Jump to content

Beyond the metrics: The Social and Ecological implications of the Scope 1, 2, and 3 approach

From Impact Evaluation Foundation

Introduction

As global temperatures continue to rise despite decades of carbon accounting and mitigation efforts, the limitations of our current frameworks become increasingly apparent. The latest IPCC reports indicate that we are not on track to meet the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C, highlighting the urgent need to reassess our approach to environmental accountability. While the Scope 1, 2, and 3 framework has provided a foundation for corporate climate action, mounting evidence suggests that this system's narrow focus on carbon metrics fails to address the complex, interconnected challenges of climate change and ecological degradation.

Recent analysis from the United Nations Environment Programme demonstrates that even if all companies achieved their current Scope-based emission reduction targets, we would still face devastating biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and social disruption. This disconnect between carbon accounting success and continued environmental degradation raises fundamental questions about the adequacy of our current frameworks.

The corporate sector, influenced by investor demands, consumer expectations, and regulatory mandates, increasingly recognizes that understanding and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is both a strategic priority and a moral imperative. However, organizations require more comprehensive frameworks that clarify not only the origins and dynamics of their emissions but also their broader ecological and social impacts. This need becomes particularly urgent as major policy shifts, accelerating technological advancements, and evolving standards reshape the landscape of corporate environmental accountability.

This chapter examines how the current Scope framework, while valuable, systematically overlooks critical aspects of environmental impact and sustainability. Through detailed analysis of the healthcare and forestry sectors, we demonstrate how this carbon-centric approach fails to capture the complex interactions between human activities and natural systems. We then explore how these limitations extend across all sectors of the economy, presenting a compelling case for expanding beyond traditional carbon accounting to embrace a more holistic approach to environmental stewardship.

The findings presented here have significant implications for international climate policy and corporate governance. As UN member states work to strengthen their nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, understanding the limitations of current accounting frameworks becomes crucial for developing more effective climate action strategies. This analysis provides policymakers and corporate leaders with a roadmap for moving beyond simple carbon metrics toward a more comprehensive understanding of environmental impact and responsibility.

By examining the intersection of carbon accounting, ecosystem health, and social welfare, this chapter aims to inform the development of new frameworks that better serve the complex challenges of our time. The evidence and recommendations presented here support the urgent need for international cooperation in establishing more comprehensive environmental accounting standards that can drive meaningful progress toward true sustainability.

The Scope Framework and its Significance

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s classification of emissions into three scopes has become the widely accepted standard for corporate GHG accounting:

  • Scope 1: Direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the organization (e.g., on-site fuel combustion, company-owned vehicle fleets).
  • Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy (e.g., electricity, steam, heating, or cooling).
  • Scope 3: All other indirect emissions occurring along the value chain, both upstream (e.g., raw materials, supplier operations) and downstream (e.g., product use, disposal).

Integrating Lifecycle Assessment (LCA)

While the Scope framework brings conceptual clarity, it can still leave hidden emissions unaddressed. Incorporating a comprehensive Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) approach into emissions accounting provides the granularity needed to pinpoint inefficiencies and opportunities. An LCA examines every stage of a product’s life—from raw material extraction, manufacturing, and distribution, to usage and end-of-life management—revealing how decisions made at one stage reverberate through the entire value chain.

This integrated approach can highlight, for instance, where sustainable materials sourcing reduces not just upstream Scope 3 emissions but also energy intensity in downstream manufacturing (influencing Scope 2), ultimately guiding better product design choices that decrease consumer energy use (thereby addressing downstream Scope 3 as well).

While Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a valuable tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of a product or process, it has inherent limitations in addressing the broader ecological and social dimensions of sustainability. Traditional LCA methods primarily focus on quantifiable environmental impacts, typically categorized into midpoint impact categories such as:

  • Climate change: Measured by greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., CO2, methane).
  • Resource depletion: Quantified by the extraction of raw materials (e.g., fossil fuels, minerals).
  • Acidification: Caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, leading to acid rain.
  • Eutrophication: Driven by nutrient runoff (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus) causing excessive algae growth in water bodies.
  • Ozone depletion: Resulting from the release of ozone-depleting substances (e.g., CFCs).
  • Smog formation: Caused by emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, contributing to air pollution.
  • Human toxicity: Assesses the potential harm to human health from exposure to toxic substances.
  • Ecotoxicity: Evaluates the impact of pollutants on ecosystems and their inhabitants.

These categories, while comprehensive, often overlook crucial aspects like biodiversity loss, ecosystem health, social justice, and human well-being, which are harder to quantify and incorporate into the assessment (Ekvall et al., 2019). Furthermore, LCA can be limited by data availability, subjective choices in system boundaries and impact categories, and potential biases in data interpretation (Curran et al. 2005). Even with advancements like Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), which attempts to integrate social and economic aspects alongside environmental ones, there are still limitations in capturing the full complexity of these issues. For example, accurately assessing social impacts like fair labor practices or community well-being throughout complex supply chains remains a significant challenge.

Therefore, even when used as a complement to the Scope 1, 2, and 3 approach, relying solely on LCA for decision-making remains limited due to the reasons mentioned above. These include its inability to fully capture critical social and ecological considerations, as well as its narrow focus on quantifiable emissions and a reduced set of impact indicators. It is crucial to use LCA and the Scope 1,2 and 3 approach as part of a broader sustainability assessment toolkit, incorporating other methods that address these inherent limitations and provide a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability performance. The following section dives deeper into each Scope and how LCA enriches its analysis and guides improvement measures. Scope 3 is discussed more extensively due to its broad reach and complexity.

Classification of Industry Activities under Scope 1, 2, and 3

Scope 1 Emissions:

Scope 1 Emissions arise from sources an organization directly controls, such as:

  • On-site combustion: Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, including natural gas, diesel, and gasoline, for heating, cooling, or power generation.
  • Industrial processes: Emissions from chemical reactions, such as those involved in manufacturing processes.
  • Fugitive emissions: Unintentional releases of greenhouse gases, such as methane from leaks in natural gas pipelines or refrigerant leaks from air conditioning systems.

Strategies for Reducing Scope 1 Emissions:

  1. Energy Efficiency:
    • Implement energy-efficient technologies, such as high-efficiency motors and lighting.
    • Optimize operational processes to reduce energy consumption.
    • Invest in building automation systems to control energy usage.
  2. Fuel Switching:
    • Transition to cleaner fuels, such as natural gas or renewable fuels, where feasible.
    • Explore the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power.
  3. Process Optimization:
    • Improve process efficiency to reduce energy and material consumption.
    • Implement waste reduction and recycling programs.
    • Adopt advanced manufacturing techniques, such as additive manufacturing.
  4. Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS):
    • Capture carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes and store them underground or utilize them in other products.

