI 2022). However, these guidance sections seem incomprehensible and imprecise in some places, and the exact purpose of some sections is not clear. There are also no categories used in the SASB standards. However, accounting metrics (indicators) are given for each disclosure topic and are described in detail. K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 603 Although only a few social topics are considered (as mentioned above), these topics are all described clearly. 3.2.4 Consistency Consistency is present when there are no contradictions (Bach 2009). Thus, the information presented in the examined frameworks should be uniform rather than contradictory. In particular, we analyzed whether the descriptions and the use of categories and stakeholders are consistent within the frameworks. This is not the case in the UNEP regarding the stakeholder group children.At the beginning, the UNEP names six stakeholders (including children); however, this grouping is not treated consistently. Thus, children are mentioned in some places as an extra stakeholder (e.g., UNEP 2020) but omitted in other sections. As a result, only five stakeholders appear to be relevant. The reasons for this inconsistent approach are not given. Furthermore, UNEP uses the term health and safety as both a supercategory and a subcategory. Consequently, there is no precise delimitation of these categories. In addition, the supercategories are regarded as groups of subcategories (UNEP 2020), but there is no precise assignment between them. In the Roundtable Handbook, terminology is used inconsistently across some subcategories. For example, it lists the following three categories individually: health, safety and health and safety. Only when assigning these categories to stakeholders is it possible to understand and distinguish the content of these categories; e.g., the subcategories health and product safety are related to users. Whereas, the subcategory health and safety is related to three stakeholder groups (workers, local communities and small-scale entrepreneurs). However, it is unclear why health and safety are divided when assessing the social impact on users and not divided when assessing the social impact on other stakeholders. In the framework of the WBCSD, no significant inconsistencies were identified. In the GRI topic-specific standards, in addition to the GRI 400 series, which includes all social issues, some parts of the GRI 200 series (economic issues) should also be considered in regard to social sustainability. For example, standard 205-3 addresses anticorruption, which is also an important social issue, but it is not mentioned in the standards of the GRI 400 series. In the SASB standards, social issues (as disclosure topics) are not applied consistently. There is no explanation as to why some social issues (e.g., data privacy, workforce health and safety) are only described in certain industries, even though they should be important in all/many sectors. A summary of the critical review of the frameworks and their catalogs of criteria is presented in Table 3. K 604 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 Table 3 Framework review Assessment frameworks Reporting frameworks UNEP Guidelines (2020) Roundtable Handbook (2018) WBCSD Social Metrics (2016) GRI Standards (2022)SASBStandards (2022) Relevance Contains the most detailed classification of social issues and stakeholders Contains the smallest number of social issues Has only three stakeholders (no supplier) No categories No categories Subcategories are not assigned to supercategories Supplier partly covered; society is not mentioned Subcategories are assigned to supercategories Social issues are not assigned to stakeholders Social issues are not assigned to stakeholders Subcategories are assigned to stakeholders No supercategories Subcategories are assigned to stakeholders Indicators are proposed for most social issues Indicators are proposed for some social issues No indicators are proposed for most social issues Subcategories are assigned to stakeholders No indicators are proposed for most social issues Considers both B2B and B2C (stakeholder customer) – Considers only B2C (stakeholder consumer) Indicators are proposed for most social issues Considers only B2C (stakeholder consumer) –– Supercategories are focused on socially protected values Considers only B2C (stakeholder user) Supercategories are focused on socially protected values –– – Subcategories are focused on socially protected values ––– K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 605 Table 3 (Continued) Assessment frameworks Reporting frameworks UNEP Guidelines (2020) Roundtable Handbook (2018) WBCSD Social Metrics (2016) GRI Standards (2022)SASBStandards (2022) Timeliness Current version 2020; first published in 2009 Updated several times Current version 2016 Current version 2022 Current version 2022 Methodological Sheets refer to GRI G3 (GRI 2006) Refers to the first version of the UNEP Guidelines (UNEP 2009) Refers to the first versions of the UNEP Guidelines (UNEP 2009)and Roundtable Handbook (2014) –– Refers to Methodological Sheets from 2013. Methodological Sheets were updated in 2021, but are not considered in the current UNEP Guidelines – Refers to GRI G4 (GRI 2014) –– Applicability (flexibility and clarity) Applicable for all sectors; product level only; internal use Applicable for all sectors; product level only; internal use Globally applicable to different chemical products for various industries Applicable for all sectors; corporate level only; external use Applicable for 77 sectors; corporate level only; external use a combination with LCA is possible Subcategories are described in more detail a three level division with assignment Two options: in accordance with GRI standards and in reference to GRI standards Clear description of disclosure topics a three level division, but no assignment a two level division with assignment Supercategory employment not clearly defined Guidance sections partly not comprehensible/ transparent – Missing definition for supercategories; definitions for only some subcategories Stakeholders ‘smallscale entrepreneurs’ not clearly presented ––– Methodological Sheets (UNEP SETAC 2013) with definitions are outdated; in the 2021 Methodological Sheets, all UNEP subcategories are explained –– – – K 606 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 Table 3 (Continued) Assessment frameworks Reporting frameworks UNEP Guidelines (2020) Roundtable Handbook (2018) WBCSD Social Metrics (2016) GRI