Critical Success and Fail Factors concerning Initiatives that make Existing Business Parks more Sustainable

Critical Success and Fail Factors concerning

Initiatives that make Existing Business Parks

more Sustainable

Master thesis Technology Management

D.L.A. Theuvenet

Critical Success and Fail Factors concerning Initiatives that

make Existing Business Parks more Sustainable

Author

D.L.A.Theuvenet/s1287001

Master Technology Management – Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor DGMR J. de Vries

Supervisor University of Groningen dr. L. Maruster

Co-assessor prof. dr. ir. J. Slomp

Management Summery

Today’s business parks are facing a wide range of problems. One of these is that the parks

are not sustainable and this is manifested at different levels. Many parks are deteriorating

and becoming obsolete. Their energy costs are gradually rising and many seem to have lost

their appeal to the general public. These issues decrease their possibilities to compete and

thus their market position as a whole is negatively affected. As there is currently a huge

surplus of office space, the construction of new business parks does not seem the right way

to go in the Netherlands. Apart from this, building new business parks will decrease the value

of the existing ones. The present real challenge is thus how the existing business parks can

be made more sustainable.

Acknowledgements

In my opinion one of the biggest challenges we, the human family, are currently facing is to

find a way how we can live on this planet in a sustainable manner. As such this challenge

has my interest and I aspire to add to finding one of the many solutions needed to overcome

this challenge. Writing this thesis has been an exciting journey which gave me the

opportunity to get a better outlook on the often complex world of sustainability. It has been a

challenging expedition which added greatly to my knowledge of the subject, and myself.

During this trip I had the great privilege to be guided by a number of experts in this field

whom I sincerely would like to thank. Without the valuable comments of these mentors I

would not have completed this thesis

I would like to thank prof. dr. ir. Jannes Slomp as he gave me the opportunity to conduct this

research. During lunch and just before I had an appointment where the possible subjects of

my thesis would be discussed, I overheard a conversation that he was having with a

colleague on the issue of sustainability. When he told me that he knew of a company which

was looking for a student to conduct a research related to this issue it seemed too good to be

true, but a couple of weeks later I signed a contract to do a five month internship at DGMR in

the City of Drachten. Furthermore he was also the co-assessor of this thesis and even

though our contact was brief I want to thank him for his stimulating advice and encouraging

feedback.

Furthermore I would like to thank the employees at DGMR. During my internship in Drachten

and though not Frysian, they warmly welcomed me into their professional world. In particular

I want to thank my supervisors at DGMR, namely: Marlies Ballemans and Jaap de Vries.

Their enthusiasm is infectious and they were always willing to make time to answer my many

questions and provide me with helpful insights and advice. All in all, it was more than a

pleasure to work with them.

This thesis would certainly not have been possible without the kind cooperation of the 18

interviewees. It was more than inspiring to listen to all different perspectives and

experiences. After an interview I would often sit in the car enthused to learn more about all

different aspect that were discussed during the interview. I feel privileged that while coming

from different backgrounds all the interviewees made patiently time and that they willingly

shared their valuable opinions with me. Many thank to them for this.

I would also like to thank my multi-talented aunt Joyce Huisman. As she provided me with a

warm bed to sleep at their house in Bolsward, the travel distance to the DGMR office was

strongly reduced. Knowing there would be a delicious warm plate waiting always made me

happy on my way ‘home’. I am more than grateful that the family Huisman treated me as

their very own during my internship.

As this thesis also officially marks the end of my time as a student I would like to thank all the

people who supported me during this period. The many challenges to our world and the

search to meet these often deviated me from the path of a regular student and this has

certainly not always been easy for my parents. Nevertheless their support has always been

unconditional. A special thanks to my father who was a great help in revising my English.

Last but not least I would like to thank my fellow students Merry, Vincent, Aico, Christiaan,

Wouter, Michiel, Joost, Pieter, Jelmer, Hendrik-Jan and Carlijn for their friendships during

these fascinating years.