By employing LCA, a company might identify that certain production process changes have ripple effects, improving efficiency early in the lifecycle and cutting total embodied emissions. For example, by switching to a more energy-efficient production process, a company may reduce not only its direct emissions but also the emissions associated with the production and transportation of raw materials and energy.

Scope 2 Emissions:

Scope 2 emissions originate from purchased energy (electricity, steam, heating, cooling) that is generated off-site. These emissions, while indirect, are directly influenced by a company’s energy demand profile and the carbon intensity of the regional or contractual power mix.

Strategies for Reducing Scope 2 Emissions:

  • Procure low-carbon or renewable energy through power purchase agreements (PPAs) or Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).
  • Invest in on-site renewable installations (e.g., solar PV, wind turbines) where possible.
  • Implement energy-efficiency upgrades (e.g., LED lighting, high-efficiency HVAC) and advanced energy management systems.

From an LCA perspective, reducing Scope 2 emissions can significantly lower downstream environmental impacts across the entire product lifecycle. By procuring low-carbon energy or investing in on-site renewable energy, companies can reduce the overall carbon footprint of their operations.

Specifically, LCA can help identify:

  • Energy-intensive stages: Pinpointing the stages in a product's lifecycle that consume the most energy, such as manufacturing or transportation.
  • Hotspot areas: Identifying regions with high carbon intensity in the electricity grid, allowing for targeted procurement strategies.
  • Indirect impacts: Assessing the environmental impacts of energy generation, including air pollution, water use, and land use change.

Scope 3 Emissions:

Scope 3 emissions often represent the largest share of a company's GHG footprint and are typically the most difficult to quantify and influence. They encompass emissions from various sources throughout the value chain, including:

  • Upstream emissions:
    • Purchased goods and services: Emissions from the production and transportation of raw materials and components.
    • Capital goods: Emissions associated with the production and transportation of machinery and equipment.
    • Fuel and energy-related activities: Emissions from the combustion of fuels used in company vehicles or by suppliers.
  • Downstream emissions:
    • Transportation and distribution: Emissions from the transportation of products to customers.
    • Use of sold products: Emissions from the use of products, such as the burning of fossil fuels in home heating or the energy consumption of electronic devices.
    • End-of-life treatment: Emissions from the disposal or recycling of products.

Strategies for Reducing Scope 3 Emissions:

  1. Supplier Engagement:
    • Collaborate with suppliers to set ambitious emissions reduction targets.
    • Provide technical assistance and financial incentives to support supplier initiatives.
    • Prioritize suppliers with strong sustainability practices.
  2. Circular Economy:
    • Design products for durability, repairability, and recyclability.
    • Implement take-back programs to recover valuable materials.
    • Explore opportunities for product reuse and refurbishment.
  3. Efficient Logistics:
    • Optimize transportation routes and modes to reduce fuel consumption.
    • Consolidate shipments to improve load factors.
    • Invest in fuel-efficient vehicles and technologies.
  4. Customer Engagement:
    • Educate customers about the environmental impact of product use.
    • Develop energy-efficient products and provide usage guidelines.
    • Offer product take-back and recycling programs.

By conducting an LCA, organizations can:

  1. Identify and Quantify Scope 3 Emissions:
    • Upstream emissions: These include emissions from raw material extraction, processing, and transportation.
    • Downstream emissions: These encompass emissions from product use, end-of-life treatment, and transportation to the end-user.
  2. Prioritize Hotspots:
    • Identify significant contributors: Pinpoint the stages in the lifecycle that have the most significant environmental impact.
    • Focus on high-impact areas: Target efforts to reduce emissions in areas with the greatest potential for improvement.
  3. Evaluate Mitigation Strategies:
    • Assess the effectiveness of different interventions: Evaluate the environmental benefits of various strategies, such as supplier engagement, product design, and end-of-life management.
    • Select the most impactful options: Prioritize actions that deliver the greatest reduction in emissions.
  4. Inform Decision-Making:
    • Support strategic planning: Use LCA results to develop long-term sustainability strategies.
    • Guide product design and innovation: Design products with reduced environmental impact.
    • Engage with suppliers: Collaborate with suppliers to improve their environmental performance.

By effectively managing Scope 3 emissions, organizations can:

  1. Enhance Long-Term Viability:
    • Mitigate climate change risks: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate action goals.
    • Improve brand reputation: Demonstrate environmental leadership and attract sustainability-conscious consumers.
    • Build strong relationships with stakeholders: Foster trust and collaboration with suppliers, customers, and investors.
  2. Improve Cost Competitiveness:
    • Optimize resource use: Identify opportunities to reduce energy and material consumption.
    • Minimize waste: Implement efficient production processes and waste reduction strategies.
    • Enhance supply chain resilience: Reduce reliance on volatile and environmentally harmful suppliers.
    • Access new markets: Comply with increasingly stringent environmental regulations and meet customer demands for sustainable products.

Frameworks, Standards, and Global Initiatives for Addressing Emissions

To effectively manage Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, companies must align with established frameworks, standards, and global initiatives. These resources provide crucial guidance for accurately measuring, reporting, and reducing emissions while ensuring compliance with evolving regulations. This section outlines key tools, protocols, and case studies that organizations can leverage to create robust climate strategies, foster transparency, and drive impactful change across the value chain. By exploring these initiatives, businesses can gain insights into best practices, sector-specific approaches, and global benchmarks to support their sustainability goals.

Established standards and protocols:

References

Reference authoritative bodies:

Professional advisors and industry groups offer further insights and tools:

Corporate and Sectoral Case Studies:

Educational and Informational Resources:

Other Relevant Initiatives and Tools:

Understanding the Role and Limitations of Techno-Commercial Approaches in Climate Change and Key Sectors

Techno-commercial approaches to climate change mitigation involve leveraging technological innovations and market mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. These strategies emphasize quantifiable outcomes and require substantial technological changes in energy and related sectors (Wangmo & Norbu, 2023). Climate finance and market mechanisms play crucial roles in supporting these technological advancements, particularly in climate-smart agriculture (Mume & Mohammed, 2022). Local governments are increasingly adopting climate action plans, with some utilizing marginal abatement cost curves to compare and prioritize emission reduction strategies based on life cycle emissions and costs (Kendall et al., 2020). Essentially, they treat climate change as a problem to be solved through technological innovation and market-driven solutions, with a focus on measurable results and economic viability (Alestra et al., 2023; UNFCCC 2009a, 2009b). They have been widely adopted across various sectors, due to their structured and outcome-driven nature.