Standards (2022)SASBStandards (2022) Consistency Stakeholders children not consistently considered No consequent use of subcategories No significant inconsistencies GRI 200 (economic topics) consider some social issues as well Social issues not applied consistently Health and safety is a supercategory as well as a subcategory –– – – Regards supercategories as summaries of subcategories; no linkage between them proposed –– – – K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 607 4 Catalog of Criteria and Its Application 4.1 Presentation of the Developed Catalog of Criteria The analysis presented in Sect. 3 shows that the existing catalogs of criteria used in the considered frameworks have some weaknesses. Therefore, in this section, we present our own catalog for assessing social sustainability, which retains the advantages of the existing frameworks and introduces additional positive aspects. Therefore, the focus is on the third phase of SLCA, i.e., impact assessment. Accordingly, the social impacts on stakeholders can be assessed. This can be done at either the company or product level. The entire catalog of criteria is shown in the Appendix in Figs. 5,6,7and 8. As mentioned in Sect. 1, a catalog that considers the objectives from a bilateral perspective (management accounting and financial reporting) does not yet exist. However, such a catalog would help to avoid duplication of work in companies and provide more concrete information that could be used for internal assessment as well as external reporting to material stakeholders. Accordingly, the catalog of criteria proposed in this section is intended to be used for both management accounting and financial reporting. Among other effects, the use of this catalog should increase transparency, traceability and comprehensibility in the assessment of social sustainability and external reporting. When developing the catalog, we also considered the requirements of the models presented in Sect. 3.2. Furthermore, this catalog can serve as a basis for coping with the problem of socialwashing4in the context of external reporting because it provides reliable and relevant information to stakeholders. In comparison to the considered frameworks, we divide our catalog of criteria into four interconnected and interdependent levels (see Fig. 2). Thus, in our case, the stakeholders form an own level. This is because the impacts on stakeholders are measured directly. This four-level division enables greater transparency and traceability and avoids the overlapping of social issues. The top level involves the impacts on stakeholder groups. Determining these is the main objective of social sustainability assessment (UNEP 2020). Then, there are the supercategories (second level), which represent the grouping of social issues (third level). The social issues themselves, which are constituted as subcategories, are measured by indicators (fourth level). These levels and the interdependencies among them are discussed in greater detail below. 4.1.1 First Level: Stakeholder Groups As already explained in Sect. 3, the analyzed assessment frameworks pursue the goal of measuring the social impact on stakeholders. However, when grouping social issues, they are oriented toward so-called socially protected values (e.g., health and safety, human rights). Thus, there is no clear (transparent) stakeholder assign- 4Socialwashing is a term that describes companies portraying themselves and/or their products as more socially responsible/friendly than they actually are (Lenzi 2021; Rizzi et al. 2020). K 608 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 stakeholder group supercategory subcategory I subcategory II … indicator I indicator II … … … 2nd level 3rd level 4th level 1st level Fig. 2 Structure of the developed catalog of criteria ment, and the stakeholder reference is accordingly somewhat weakened. To avoid this problem, we propose that the grouping of social issues should primarily be based on stakeholders and their relationships with the company rather than on socially protected values. This would enable the assessment of social impact to have a stronger stakeholder orientation. When defining stakeholder groups, the focus was basically on those who are affected by social sustainability or the social actions of companies. Stakeholders that had been considered in other concepts, particularly in the related literature (for example, Töpfer 2007; Crane et al. 2019), were included. As in the UNEP framework, more stakeholder groups are covered to avoid any overlapping. Unlike the frameworks of the Roundtable Handbook and WBCSD, this enables a transparent delimitation. Overall, the proposed catalog of criteria considers four main stakeholder groups: workers, business partners, local community and governmental and nongovernmental actors, while the stakeholder group business partners can be split into suppliers, other cooperation partners, customers and competitors. These stakeholder groups are defined against the background of concrete relationships with companies. A similar classification of stakeholders can be found in Töpfer (2007). These four stakeholder groups exhibit different four types of relationships with companies. Workers describes the group that has a work-contract relationship with the company. The stakeholder group business partners represent the business relationship maintained by the company. Suppliers and other cooperation partners are groups in the procurement area. Cooperation indicates the existence of a relationship among several companies in which the economic independence of these companies is limited in those areas affected by the cooperation while it is in effect. The legal independence of each of the cooperation partners, however, remains completely unaffected (Franz Xaver et al. 2011). Cooperation can be divided into three types: vertical, horizontal and lateral. If the companies operate in the same industry but along different stages of the value chain, they are engaged in vertical cooperation (e.g., an K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 609 automotive parts manufacturer delivers tires to a car manufacturer). In horizontal cooperation, the companies cooperate in the same industry and at the same stage of the value chain (e.g., one car dealer cooperates with another). In lateral cooperation, the companies belong neither to the same value chain nor to the same industry (e.g., a car manufacturer cooperates with a charging station manufacturer) (Friese 1998). In comparison to the