Table of contents

1.   Introduction ...2  

1.1

 

Problem situation ...2

 

1.2

 

Problem statement ...3

 

2.

 

Research design ...6

 

2.1

 

Research objective & research questions...6

 

2.2

 

Research methodology...6

 

3.   Theoretical framework ... 10  

3.1

 

The notion of sustainability ... 10

 

3.3

 

The notion of Sustainable Business Parks... 16

 

3.4

 

Sustainability in the context of a business park... 17

 

3.4.1

 

Determining the areas of impact on a business park ... 21

 

3.5

 

Defining an initiative that makes a business park more sustainable ... 25

 

4.   Case studies ... 26  

4.1

 

Initiatives that have been implemented on business parks... 26

 

4.2

 

Comparison of areas of impact... 29

 

5.

 

Data analysis ... 30

 

6.   Conclusion and Further research ... 42  

6.1

 

Research Objective... 42

 

6.2

 

Reflection ... 43

 

6.2.1

 

Strengths... 43

 

6.2.2

 

Weaknesses ... 44

 

6.3

 

Recommendations for DGMR... 44

 

6.4

 

Recommendations for further research ... 44

 

7.   Literature... 46  

Attachment A

 

List people interviewed... 48

 

Attachment B

 

Interview Nynke Blijham... 50

 

Attachment C

 

Interview Janko Lolkema... 53

 

Attachment D

 

Interview Herman Idema ... 56

 

Attachment E

 

Interview Gerard Fit ... 59

 

Attachment F

 

Interview Gert Bolkesteijn... 61

 

Attachment H

 

Interview Frits Roemers ... 67

 

Attachment I

 

Interview Peter Bootsma... 70

 

Attachment K

 

Interview Erwin Vening ... 74

 

Attachment L

 

Interview Cees Meijles... 76

 

Attachment M

 

Interview Pieter Heerema ... 81

 

Attachment N

 

Interview Anco Terpstra en Petra Hof ... 83

 

Attachment O

 

Interview Frans Kleisen... 86

 

Attachment P

 

Interview Mark de la Vieter... 89

 

Attachment Q

 

Interview Johan Mulder ... 92

 

2

1. Introduction

1.1 Problem situation

In the past local government authorities of provinces and municipalities and a wide range of

companies regularly consulted various agencies to seek advice on several different

sustainability issues like e.g. building physics, energy and sustainable building, fire safety,

vibration technology, facade technology, industry and environment, traffic and environment,

environmental policy and software and IT. Many of these parties are facing a wide range of

problems when these issues are concerning ‘their’ own business parks. These parks are

often not sustainable and this is manifest at different levels. In general they seem to have lost

their appeal to the general public, their energy costs are often getting too high, while many

companies sense that these business parks are having an image problem that reflects badly

on their company reputation. All these issues decrease their possibilities to compete and

thus their market position as a whole is negatively affected. Obviously, one good way to

overcome the above mentioned problems is to make the business parks more sustainable.

To build brand new business parks that are optimally sustainable in all 3 issues of People,

Planet and Profit, is currently feasible. But as at this moment there is a huge surplus of free

office space, this does not seem the right way to go in the Netherlands. Apart from this,

building brand new business parks will decrease the value of the existing ones. The present

real challenge is thus how the existing business parks can be made sustainable.

3

1.2 Problem statement

DGMR is a consultancy agency specialized in solving problems concerning construction,

industry, traffic and environment.

1

_{Daily, by offering specialized advice DGMR contributes to}

a more sustainable living and working environment. DGMR has wide experience with many

aspects of sustainability this as well at the level of process- as of technical management. In

the Northern parts of the Netherlands they coordinate and coach in the “Frontrunner”

(“Koploper”)

2

project in which a great number of companies and municipal authorities are

helped to make further advancement towards optimal sustainability.

DGMR has several divisions in the Netherlands; one of them is in the city of Drachten in the

Northern Province of Friesland. This division is specialized in doing sustainability research

and as such they are part of a network focusing on the research of sustainable innovation

projects in the Northern parts of the Netherlands called CODIN (Contactnet Duurzame

Innovatie Noord-nederland)

3

_.