Despite their strengths, techno-commercial frameworks to climate change mitigation often fall short when applied to wicked problems. These problems are characterized by conflicting stakeholder values, systemic uncertainties, and the intricate interdependence of social, cultural, and ecological dynamics (Head, 2014). Traditional approaches often fall short in addressing such issues, necessitating new problem-solving strategies. Researchers propose various frameworks to tackle wicked problems, including strategic adaptation processes (Head, 2014), integrated management heuristics (Weaver et al., 2023), collaborative business models (Henriques, 2018), and the Transition Design approach (Irwin, 2018). These frameworks emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, systemic thinking, and adaptive governance. They advocate for holistic approaches that consider social, technical, economic, and ecological dynamics.

Traditionally, "no-intervention zones" are geographic areas where direct action is ecologically unfeasible or culturally inadvisable due to their fragility, significance, or systemic complexity. Sustainability efforts in such zones prioritize preservation, observation, and participatory decision-making over disruptive interventions (Figueira & Fullman, 2019). However, this concept has broader applicability across various sectors where socio-technical or cultural dynamics render minimal interference preferable. Below are two examples, from healthcare and agriculture, along with their ecological and social dimensions.

Healthcare

Healthcare systems globally account for over 4% of CO₂ emissions, with this figure rising to nearly 10% in industrialized nations (Tee et al. 2024). Hospitals, in particular, exhibit the highest energy intensity of all publicly funded buildings, emitting 2.5 times more greenhouse gases than commercial buildings (Kamath et al., 2019; Psillaki et al., 2023). While the sector's priority is patient outcomes, sustainability strategies must address the broader ecological footprint through waste reduction, green procurement practices, and integrating renewable technologies.

Operating rooms and critical care units represent sector-specific "no-intervention zones" within healthcare. These spaces are subject to stringent sterilization, climate control, and operational protocols to ensure patient safety, making direct emissions reductions impractical (Humphreys et al., 2023). Improving energy efficiency in hospitals is challenging due to their critical nature and continuous operation (Psillaki et al., 2023). To address this issue, hospitals need standardized methodologies for reporting and reducing GHG emissions (Quitmann et al., 2021). Furthermore, exploring alternative energy technologies and raising awareness among hospital management and staff about energy conservation are crucial steps towards creating more sustainable healthcare facilities (Psillaki et al., 2023).

Rural healthcare systems face unique challenges in balancing sustainability with accessibility. Dispersed populations often require redundant infrastructure, which can increase emissions while ensuring essential healthcare delivery (Schoo et al., 2016). Telemedicine emerges as a promising solution, enhancing access to specialist care in underserved areas while reducing costs and improving service quality (Palozzi et al., 2020). Solar energy solutions offer another approach, providing reliable power for medical equipment and vaccine refrigeration, thus improving healthcare services and public health outcomes in rural settings (Izuka et al., 2023). These innovations contribute to the social component of sustainability in healthcare, which focuses on equity, accessibility, and patient satisfaction (Faezipour & Ferreira, 2013). Integrating telemedicine and decentralized renewable energy systems can help balance the need for equitable healthcare access with sustainability objectives, addressing the complex challenges faced by rural healthcare systems (Palozzi et al., 2020; Izuka et al., 2023).

Agriculture

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) plays a crucial role in preserving biodiversity and maintaining sustainable agricultural practices in indigenous and smallholder farming systems. These systems, covering millions of hectares worldwide, provide cultural and ecological services while ensuring food security (Altieri, 2004). TEK enables farmers to manage complex agroecosystems, conserve local crop varieties, and maintain traditional sociocultural organizations (Altieri, 2004; Orcherton, 2012). However, the transition to market economies and agricultural intensification can lead to the loss of TEK and destabilize these delicate systems (Gómez‐Baggethun et al., 2010). Protected areas can help preserve remaining TEK in developed countries, but strict protection may disrupt knowledge transmission if local practices are excluded (Gómez‐Baggethun et al., 2010). Recognizing the importance of indigenous soil knowledge and cultural sensitivity in agricultural development is crucial for creating successful, sustainable strategies that address the unique challenges faced by small-scale farmers (Pawluk et al., 1992).

The concept of no-intervention zones can extend to all sectors. For instance, conservation and urban planning is supported by research on social-ecological systems and systematic conservation planning. Protected areas are recognized as complex social-ecological systems, where ecological management is influenced by human factors (Cumming & Allen, 2017). Effective conservation strategies must integrate social values and ecosystem services, balancing ecological integrity with urban development (Lin et al., 2017). This holistic approach to environmental protection emphasizes the preservation of functional wholes, including both natural reserves and architectural heritage (Horáček, 2020). Sustainability science emerges as a crucial discipline for understanding the interactions between humans and biomes, bridging natural and social sciences (Quinn & Quinn, 2020). Across these studies, the importance of considering spatial context, scale, and the resilience of protected areas is highlighted, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary research and complex adaptive systems approaches in developing sustainable conservation strategies (Cumming & Allen, 2017; Horáček, 2020).

Techno-commercial solutions, while effective in optimizing measurable outputs, often neglect the nuanced and long-term impacts on cultural and ecological systems. This reductionist approach risks marginalizing vulnerable communities, disrupting local ecosystems, and eroding cultural continuity.

Recent research emphasizes the importance of moving beyond traditional sustainability metrics to embrace a more holistic, biocultural approach. This approach integrates cultural participation, ecological preservation, and community well-being into sustainability planning (Worts, 2006; Caillon et al., 2017). By recognizing the interconnectedness of human and ecological systems, biocultural approaches can help overcome the human-nature dichotomy often present in global sustainability initiatives (Caillon et al., 2017; Sterling et al., 2017b). These methods facilitate the development of indicators that capture both ecological and social-cultural factors, enabling linkages across scales and dimensions (Sterling et al., 2017). Participatory planning techniques, guided by frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, can help align local sustainability efforts with global priorities while ensuring community-led decision-making (Szetey et al., 2020). This co-creative approach emphasizes flexibility, sensitivity to local contexts, and the integration of diverse knowledge systems, ultimately leading to more effective and culturally appropriate conservation strategies (Caillon et al., 2017; Sterling et al., 2017b).