analyzed frameworks, we more comprehensively consider cooperation. On the one hand, we include suppliers as a separate stakeholder group (vertical cooperation), which is also the case in other frameworks. This emphasizes the high importance of suppliers (i.e., due to the Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains 2021). On the other hand, we also consider the stakeholder group of other cooperation partners, which includes those engaged in either horizontal or lateral cooperation. This is not considered in other frameworks. Customers are groups in the sales area. Customers can be end consumers (business-to- consumer) and/or businesses at various trade levels (business-to-business) (Töpfer 2007). Unlike other assessment frameworks, this catalog allows for full consideration of this group. Competitors are defined as rivals for the same customers (Töpfer 2007). The local community is indirectly connected to companies on a local level, i.e., they have a local relationship (Töpfer 2007). The local community is a group of people residing in the neighborhood of the company, and it is affected by its activities. Local represents a limited geographical area, and this area is understood in different ways. Therefore, no common definition exists. Rather, the distance radius must be defined individually by each company, but it should not extend outside of the company’s own region (e.g., federal state). The local community includes, for example, citizens, municipalities, and organizations in the neighborhood area (Goedkoop et al. 2018; Crane et al. 2019). Governmental and nongovernmental actors are the group with a remote social relationship with the company. These actors are indirectly affected and do not reside in the neighborhood. In addition to the government, this group includes NGOs and other communities that may be socially affected (Töpfer 2007; Crane et al. 2019). 4.1.2 Second Level: Supercategories Similar to the UNEP Guidelines and the WBCSD Social Metrics, we propose the grouping of social issues into supercategories. Basically, the supercategories offer a transparent illustration of social issues as a structuring system rather than for assessment per se. For a pure assessment, it is also possible to consider social issues without grouping them into supercategories, as is done in the Roundtable Handbook. However, due to the transparency of the presentation, the ease of comprehensibility and the quick pace of the information gathering (in the context of reporting), we recommend utilizing supercategories. As mentioned above, supercategories should be linked to stakeholder relationships and thus to specific stakeholder groups. This is done to avoid overlapping and to develop a stronger stakeholder reference. On the top of the catalog there are therefore the, stakeholder groups, and they are characterized by their specific relationships with companies. Based on the stake- K 610 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 work-contract relationship business relationship local relationship remote social relationship x suppliers x other cooperation partners x customers x competitors x x x social interests of governmental and nongovernmental actors stakeholder relationships supercategories (socially protected values) stakeholder groups workers governmental and nongovernmental actors local community business partners local well-beingworking conditions social interests of business partners Fig. 3 Stakeholder groups, stakeholder relationships and socially protected values holder groups, the socially protected values are defined and set as supercategories (described below), as illustrated in Fig. 3. As seen in Fig. 3, stakeholder groups and socially protected values in the proposed catalog are in a 1:1 ratio. Each supercategory represents a socially protected value. These can be assigned to a stakeholder group. It should be noted that the stakeholder group business partners should be categorized in greater depth (suppliers, other cooperation partners, customers and competitors) to reach a higher level of transparency and detail. This serves as an extension of the other frameworks. To define the supercategories, we evaluated the examined frameworks and the UN Global Compact, OECD Guidelines and ISO 26000.5This was because these frameworks and standards describe important socially protected values. Overall, this procedure resulted in four categories: working conditions, the social interests of business partners, local well-being and the social interests of governmental and nongovernmental actors. Working conditions refers to social impacts in the context of the work contract relationship, i.e., in relation to the employees. This category measures the company’s commitment to the well-being of its employees. The social interests of business partners encompass the business relationships of an organization and thus are used to describe the responsibilities of suppliers, other cooperation partners, customers and competitors.6This category is used to measure the extent to which correct and 5UN Global Compact, OECD Guidelines and ISO 26000 are considered important in the context of sustainability worldwide. They address certain social issues, but do not represent social sustainability approaches (UN 2000;OECD2011;ISO2010). 6The new GRI Standards also use the terms business partner and business relationship.However,this paper takes a broader perspective by considering consumers as business partners as well, with the aim of including B2B and B2C transactions in their entirety (GRI 2022). K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 617 information under one heading rather than spreading it out and repeating it several times. This results in time savings for readers. Furthermore, it should be stated that the catalog is generic and can be applied for reporting and assessment. However, regarding usage, no specific differentiation is made between reporting or assessment, which can be seen as a limitation of the catalog. The catalog provides a coherent presentation that covers the information required for meeting both purposes. However, this limit is weakened by the procedure model described in Sect. 4.2. 