Beyond the Scopes: Integrating One Health for Sustainable Public Health Systems

One critical limitation of the Scope framework is its inability to fully account for how healthcare systems impact and depend on natural ecosystems. The healthcare sector significantly contributes to environmental degradation through resource consumption and pollution, which in turn threatens public health (Hancock, 2016; Cimprich et al., 2019). This creates a paradoxical situation where healthcare systems harm the very populations they aim to serve. Pharmaceutical pollution, in particular, poses risks to biodiversity, antimicrobial resistance, and sustainable development (Thornber et al., 2022). The current public health framework is inadequate to address these challenges, necessitating a revised approach that considers the non-human environment (Gurevich, 2020). Proposed solutions include adopting a Restorative Commons theory to bridge environmental and medical ethics (Gurevich, 2020), and applying industrial ecology principles to healthcare sustainability (Cimprich et al., 2019). As healthcare demands increase due to population growth, aging demographics, and technological advancements, there is an urgent need to integrate environmental considerations into healthcare strategies to mitigate its ecological footprint (Hancock, 2016; Thornber et al., 2022).

Additionally, the Scope framework fails to address the broader societal and environmental benefits of reducing the demand on healthcare systems—a critical aspect that the One Health approach seeks to address. One Health emphasizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, advocating for strategies that prevent disease and improve well-being at the source (Mackenzie et al., 2013). By reducing the incidence of zoonotic diseases, mitigating environmental health risks, and improving population health through proactive measures, the One Health approach can lower the burden on healthcare systems. This, in turn, reduces resource consumption and GHG emissions associated with healthcare delivery.

For instance, initiatives under the One Health framework—such as habitat preservation to minimize human-wildlife interactions, integrated pest management to reduce vector-borne diseases, and improved sanitation systems—can prevent health crises before they arise. These measures not only promote ecological resilience but also reduce the need for resource-intensive medical interventions. By breaking the cycle of reactive healthcare, such an approach could lead to significant reductions in emissions, a factor not considered under the traditional Scope 1, 2, and 3 framework. The economic and environmental benefits of preventive interventions have been well documented (Horton, 2017).

The One Health approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, offering a holistic framework for addressing complex global challenges (Mumford et al., 2023). While ecosystem services frameworks often neglect human health and feedback mechanisms (Ford et al., 2015), One Health research aims to integrate these elements for comprehensive problem-solving (Lebov et al., 2017). The approach advocates for transdisciplinary collaboration, incorporating diverse knowledge systems and worldviews to enhance sustainability and resilience (Mumford et al., 2023). However, implementing One Health faces challenges, including the need for clear articulation of core values and objectives across sectors (Sleeman et al., 2019). To maximize its potential, One Health should expand its scope, approach, and worldview inclusivity, embracing systems thinking and harm reduction strategies (Mumford et al., 2023; Sleeman et al., 2019). This evolution could lead to more effective solutions for global health and environmental issues, optimizing outcomes for all (Sleeman et al., 2019).

While the Scope framework provides a valuable starting point for quantifying and reducing emissions, it risks oversimplifying the complex interactions between health systems, nature, and society. By failing to recognize the potential of holistic strategies like One Health, it misses an opportunity to align healthcare sustainability with ecological preservation.

In conclusion, integrating a One Health perspective into carbon accounting could transform public health systems from reactive emitters to proactive agents of sustainability. By addressing the root causes of health challenges through nature-based and preventive solutions, the One Health approach not only enhances population health but also alleviates the environmental footprint of healthcare systems. This alignment of public health goals with ecological sustainability principles offers a more effective, equitable, and comprehensive pathway to managing GHG emissions in the health sector—one that extends beyond the limitations of the Scope framework to promote a healthier future for both people and the planet.

Integrated Approaches to Forestry and Land Use: Beyond the Scope Framework

The Scope 1, 2, and 3 framework faces challenges when applied to forestry and land use due to the sector's complexity. The land use sector, including forestry and agriculture, significantly contributes to global emissions and is impacted by climate change (Viña et al., 2016). While decarbonization of energy supply is possible for agriculture and forestry by 2050, agriculture is unlikely to reach net-zero emissions, whereas forestry can become carbon negative (Teske & Nagrath, 2022). The EU's inclusion of land use, land use change, and forestry in its 2030 climate change policy framework highlights the sector's importance and regulatory challenges (Savaresi & Perugini, 2019). International forest governance involves diverse actors and competing interests, complicating the translation of goals into coordinated action. Integrating forests into the climate regime offers potential solutions, but conflicts over forest valuation persist (Rayner et al., 2010). These factors underscore the limitations of applying the Scopes approach to forestry and land use.

One key limitation is the inability to account for the complex carbon dynamics of forests. Unlike other sectors, forests function as both carbon sinks and sources, with carbon sequestration processes occurring over decades or centuries (Pan et al., 2011). The Scopes approach, which emphasizes short-term emissions, struggles to reflect these long-term dynamics. As a result, policies based on this framework risk being overly simplistic and may not align with the temporal realities of forest ecosystems.

Spatial variability further complicates the application of the Scopes approach. Forest ecosystems vary significantly across regions, influenced by local ecological and climatic conditions. The use of standardized emission factors under the Scopes framework often fails to capture these regional differences, leading to inaccuracies in carbon accounting and potentially misguided policy decisions (IPCC, 2006).

Indirect impacts and leakage present additional challenges. Forestry activities aimed at reducing emissions in one area can unintentionally lead to increased deforestation or degradation in another. This phenomenon, known as leakage, highlights the difficulty of capturing the broader effects of forestry interventions within the Scopes framework (Angelsen, 2008). Concrete examples further illustrate the limitations of the Scopes approach in forestry and land use. Tropical rainforest conservation, for instance, involves socio-economic pressures, leakage risks, and the need for sustainable livelihoods, all of which are inadequately captured by the Scopes framework. Similarly, boreal forest fire management often fails to account for the ecological role of fire, leading to policies that suppress natural fires and inadvertently increase the risk of more severe blazes (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2007). Agroforestry systems, which integrate trees, crops, and livestock, offer potential for climate change mitigation, but face barriers in implementation and carbon accounting due to lack of clear classification systems and methodological constraints (Golicz et al., 2022).

To address these challenges, a more integrated and holistic approach is needed. Such a framework would recognize the multifaceted roles of forests, incorporating carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem services. It would also account for long-term and regional differences in forest dynamics, ensuring policies are both effective and equitable. Crucially, this necessitates aligned education, well-being, and participation-focused community awareness. This means fostering a deep understanding of forest ecosystems and their crucial role in climate regulation, biodiversity, and human well-being through accessible educational programs and community engagement initiatives (Mcafee et al., 2010; Sterling et al., 2017). This includes promoting citizen science initiatives to monitor forest health and carbon storage, integrating indigenous knowledge into forest management practices, and developing educational resources that are culturally relevant and tailored to local communities. It also means creating opportunities for meaningful participation in decision-making processes, ensuring that local communities have a voice in shaping forest management policies that affect their lives and livelihoods. This participatory approach aligns with the principles of environmental justice and recognizes the importance of local knowledge and perspectives in achieving sustainable forest management (Akalibey et al., 2024; Ballard et al., 2008; Carson et al., 2018; Klooster, 2002; Schlosberg, 2013). Furthermore, promoting well-being through access to green spaces, nature-based recreation, and sustainable livelihoods linked to forest management can create a positive feedback loop, strengthening community stewardship and promoting long-term forest health (Masterson et al., 2019; Sullivan, 2014).

The One Health approach offers a valuable framework for integrating biodiversity conservation, public health, and sustainable development in forest ecosystems (Romanelli et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2024). This approach can enhance the effectiveness of forestry and land use strategies by addressing the interconnectedness of forest ecosystems and human well-being. Implementing sustainable forest management practices, such as lengthening harvest cycles and restricting harvests on public lands, can significantly increase carbon storage and provide co-benefits like improved water availability and biodiversity (Law et al., 2018). Community-based forestry programs that support sustainable livelihoods can simultaneously improve local economies and reduce emissions (Rietig et al., 2022). The One Health approach also emphasizes the importance of disease surveillance in forest ecosystems to mitigate potential public health risks associated with human-wildlife interactions (Zhang et al., 2024). Integrating climate objectives with economic and biodiversity goals is crucial for achieving sustainable forest management and just transitions in the forestry sector (Rietig et al., 2022).

In conclusion, the Scope 1, 2, and 3 framework offers a starting point for carbon accounting in forestry and land use but requires significant adaptation to address the unique challenges of this sector. A systems-based, integrative approach that considers long-term dynamics, spatial variability, and the interconnectedness of ecological and social systems, coupled with aligned education, well-being, and participation-focused community awareness, is essential for developing effective and sustainable strategies for mitigating climate change and managing forest resources.

From Carbon Accounting to Ecological Reverence: A Systems Analysis of Business Sustainability Frameworks

As demonstrated through the healthcare and land use sectors, the limitations of the Scope framework extend across all business sectors. Recent research highlights how carbon accounting frameworks often lead to a commodification of nature, causing individuals and organizations to disconnect from their fundamental relationship with the environment (Martineau & LaFontaine, 2019). The focus on carbon flows rather than stocks can result in outcomes that fail to recognize the broader benefits of protecting stable carbon reservoirs in natural systems (Keith et al., 2021).

The challenge extends beyond carbon accounting to encompass multiple ecological dimensions that businesses impact. These include biodiversity and ecosystem function, where even carbon-neutral operations can severely impact local biodiversity through habitat fragmentation and disruption of species interactions (Harangozó et al., 2015). As the energy sector shifts towards low-carbon operations, potential trade-offs in water use across the electricity life cycle emerge, particularly in water consumption for biomass irrigation and solar power facility construction (Dodder et al., 2016). Similarly, soil health and biogeochemical cycles are frequently overlooked, despite their crucial role in carbon storage and ecosystem resilience (Improving the Visibility of Soil Health in Corporate Reporting, 2024).

A particularly significant oversight is the failure to account for ecosystem services, estimated to provide over $125 trillion worth of unpriced value to businesses annually (Environmental Profit and Loss Account, 2024). These services include pollination, water purification, soil formation, climate regulation, and cultural services – all of which remain largely unaccounted for in current carbon-focused frameworks.

To address these limitations, businesses across all sectors must adopt what we term "integrated ecological accounting." This approach requires:

  • Recognition of ecological complexity beyond carbon metrics
  • Alignment of business timeframes with natural processes
  • Integration of ecosystem services valuation
  • Active community participation in decision-making
  • Support for ecological education and awareness

The path toward truly sustainable business practices requires a three-pronged approach:

First, educational alignment must integrate ecological systems thinking at all levels, from formal business education to community awareness programs. This includes continuous learning programs for business leaders and initiatives that build ecological literacy within communities.

Second, businesses must explicitly connect environmental stewardship with human and ecological well-being by integrating health metrics into performance indicators, recognizing traditional ecological knowledge, and developing nature-based solutions that benefit both human and ecological communities.

Third, successful implementation requires active community engagement through collaborative decision-making, shared monitoring systems, and co-creation of sustainability goals. This participatory approach ensures that business practices align with local ecological knowledge and community needs.

By adopting such a holistic framework, businesses can transition from mere carbon accounting to an ethos of ecological reverence that balances profitability with the preservation of our planet's complex, interconnected systems. This transformation is essential across all sectors, requiring a fundamental shift in how businesses interact with and value natural systems.

Conclusion

The Scope 1, 2, and 3 framework, while providing a structured approach to greenhouse gas accounting, fundamentally falls short in addressing wicked problems that characterize our most pressing environmental challenges. This analysis has revealed how these carbon-centric metrics prove particularly inadequate when confronting complex challenges in public health systems and forestry management, where immediate operational needs and long-term ecological sustainability often exist in tension.

In public health systems, the framework fails to capture how healthcare delivery impacts broader ecosystem health and how environmental degradation, in turn, affects public health outcomes. Similarly, in forestry and land use, the framework's rigid temporal boundaries cannot adequately account for the complex carbon dynamics of forest ecosystems, which operate on timescales far beyond conventional business metrics.

The framework's limitations become especially apparent in its inability to capture the profound impacts on both cultural and geographical ecologies. Current carbon accounting methods fail to recognize how business interventions can disrupt traditional practices, damage local ecosystems, and erode cultural heritage - effects that extend far beyond measurable emissions. This is particularly evident in healthcare settings, indigenous territories, and forest-dependent communities, where standardized emissions reduction approaches may inadvertently cause more harm than benefit.