5Conclusion The first aim of this paper was to analyze the assessment and reporting frameworks in use currently, including their catalogs of criteria. It was revealed that the analyzed catalogs do not meet all the requirements of a social sustainability assessment model. Therefore, as the second aim of this paper, we developed a catalog of criteria that meets all of these requirements. From a stakeholder orientation, a novel four-level approach to structuring and assessing social issues that has not yet been considered in the literature is proposed. In addition, the procedure model presented in Sect. 4.2 suggests a structured way to apply the catalog from a company’s point of view. The catalog can be used in management accounting and financial reporting to avoid duplication of work and assure consistency of internal and external reporting. This catalog should facilitate social sustainability assessment and increase the level of transparency. The proposed structure of social issues and indicators can increase the comprehensibility of reporting and improve the process of finding information. The catalog can be used as a proposal for revising the structure of the topicspecific GRI 400 standards as well as the SASB standards. In addition, the forthcoming sets of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and their continuous revision can potentially be inspired by the proposed catalog. The presented catalog (particularly the indicators) refers to both the product and company levels. Extending the catalog to the process and resource levels is possible and can be considered in more detail in further research. In addition, adaptations based on other perspectives (e.g., politics) are conceivable since the catalog was created from the point of view of companies. Moreover, the catalog can be applied to specific sectors (e.g., agriculture, IT); however, adjustments would be needed to facilitate this application. In addition to its practical contributions, this paper also offers several theoretical contributions. We identified the fact that the existing definitions of social sustainability can be systematized in terms of purpose and perspective. This was followed by the introduction of our own definition of social sustainability, which formed the basis for this paper. To operationalize the concept of social sustainability more specifically and transparently and to enable assessment, we presented the catalog of criteria, including its social issues and indicators. It is worth mentioning that the catalog, which serves as the basis for measuring social sustainability, can be embedded in a comprehensive sustainability assessment and reporting (based on Life K 618 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 Cycle Sustainability Assessment, LCSA). This is intended to eliminate the excessive focus on one sustainability dimension and to handle the conflicts that arise between the different dimensions. Furthermore, a uniform/consistent database and consistent system boundaries contribute to reducing the effort and enhancing the significance of sustainability assessment (Schramm et al. 2020; Klöpffer 2008). In further studies, a specific assessment should be carried out using a concrete example, and aggregation methods should be examined in more detail and then refined. Overall, the paper contributes to improving the assessment and reporting of social sustainability, which will become increasingly important in the future. 6 Appendix K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 619 stakeholder group supercategory subcategories management reorganization social benefits appropriate working hours fair wages/fair salary privacy diversity and equal opportunity job satisfaction skills and knowledge no discrimination no forced labor no child labor freedom of association and collective bargaining no sexual harassment investments to human rights workers occupational health risk and safety impacts through structural changes in the company (layoffs, disinvestment, closing down, etc.) non-monetary employment compensation normal working hours defined by applicable national laws and industry standards (e.g. 48h per week, 6 consecutive days). the wages paid for a normal working week; depending on law (e.g. minimum wage), industry average and the qualification of the worker respect and protection of workers data and information equal recognition of different groups in companies comfortable feeling at work programmes to improve the competence of the employees equal treatment of workers regardless of age, gender, origin, etc. avoiding unfair recruitment through violence or intimidation avoiding work that is harmful to childhood and socially or morally dangerous, as well as damaging to physical and mental development respect of the rightofworkers to form and join organizations of their own choice and to negotiate with other groups avoiding unwanted, sexually determined behaviour that violates the dignity of the person involved promote the empowerment of staff to address human rights in the context of their work maintenance and promotion of physical, mental and social complacency of workers workers refers to social impacts in the context of the work contract relationship; adresses the company's commitment to the well-being of its employees -total number of hours devoted to training on human rights policies or procedures concerning aspects of human rights that are relevant to operations -percentage of employees trained in human rights policies or procedures concerning aspects of human rights that are relevant to operations -operations considered to have significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory labor -measures to eliminate all forms of forced or compulsory labour -operations considered to have significant risk for incidents of child labor -measures to abolish child labor -operations in which workers’ rights to exercise freedom of association or collective bargaining may be violated or at significant risk -number of incidents of sexual harassment indicators -rate of total recordable injuries and illnesses -total number of fatalities -hours of worker training on occupational health and safety -sickness absentee rate -existence of occupational health and safety management system -hazard identification -existence of occupational health services -workers have access to all the required personal protective equipment working condition (work-contract relationship) -minimum notice periods regarding operational changes -the company offers significant compensation to workers who are victims of reorganization -benefits provided to fulltime employees -percentage of workers that benefit from flexible working arrangements -hours worked in a normal working week, not including overtime, are below the limits set by law or international standards -hours worked in a normal working week, not including overtime, exceed 48 hours -ratios of standard entry level wage by gender compared to local minimum wage -legal or industry minimum wage: Minimum wage refers to compensation per hour or other unit of time for employment allowed under law; when no legal minimum wage exists, use the industry average -number of worker complaints related to breach of privacy or loss of data within the last year -percentage of individuals within the organization’s governance bodies -percentage of employees per employee category -ratio of the basic salary and remuneration of women to men -total number and rate of new employee hires -total number and rate of employee turnover -parental leave return rate -management of employee workload -average hours of training per year per employee -type and scope of programs implemented and assistance provided to upgrade employee skills -percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews -total number and status of incidents of discrimination -anonymous job application procedures -equal pay for work -established grievance mechanisms for workers to report a complaint or raise concerns about any actions that violates nondiscrimination policy m a n a g e m e n t r e o r g a n i z a t i o n s o c i a l b e n e f i t s a p p r o p r i a t e w o r k i n g h o u r s f a f f i r w a g e s / f / / a f f i r s a l a r y p r i v a c y d i v e r s i t y a n d e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y j o b s a t i s f a ff c t i o n s k i l l s a n d k n o w l e d g e n o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n n o f o f f r c e d l a b o r n o c h i l d l a b o r f r e e d o m o f a s s o c i a t i o n a n d c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g n o s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t i n v e s t m e n t s t o h u m a n r i g h t s w o r k e r s o c c u p a t i o n a l h e a l t h r i s k a n d s a f e ff t y r e r r f e f f r s r r t o s o c i a i i l i m i i p m a c t s t t i n i i t h t t e c o n t e x t o f t h t t e w o w w r k r r c o n t r t t a r r c t r e r r l a t i tt o n s h i p i i ; a d r d d e r r s s e s t h t t e c o m p m a n y ' s ' c o m m i t m t t e n t t o t h t t e w e l l l l - b e i n i i g o f i t s t t e m p m l o y e y y e s Fig. 5 Catalog part I (for stakeholder group: workers) K 620 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 stakeholder group supercategory subcategories (fair) trading relationship (suppliers) integrating sustainability aspects into supplier assessment (suppliers) fair cooperation (other cooperation partners) integrating sustainability aspects into cooperation partner assessment (other cooperation partners) customers product experience (customers) privacy (customers) promotion of skills and knowledge (customers) inclusiveness (customers) responsible communication (customers) customers' health and safety (customers) fair social competition (competitors) offering fair condition and complying with essential laws and requirements auditing whether suppliers act in asocially responsible way conduction of cooperations in afairwayand in compliance with law auditing whether cooperation partners act in a socially responsible way feedback from customers on products and services respect and protection of customers data and information educating the customer about products, services and their impacts ensure financial and material access to products and services for all groups of people disclosing transparent information on corporate social responsibility contribution to maintaining and improving customers' health and safety conduction of activities in a fair way and in compliance with law indicators -total number of incidents of noncompliance with regulations and/or voluntary codes concerning product and service information and labeling -total number of incidents of noncompliance with regulations and/or voluntary codes concerning the health and safety impacts of products and services -number of false statements, negative publicity, discrimination regarding competitors -number of violations in which the reporting organization has been identified as a participant suppliers, other cooperation partners, customers, competitors -number of supplier assessments -number of agreed code of conduct that protect human rights of workers among suppliers -legal or industry minimum provisions or other fees -number of payments on time to suppliers -number of cooperation partner assessments -number of agreed code of conduct that protect human rights of workers among cooperation partners -satisfaction rate through customer interviews -number of complaints received -number of customer complaints related to breach of privacy or loss of data -amount of financial capital invested in skills and knowledge of customer -providing additional information about the product (social media activities) or services -number of products to vulnerable groups/an income class that would not otherwise be able to afford it refers to responsibilities towards suppliers, other cooperation partners, customers and competitors; adresses to what extent correct and transparent information is published, fair settlement of contracts of transactions is carried out and the company's commitment to the well-being of its business partners -percentage of supplier who understand quality standards, price structure and premium requirements -number of payments on time to suppliers social interests of business partners (business relationship) ( f a f f i r ) t r a d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p ( s u p p l i e r s ) i n t e g r a t i n g s u s t a i n a b i l i t y a s p e c t s i n t o s u p p l i e r a s s e s s m en t ( s u p p l i e r s ) f a ff i r c o o p e r a t i o n ( o t h e r c o o p e r a t i o n p a r t n e r s ) i n t e g r a t i n g s u s t a i n a b i l i t y a s p e c t s i n t o c o o p e r a t i o n p a r t n e r a s s e s s m e n t ( o t h er c oo p e r a t i o n p a r t n e r s ) c u s t o m e r s p r o d u c t e x p e r i e n c e ( c u s t o m e r s ) p r i v a c y ( c u s t o m e r s ) p r o m o t i o n o f s k i l l s a n d k n o w l e d g e ( c u s t o m e r s ) i n c l u s i v e n e s s ( c u s t o m e r s ) r e s p o n s i b l e c o m m u n i - c a t i o n ( c u s t o m e r s ) c u s t o m e r s ' h e a l t h a n d s a f e f f t y ( c u s t o m e r s ) f a f f i r s o c i a l c o m p e t i t i o n ( c o m p e t i t o r s ) r e r r f f f f f f f f f f f f e f f r s r r t t t t t o r e r r s p s o n s i i i i i i i bb b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b