Furthermore, the current framework's focus on quantifiable metrics overlooks the critical need for aligned education, well-being, and participation-focused community awareness. Successful environmental stewardship requires more than emissions targets; it demands the development of deep ecological understanding within communities, the promotion of holistic well-being that encompasses both human and environmental health, and the meaningful engagement of stakeholders in decision-making processes.

Perhaps most critically, adherence to Scope 1, 2, and 3 targets alone does not guarantee that a business becomes truly nature-reverent. While organizations may achieve their emissions reduction goals, they may simultaneously continue practices that degrade ecosystems, diminish biodiversity, and undermine community resilience. True sustainability requires a fundamental shift from viewing nature as a resource to be managed to recognizing it as a complex system to be preserved and restored.

The path forward demands new frameworks that extend beyond carbon accounting to embrace the full complexity of socio-ecological systems. These frameworks must prioritize community participation, respect cultural and ecological boundaries, and foster deep understanding of natural systems. Only through such a holistic approach can businesses transition from merely measuring their environmental impact to becoming genuine stewards of ecological health and community well-being.

Cited references

  1. Akalibey, S., Hlaváčková, P., Schneider, J., Fialová, J., Darkwah, S.A., & Ahenkan, A. (2024). Integrating indigenous knowledge and culture in sustainable forest management via global environmental policies. Journal of Forest Science. https://doi.org/10.17221/20%2F2024-jfs
  2. Alestra, C., Cette, G., Chouard, V., & Lecat, R. (2023). How Can Technology Significantly Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation? Banque de France Working Paper #9091. https://www.banque-france.fr/system/files/2023-02/wp909.pdf
  3. Altieri, M.A. (2004). Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295%282004%29002%5B0035%3ALEATFI%5D2.0.CO%3B2
  4. Andrae, A. S. G., & Edler, T. (2015). On global electricity usage of communication technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges, 6(1), 117-157. https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117
  5. Ballard, H.L., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., & Sturtevant, V.E. (2008). Integration of local ecological knowledge and conventional science: A study of seven community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society, 13, 37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02594-130237
  6. Bond-Lamberty, B., Peckham, S. D., Ahl, D. E., & Gower, S. T. (2007). Fire as the dominant driver of central Canadian boreal forest carbon balance. Nature, 450(7169), 870-873.
  7. Caillon, S., Cullman, G., Verschuuren, B., & Sterling, E.J. (2017). Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches : Including ecological well-being in resilience indicators. Ecology and Society, 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09746-220427
  8. Carson, S.L., Kentatchime, F., Nana, E.D., Njabo, K.Y., Cole, B.L., & Godwin, H.A. (2018). Indigenous Peoples' Concerns About Loss of Forest Knowledge: Implications for Forest Management. Conservation and Society, 16, 431. https://doi.org/10.4103/CS.CS_17_105
  9. Cimprich, A., Santillán-Saldivar, J., Thiel, C. L., Sonnemann, G., & Young, S. B. (2019). Potential for industrial ecology to support healthcare sustainability: Scoping review of a fragmented literature and conceptual framework for future research. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(6), 1344–1352. https://doi.org/10.1111/JIEC.12921
  10. Cumming, G.S., & Allen, C.R. (2017). Protected areas as social-ecological systems: perspectives from resilience and social-ecological systems theory. Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 27 6, 1709-1717 . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28618079
  11. Curran, M. A. (2013). Life cycle assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 2(3), 273-277. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211339813000221
  12. Destoumieux-Garzón, D., Moulin, L., Dachez, C., Duboz, R., Epelboin, Y., Gomart, S., ... & Vourc'h, G. (2018). The One Health concept. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 202. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00202
  13. Dodder, R.S., Barnwell, J., & Yelverton, W.H. (2016). Scenarios for Low Carbon and Low Water Electric Power Plant Operations: Implications for Upstream Water Use. Environmental science & technology, 50 21, 11460-11470 . https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.6B03048
  14. Ekvall, T., Azapagic, A., Finnveden, G., Rydberg, T., Weidema, B. P., & Zamagni, A. (2016). Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(3), 293-296. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-015-1026-0
  15. Faezipour, M., & Ferreira, S. (2013). A System Dynamics Perspective of Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare. Conference on Systems Engineering Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.016
  16. Figueira, C., & Fullman, A.R. (2019). Rethinking Cultural Relations and Exchange in the Critical Zone. Sociology of the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24646-4_14
  17. Ford, A.E., Graham, H., & White, P.C. (2015). Integrating Human and Ecosystem Health Through Ecosystem Services Frameworks. Ecohealth, 12, 660 - 671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-015-1041-4
  18. Golicz, K., Bellingrath‐Kimura, S.D., Breuer, L., & Wartenberg, A.C. (2022). Carbon accounting in European agroforestry systems – Key research gaps and data needs. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100134
  19. Gómez‐Baggethun, E., Mingorría, S., Reyes‐García, V., Calvet, L., & Montes, C. (2010). Traditional Ecological Knowledge Trends in the Transition to a Market Economy: Empirical Study in the Doñana Natural Areas. Conservation Biology, 24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01401.x
  20. Gurevich, R. (2020). Restorative Commons as an Expanded Ethical Framework for Public Health and Environmental Sustainability. The New Bioethics, 26, 125 - 140. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2020.1767917
  21. Hancock, T. (2016). Healthcare in the Anthropocene: Challenges and Opportunities. Healthcare quarterly, 19 3, 17-22 . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27808018
  22. Harangozó, G., Széchy, A., Zilahy, G. (2015). Corporate Sustainability Footprints—A Review of Current Practices. In: Schaltegger, S., Zvezdov, D., Alvarez Etxeberria, I., Csutora, M., Günther, E. (eds) Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_3
  23. Head, B.W. (2014). Evidence, Uncertainty, and Wicked Problems in Climate Change Decision Making in Australia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 663 - 679. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1240
  24. Henriques, I. (2018). Addressing Wicked Problems Using New Business Models. Economic Alternatives, 463-466. https://www.unwe.bg/uploads/Alternatives/1_Irene_Henriques_EA_4_2018_en.pdf
  25. Hobbs, R.J., Hallett, L.M., Ehrlich, P.R., & Mooney, H. (2011). Intervention Ecology: Applying Ecological Science in the Twenty-first Century. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.6
  26. Horáček, M. (2020). Proteger la vida: Los objetivos comunes de las reservas naturales y el patrimonio arquitectónico. https://doi.org/10.51303/JTBAU.VI1.364
  27. Horton, R. (2017). Offline: One Health: a new architecture for global health security. The Lancet, 390(10103), 1636.
  28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.
  29. Irwin, T. (2018). The Emerging Transition Design Approach. Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Diseño y Comunicación. https://doi.org/10.21606/DRS.2018.210
  30. Izuka, U., Ojo, G. G., Ayodeji, S. A., Ndiwe, T. C., & Ehiaguina, V. E. (2023). POWERING RURAL HEALTHCARE WITH SUSTAINABLE ENERGY: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLAR SOLUTIONS. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 4(4), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.51594/ESTJ.V4I4.582
  31. Kamath, S., Kamath, R., Kamath, L., Salins, P., Soman, B., Raj, A., & D’Souza, R. (2019). Engineering green hospitals: an Imperative for a sustainable future. http://www.iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/Journal_uploads/IJCIET/VOLUME_10_ISSUE_2/IJCIET_10_02_054.pdf
  32. Keith, H., Vardon, M.J., Obst, C.G., Young, V., Houghton, R.A., & Mackey, B.G. (2021). Evaluating nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and conservation requires comprehensive carbon accounting. The Science of the total environment, 769, 144341 . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33736241
  33. Kendall, A., Harvey, J.T., Butt, A.A., Lozano, M.T., Saboori, A., & Kim, C. (2020). Greenhouse Gas Reduction Opportunities for Local Governments: A Quantification and Prioritization Framework. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2SJ1HVR
  34. Klooster, D. (2002). Toward Adaptive Community Forest Management: Integrating Local Forest Knowledge with Scientific Forestry*. Economic Geography, 78, 43 - 70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2002.tb00175.x
  35. Law, B.E., Hudiburg, T.W., Berner, L.T., Kent, J., Buotte, P.C., & Harmon, M.E. (2018). Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 3663 - 3668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720064115
  36. Lebov, J.F., Grieger, K.D., Womack, D.M., Zaccaro, D.J., Whitehead, N., Kowalcyk, B., & Macdonald, P.D. (2017). A framework for One Health research. One Health, 3, 44 - 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2017.03.004
  37. Lin, Y., Lin, W., Li, H.Y., Wang, Y., Hsu, C., Lien, W., Anthony, J., & Petway, J.R. (2017). Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed. Sustainability, 9, 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU9050718
  38. Mackenzie, J. S., Jeggo, M., & Robertson, J. (2013). One Health: the interface between humans, animals and the environment. Veterinary Microbiology, 162(1), 1-3.
  39. Martineau, R., & LaFontaine, J.P. (2019). When carbon accounting systems make us forget nature: from commodification to reification. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2018-0178
  40. Masterson, V.A., Vetter, S., Chaigneau, T., Daw, T.M., Selomane, O., Hamann, M., Wong, G.K., Mellegård, V., Cocks, M.L., & Tengö, M. (2019). Revisiting the relationships between human well-being and ecosystems in dynamic social-ecological systems: Implications for stewardship and development. Global Sustainability, 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.5
  41. Mcafee, B.J., Camino, R.D., Burton, P.J., Eddy, B.G., Fähser, L., Messier, C., Reed, M.G., Spies, T.A., Vides, R.R., Baker, C., Barriga, M.L., Campos, J.J., Corrales, O.M., Espinoza, L.P., Gibson, S., Glatthorn, J., Martineau-Delisle, C., Prins, C., & Rose, N. (2010). Managing forested landscapes for socio-ecological resilience. https://www.iufro.org/download/file/5909/4668/399-440_pdf/
  42. Müller, E. (2020). Regenerative development as natural solution for sustainability. The Elgar Companion to Geography, Transdisciplinarity and Sustainability, 201–218. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786430106.00021
  43. Mume, I.D., & Mohammed, F. (2022). Review on the Link between Technological Change, Climate Finance, and Market in Mitigating Climate Change. International Journal of Weather, Climate Change and Conservation Research. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijwcccr.15%2Fvol8n1pp15
  44. Mumford, E.L., Martinez, D.J., Tyance-Hassell, K., Cook, A.J., Hansen, G.R., Labonté, R., Mazet, J.A., Mumford, E.C., Rizzo, D.M., Togami, E., Vreedzaam, A., & Parrish-Sprowl, J. (2023). Evolution and expansion of the One Health approach to promote sustainable and resilient health and well-being: A call to action. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1056459
  45. Orcherton, D.F. (2012). Traditional ecological knowledge ( TEK ) and biodiversity conservation Strengthening community-based approaches ( CBA ) to conservation and building equitable partnerships in practice with indigenous peoples of Costa Rica. https://www.usp.ac.fj/fileadmin/files/Institutes/jps/PDF/Vol32/Article_8_-_Dan_Orcherton.pdf
  46. Palozzi, G., Schettini, I., & Chirico, A. (2020). Enhancing the Sustainable Goal of Access to Healthcare: Findings from a Literature Review on Telemedicine Employment in Rural Areas. Sustainability, 12(8), 3318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083318
  47. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R. A., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., ... & Hayes, D. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests. Science, 333(6045), 988-993.
  48. Pawluk, R.R., Sandor, J.A., & Tabor, J.A. (1992). The role of indigenous soil knowledge in agricultural development. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 47, 298-302.
  49. Prüss-Üstün, A., Wolf, J., Corvalán, C., Bos, R., & Neira, M. (2016). Preventing disease through healthy environments: a global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks. World Health Organization.
  50. Psillaki, M., Apostolopoulos, N., Makris, I.A., Liargovas, P., Apostolopoulos, S., Dimitrakopoulos, P., & Sklias, G. (2023). Hospitals’ Energy Efficiency in the Perspective of Saving Resources and Providing Quality Services through Technological Options: A Systematic Literature Review. Energies. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020755
  51. Quinn, C., & Quinn, J. (2020). Sustainability Science in Concept and Practice: An Introduction to Human and Social Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.12445-5