i i i i ii i i i i i i i i i l l l l l i i i i i i i i i i i i l l l l t t t t t i i i i i i i i i i i i e i i s t t t t t o w a ww r d d d d d d d d d d rr s d d s u p u p p p l l l l l l l l l l l i i i i i i i l l l l l e i i r s r r , o t t t t h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h e r c o o p o e r a r r t t t t t t t i i i i i i i o i i n p a r t t t t rr n e r s r r , c u s t t t t t o m e r s r r a n d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d c o m p e t t t t t i i i i i i i i i t t t t i i ii o r s r r ; a d d d d d d d d d d d d d r d d e r r s s e s t t t t o w h h h h h h h h h h h ww a t t t t e x t t t t t t e n t t t t c o r r r r e r r c t t t t t a n d d d d d d d d t t t t t t r a r r n s p s a r e r r n t t t t t i i i i i i i i i n i i f f f f f f f f f o f f r m r r a t t t t t t i i i i i i i o i i n i i i i i i i i i s i i p u b l i l l s i i h e d , d d f a f f i r i i s e t t l t t e l l m e n t o f c o n t r a r r c t s o f t r a r r n s a c t i o i i n s i s i i c a r r r r i rr e i i d o u t a n d t h e c o m p a n y y ' s ' c o m m i t i i m e n t t o t h e w e ww l l l l - l l b e i n i i g g o f i t i i s b u s i n i i e s s p a r t rr n e r s r r Fig. 6 Catalog part II (for stakeholder group: business partners) K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 621 stakeholder group supercategory subcategories nuisance reduction creation/ promotion of local jobs local community engagement delocalization and migration respect for indigenous rights access to material and immaterial resources cultural heritage health and safety of local community´s living conditions actions to minimize noise, odours, dust, etc. generated by the company providing local jobs without removing and harming existing employment commitment in local affairs, e.g. in local products, culture, sports contribution to integrating immigrants into the local community and facilitating resettlement non-violation of the rights of indigenous peoples theextendtowhich companies provide local communities with material (water, land etc.) and immaterial resources (intellectual property, human capital etc.) preservation of human cultural assets activities to improve the safety and health of the local community refers to social issues at the local level; adresses how strong the company's contribution to local sustainment is indicators local community local well-beeing (local relationship) -number of efficient equipment has been installed in order to limit noise levels (for noisy activities) -percentage of expenses for nuisance reduction -the activity does not generate recurrent nuisances (highly noisy activities, regularly unpleasant odours) -total number and rate of new local employees -total number of local jobs -no incidents harming local community -company or facility provides a grievance mechanism or other feedback loop for the local community -percentage of operations with implemented local community engagement and/or development programs -number of local community development programs based on local communities’ needs -implemen-tation of formal local community grievance processes -percentage of products and services -tax payments to local community -donations to local community -number of migrant workers in the local community (integrating migrant workers into the local community) -total number of identified incidents of violations involving the rights of indigenous peoples -expenses for community education initiatives -developed projectrelated infrastructure with mutual community access and benefit -access to healthcare -number of policies to protect cultural heritage -number of records of public complaints due to product/ production -efforts to strengthen local community health n u i s a n c e r e d u c t i o n c r e a t i o n / p r o m o t i o n o f l o c a l j o b s l o c a l c o m m u n i t y e n g a g e m e n t d e l o c a l i z a t i o n a n d m i g r a t i o n r e s p e c t f o ff r i n d i g e n o u s r i g h t s a c c e s s t o m a t e r i a l a n d i m m a t e r i a l r e s o u r c e s c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e h e a l t h a n d s a f e ff t y o f l o c a l c o m m u n i t y ´ s l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s r e r r f e f f r s r r t o s o c i a l i s i i s u e s a t t h t t e l o c a l l e v e vv l ; l a d r d d e r r s s e s h o w s t r t t o r r n g t h tt e c o m p m a n y ' s ' c o n t r t t i r r b i i u t i t t o n t o l o c a l s u s t a t t i n i i m e n t i s Fig. 7 Catalog part III (for stakeholder group: local community) K 622 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 stakeholder group supercategory subcategories community engagement anti-corruption involvement in the aiffairs of the society; actions to promote technical progress evidence and prevention of abuse of entrusted power for selfadvantage indicators refers to social issues of governmental and nongovernmental actors; adresses how strong the company's contribution to broader community is -no incidents harming society -company or facility provides a grievance mechanism or other feedback loop for the society -percentage of operations with implemented society engagement and/or development programs -operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on society -donations to nongovernmental actors -infrastructure investments (commercial, in-kind or pro bono) and services supported -contribution of the product/service/organization to economic progress (revenue, gain, paid wages, R+D costs in relation to revenue, etc.) -tax payments to government -total number and nature of confirmed incidents of corruption -total monetary value of financial and in-kind political contributions made directly and indirectly by the organization governmental and nongovernmental actors social interests of governmental and nongovernmental actors (remote social relationship) c o m m u n i t y e n g a g e m e n t r e r r f e f f r s rr t o s o c i a ii l i s ii s u e s o f g o v e vv r n r r m e n t a l a n d n o n g o v e vv r n r r m e n t a l a c t o r s rr ; a d r d d e r r s s e s h o w s t r o r r n g g t h e c o m p a n y y ' s ' c o n t r i r r b i i u t i o i i n t o b r o r r a d e d d r c o m a n t i - c o r r u p t i o n m u n i t i i y y t i s i i Fig. 8 Catalog part IV (for stakeholder group: governmental and nongovernmental actors) K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 623 Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft and German Academic Association for Business Research. Conflict of interest F. Richter, W. Gawenko, U. Götze and M. Hinz declare that they have no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/. References Azapagic, Adisa, Laurence Stamford, Lorraine Youds, and Christian Barteczko-Hibbert. 