  52. Quitmann, C., Sauerborn, R., & Herrmann, A. (2021). Gaps in Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions by German Hospitals—A Systematic Grey Literature Review. Sustainability, 13, 1430. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13031430
  53. Rietig, K., Cashore, B., Clough, E., Long, G., Nathan, I., Peringer, C., Cansino, H., Censoro, J., & Muggleton, E. (2022). The ‘Net’ in Net-zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Achieving just transitions in the forestry sector through climate policy integration and learning. https://doi.org/10.5871/just-transitions-s-i%2Fk-r
  54. Romanelli, C., Hd, C., & Bf, D.S. (2014). The integration of biodiversity into One Health. Revue scientifique et technique, 33 2, 487-96 . https://doi.org/10.20506/RST.33.2.2291
  55. Romanello, M., Di Napoli, C., Green, C., Kennard, H., Cai, Y., Mallick, K., ... & Montgomery, H. (2022). The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: health at the mercy of fossil fuels. The Lancet, 400(10363), 1619-1654.
  56. Russell, S., Milne, M., & Dey, C. (2017). Accounts of nature and the nature of accounts: Critical reflections on environmental accounting and propositions for ecologically informed accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30, 1426-1458. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2017-3010
  57. Schlosberg, D. (2013). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and Nixon. Oxford University Press.
  58. Schoo, A., Lawn, S., & Carson, D. (2016). Towards equity and sustainability of rural and remote health services access: supporting social capital and integrated organisational and professional development. BMC health services research, 16, 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1359-9
  59. Sleeman, J.M., Richgels, K.L., White, C.L., & Stephen, C. (2019). Integration of wildlife and environmental health into a One Health approach. Revue scientifique et technique, 38 1, 91-102. https://doi.org/10.20506/RST.38.1.2944
  60. Sterling, E. J., Gómez, A., & Porzecanski, A. L. (2017). A global perspective on the intersection of biodiversity and cultural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1712), 20160292. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0292
  61. Sterling, E.J., Filardi, C.E., Toomey, A.H., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., Newell, J., Albert, S., Alvira, D., Bergamini, N., Blair, M.E., Boseto, D., Burrows, K., Bynum, N., Caillon, S., Caselle, J.E., Claudet, J., Cullman, G., Dacks, R., Eyzaguirre, P.B., Gray, S.A., Herrera, J.P., Kenilorea, P., Kinney, K.M., Kurashima, N., Macey, S.K., Malone, C., Mauli, S., McCarter, J., McMillen, H., Pascua, P., Pikacha, P.G., Porzecanski, A.L., de Robert, P., Salpeteur, M., Sirikolo, M., Stege, M.H., Stege, K.E., Ticktin, T., Vave, R., Wali, A., West, P., Winter, K.B., & Jupiter, S.D. (2017b). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 1798 - 1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6
  62. Sullivan, W. (2014). Wellbeing and Green Spaces in Cities. Wellbeing, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.WBWELL070
  63. Szetey, K., Moallemi, E.A., Ashton, E.J., Butcher, M.C., Sprunt, B., & Bryan, B.A. (2020). Participatory planning for local sustainability guided by the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io%2Fy2kdj
  64. Tee, N. C. H., Yeo, J. A., Choolani, M., Poh, K. K., & Ang, T. L. (2024). Healthcare in the era of climate change and the need for environmental sustainability. Singapore medical journal, 65(4), 204–210. https://doi.org/10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2024-035
  65. Thornber, K., Adshead, F., Balayannis, A., Brazier, R.A., Brown, R., Comber, S., Court, C.S., Davidson, I., Depledge, M., Farmer, C., Gibb, S., Hixson, R., Kirchhelle, C., Moore, K., Motta, M., Niemi, L., Owen, S.F., Pencheon, D., Pfleger, S., Pitchforth, E., Powell, N., Schmidt, W., Smith, R., Sowman, G., Tyler-Batt, W., Wilkinson, H., Wilson, E.C., Fleming, L.E., Gaze, W.H., & Tyler, C. (2022). First, do no harm: time for a systems approach to address the problem of health-care-derived pharmaceutical pollution. The Lancet. Planetary health, 6 12, e935-e937 . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36495886
  66. UNFCCC. (2019a). Climate action and support trends. 27-28pp. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Climate_Action_Support_Trends_2019.pdf
  67. UNFCCC. (2019b). Innovative approaches to accelerating and scaling up climate technology implementation for mitigation and adaptation. https://unfccc.int/ttclear/misc_/StaticFiles/gnwoerk_static/innovative_approaches/07a2f73969c945928ffa1ec74285f356/235654758e1343f788b1f1132bb109b8.pdf
  68. Wangmo, C., & Norbu, N. (2023). An Overview of Issues and Options for Technology Innovation and Climate Change Policy. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra%2Fv6-i6-80
  69. Watts, N., Amann, M., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Beagley, J., Belesova, K., Boykoff, M., ... & Costello, A. (2021). The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future. The Lancet, 398(10311), 1619-1662.
  70. Weaver, D., Moyle, B., McLennan, C., & Casali, L. (2023). Taming the wicked problem of climate change with "virtuous challenges": An integrated management heuristic. Journal of environmental management, 347, 119136 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119136
  71. Worts, D. (2006). Transformational Encounters: Reflections on Cultural Participation and Ecomuseology. Canadian journal of communication, 31. https://doi.org/10.22230/CJC.2006V31N1A1772
  72. Zhang, L., Liu, S., Guo, W., Lv, C., & Liu, X. (2024). Addressing biodiversity conservation, disease surveillance, and public health interventions through One Health approach in Hainan’s tropical rainforest. One Health Advances. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44280-023-00035-7

Additional References

  • Improving the Visibility of Soil Health in Corporate Reporting (2024). SSRN
  • Environmental Accounting and Sustainability: A Meta-Synthesis (2024). MDPI
  • Value-Transforming Financial, Carbon, and Biodiversity Footprint Accounting (2024). arXiv
  • Recognising Natural Capital on the Balance Sheet: Options for Water Utilities (2024). arXiv
  • Accounting for Sustainability: Integrating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Factors (2024). Inspirajournals
  • Corporate Sustainability Footprints—A Review of Current Practices (2024). Springer
  • Environmental Profit and Loss Account (2024). Wikipedia
  • Automation, Climate Change, and the Future of Farm Work: Cross-Disciplinary Lessons for Studying Dynamic Changes in Agricultural Health and Safety (2024). PMC
  • The Ethics of Wicked Problems: An Exegesis (2024). PMC
  • Renewables 2024 - Analysis and Forecasts to 2030 (2024). IEA
Retrieved from "https://ief.wiki/index.php?title=Beyond_the_metrics:_The_Social_and_Ecological_implications_of_the_Scope_1,_2,_and_3_approach&oldid=380"