2016. Towards sustainable production and consumption: A novelDEcision-Support Framework IntegRating Economic,Environmental and Social Sustainability (DESIRES). Computer and Chemical Engineering 91:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.03.017. Bach, Alexander. 2009. Modellbasierte Analyse von Führungsinformationssystemen. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Becker, Jörg, Wolfgang Probandt, and Oliver Vering. 2012. Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Modellierung. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30412-5. Benoit, Catherine, Julie Parent, Isabelle Kuenzi, and Jean-Pierre Revéret. 2007. Developing a methodology for social life cycle assessment, the north American tomato’s CSR case. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/ ffu/calcas/Benoit.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2023. Benoit-Norris, Catherine, Deana Cavan Aulisio, and Gregory A. Norris. 2012. Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social Hotspot database. Sustainability 4(9):1946–1965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4091946. Benoit-Norris, Catherine, Gregory A. Norris, Lina Azuero, and John Pflueger. 2019. Creating social handprints: method and case study in the electronic computer manufacturing industry. Resources 8(4):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8040176. Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (BBK)„ and Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance. Schutzgut. https://www.bbk.bund.de/SharedDocs/Glossareintraege/DE/ S/schutzgut.html;jsessionid=A4D91E7FC503960796C3BFC09911DABD.live132. Accessed 30 Mar 2023. Bundestag. 2016. Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Stärkung der nichtfinanziellen Berichterstattung der Unternehmen in ihren Lage- und Konzernlageberichten. Drucksache 18/9982. Cap, Stephanie, Pieter Bots, and Laura Scherer. 2023. Environmental, nutritional and social assessment of nuts. Sustainability Science 18:933–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01146-7. von Carlowitz, Hans Carl. 1713. Sylvicultura Oeconomica oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht. Leipzig. Correia Salome, Maria. 2019. An overview of the triple bottom line and sustainability implementation. International Journal of Strategic Engineering 2(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJoSE.2019010103. Crane, Andrew, Dirk Matten, Sarah Glozer, and Laura Spence. 2019. Business ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duque-Grisales, Eduardo, and Javier Aguilera-Caracuel. 2021. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics 168(2):315–334. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-019-04177-w. European Commission. 2014. Directive 2014/95/EU European Commission. 2017. Guidelines on non-financial reporting 2017/C 215/01 European Commission. 2022. Directive 2022/2464/EU Franz Xaver, Bea, Franz Xaver, and Jürgen Haas. 2011. Strategisches Management. München: UKV. https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838587530. K 624 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 Friese, Marion. 1998. Kooperation als Wettbewerbsstrategie für Dienstleistungsunternehmen. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Gangi, Francesco, and Eugenio D’Angelo. 2016. The virtuous circle of corporate social performance and corporate social disclosure. Modern Economy 7(12):1396–1418. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2016. 712129. Gawenko, Wladislav, Fanny Richter, Michael Hinz, and Uwe Götze. 2020. Interne Ansätze zur Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung in der externen Berichterstattung - konzeptionelle und empirische Analyse der DAX-Unternehmen. Die Unternehmung 74(3):264–284. https://doi.org/10.5771/0042-059X-2020- 3-264 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2022. Consolidated Set of the GRI Standards 2022 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2006. GRI G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2014. GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2022. Universal Standards 2021, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). https://www.globalreporting.org/media/zauil2g3/public-faqs-universal-standards_18-january.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2022. Goedkoop, Mark, Diana Indrane, and Ilonka de Beer. 2018. Product social impact assessment handbook 2018. Amersfoort. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1125-6. Götze, Uwe. 2010. Kostenrechnung und Kostenmanagement. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Götze, Uwe, Susan Krönert, and Barbara Mikus. 2010. Kennzahlensysteme als Instrument des Produktionscontrolling. Der Betriebswirt 51(2):10–17. https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.51.2.10 Götze, Uwe, Deryl Northcott, and Peter Schuster. 2015. Investment Appraisal. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Günther, Edeltraud. 2008. Ökologieorientiertes Management. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius. Hinz, Michael. 2014. Nachhaltigkeitsorientierte Berichterstattung. In Perspektiven der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, ed. Dagmar Gesmann-Nuissl, Ronald Hartz, and Marcus Dittrich, 257–278. Wiesbaden: Springer. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). 2018. Conceptual framework International Organization for Standardization(ISO). 2006a. ISO 14040:2006. Environmentalmanagement—life cycle assessment: principles andframework International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2006b. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management—life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2010. ISO 26000:2010. Guidance on social responsibility Inwinkl, Petra, Sofia Josefsson, and Marie Wallman. 2015. The comply-or-explain principle: Stakeholders’ views on how to improve the ‘explain’ approach. International Journal of Disclosure and Government 12(3):210–229. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2014.6. Jørgensen, Andreas, Michael Z. Hauschild, Michael S. Jørgensen, and Arne Wangel. 2009. Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14(3):204–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0073-9. Klöpffer, Walter. 2008. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13:89–95. KPMG International. 2022. Big shifts, small steps. Survey of sustainability reporting Lee, Keeheon, and Hosang Jung. 2019. Dynamic semantic network analysis for identifying the concept and scope of social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 233:1510–1524. Leihmeister, Jan Marco. 2015. Einführung in die Wirtschaftsinformatik. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Lenzi, Diletta. 2021. Corporate social bonds: a legal analysis. University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper 14:1–23. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3867151. Macharis, Cathy, and Gino Baudry. 2018. The multi actor multi criteria analysis framework. In Decision-making for sustainable transport and mobility. Multi actor multi criteria analysis,ed.Cathy Macharis, Gino Baudry, 2–27. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. McElroy, Mark Wayne. 2008. Social Footprints. Measuring the social sustainability performance of organizations. Vermont: Thetford Center. McKenzie, Stephen. 2004. Social Sustainability: towards some definitions. Hawke research institute working paper series 27. University of South Australia. Moore, Julia E., Alekhya Mascarenhas, Julie Bain, and Sharon E. Straus. 2017. Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implementation Science 12:110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017- 0637-1. Müller, Anna-Luisa, and Regina Pfleger. 2014. Business transformation towards sustainability. Business Research 7(2):313–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-014-0011-y. K Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 625 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2011. Guidelines for multinational enterprises.https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264115415-en. Purvis, Ben, Yong Mao, and Darren Robinson. 2019. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science 14:681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. Refinitiv. 2021. Environmental, social and governance scores from refinitiv Rizzi, Francesco, Natalia Gusmerotti, and Marco Frey. 2020. How to meet reuse and preparation for reuse targets? Shape advertising strategies but be aware of “social washing”. Waste Management 101:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.024. Roundtable for Product Social Metrics. 2014. Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment 2.0. Rudolph, Mike, Anika Süß, Florian Lindner, Kristina Hoese, Josephin Haenel, Fanny Richter, and Uwe Goetze. 2021. Identifikation, Analyse und Systematisierung von Anforderungen an betriebswirtschaftliche Entscheidungsmodelle - Entwicklung einer Anforderungshierarchie. Chemnitz Economic Papers: 1–20. Schaltegger, Stefan, and Jacob Hörisch. 2017. In search of the dominant rationale in Sustainability management: legitimacy- or profit-seeking? Journal of Business Ethics 145(2):259–276. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-015-2854-3. Schmidt, Steffen. 2014. Investitionsentscheidungen unter Unsicherheit. Eine vergleichende Gegenüberstellung individueller und kapitalmarktorientierter Konzeptionen zur Entscheidungsvorbereitung.Chemnitz: GUC. Schmidt, Isabell, Manfred Meurer, Peter Saling, Andreas Kicherer, Wolfgang Reuter, and Carl-Otto Gensch. 2004. SEEbalance®: managing sustainability of products and processes with the socio-eco-effi- ciency analysis by BASF. Greener Management International 45:79–94. Schramm, Anika, Fanny Richter, and Uwe Götze. 2020. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for manufacturing – analysis of existing approaches. Procedia Manufacturing 43:712–719. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.promfg.2020.02.115 Sisson, Vivian. 2020. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of interest groups, lobbying and public affairs, section E, ed. Phil Harris, Alberto Bitonti, Craig S. Fleisher, Anne Skorkjaer Binderkrantz, and Section E.. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13895-0_179-1. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). 2022. SASB-Standards 2022 Tkaczyk, Stanislaw, Joanna Kuzincow, and Grzegorz Ganczewski. 2014. Life cycle assessment in management of socially responsible enterprise. Foundations of Management 6:71–82. https://doi.org/10. 1515/fman-2015-0019. Töpfer, Armin. 2007. Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Anwendungs- und prozessorientierte Grundlagen. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49395-2. United Nation Environment Programme and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP SETAC). 2013. The methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) United Nations (UN). 1987. Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future United Nations (UN). 2000. UN global compact United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2009, ed. Catherine Benoît and Bernard Mazijn. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2020. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020. ed. Catherine Benoît Norris, Marzia Traverso, Sabrina Neugebauer, Elisabeth Ekener, Thomas Schaubroeck, Sara Russo Garrido, Markus Berger, Sonia Valdivia, Annekatrin Lehmann, Matthias Finkbeiner, and Gabriella Arcese. Valdivia, Sonia, Jana Gerta Backes, Marzia Traverso, Guido Sonnemann, Stefano Cucurachi, Jeroen B. Guinée, Thomas Schaubroeck, Matthhias Finkbeiner, Noemie Leroy-Parmentier, Cássia Ugaya, Claudia Peña, Alessandra Zamagni, Atsushi Inaba, Milena Amaral, Markus Berger, Jolanta Dvarioniene, Tatiana Vakhitova, Catherine Benoit-Norris, Martina Prox, Rajendra Foolmaun, and Mark Goedkoop. 2021. Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(9):1900–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021- 01958-2. Vezzoli, Carlo. 2018. Design for environmental sustainability. London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4471-7364-9. Weidema Pedersen, Bo. 2018. The social footprint. A practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 23(3):700–709. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11367-016-1172-z. K 626 Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (2023) 75:587–626 Wen, Hui, and George Deltas. 2022. Global corporate social responsibility reporting regulation. Contemporary Economic Policy 40(1):98–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12548. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2016. Social life cycle metrics for chemical products Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. K