DGMR has seen their clients experience many of the problems as discussed in the

subchapter above. As concluded in the introduction the main problem is that it is unclear

which initiatives will become a success and why they become a success. Because of the

latter DGMR has asked me to conduct a research on the critical success and fail factors of

initiatives that make business parks more sustainable. What sustainability encompasses is

thus an essential part of this research.

The most widely accepted definition of sustainability is conceived by G.H.Bruntland. She has

been the former Premier of Norway and chaired the World Commission on Environment and

Development. In her report: “Our common Future”, she defined sustainable development as:

“Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs.”

Since this report was made public in 1987 many new definitions of the phrase sustainability

emerged that are being used for a wide variety of contexts. Another currently widely used

definition of sustainability came from Elkington in 1998:

1 _www.dgmr.nl 2 _www.dgmr.nl

3

4

“sustainable describes an economy or business that delivers long-term value across triple

bottom lines (environmental, economic, social), while making use of the five capitals (natural,

human, social, manufactured, and financial) and helping move us towards becoming a safe,

secure healthy, equitable world.”

In this report also this triple bottom line (environmental, economic, social) will be used as a

starting point for a better understanding of what sustainability entails, this understanding will

be used for framing our definition of sustainability.

All of the above have led to formulate the following problem statement:

6

2. Research design

The structure of this chapter is based on the model of Verschuren (2005). According to him,

a clear and realistic research plan includes a conceptual design and a technical research

design. The first determines what, why and how much will be researched. The technical

research design consists of choices concerning where and when the research will be done,

and provide information about the data collection and research strategy.

2.1 Research objective & research questions

Our research objective is the following:

To get insight into the critical success and fail factors of initiatives that makes existing

business parks in the North of the Netherlands more sustainable.

The above mentioned research objective can be elaborated further by means of four

research questions:

1. What does sustainability mean?

2. What is a sustainable business park?

3. When can an initiative be considered as ‘an initiative that makes a business park

more sustainable’?

4. What are the critical success and fail factors of initiatives executed in the north of the

Netherlands that make existing business parks more sustainable?

2.2 Research methodology

7

Research type

As there is little research done in the specific field of this research the goal is exploratory.

Furthermore it will be a qualitative research. This because a number of reasons (Miles and

Huberman 1994) that are relevant for this research, namely; the research will be conducted

through contact with the “real life situation” on a business park, our role as researchers is to

gain a “holistic” overall picture of the context in which the selected initiatives take place,

perceptions of actors “from the inside” will be gained. Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) state

that in a qualitative study:

“research design should be a reflexive process operating through every stage of a project

”

As all of the above will be the case for this research it can be seen as design focussed.

Data collection

To define the context we will first perform a literature study. This will be followed by

conducting interviews to gain more insights in what is done in practice at the business parks.

These interviews will be semi structured in order to leave room for more specific questions

where necessary, this to increase the relevancy of the information. Furthermore according to

Bernard (1988) semi structured interviewing is best used when there is only one opportunity

to interview the selected people. This will be the approach in this research. Last but not least

Bernard (1988) states that semi structured interviewing can provide data that is reliable and

comparable.

Sampling

There were two main criteria used to select the people for interviews; firstly, all interviewees

had to be involved in initiatives that had made a business park more sustainable; secondly,

all relevant stakeholders should be represented. And last but not least the aim was to

interview the people that were involved in the best practices as the goal of the research is to

get more insight in the success and fail factors that, directly and indirectly, make existing

business parks more sustainable.

8

At the beginning of this paper the goal was to interview 25 people. This number was an

estimate of the maximum amount of people that we would be able to interview within the

given timeframe. Because a number of reasons we ended up interviewing 18 people. First of

all, in the literature research, only a small number of business parks appeared to exist in the

north of the Netherlands that had undertaken initiatives that had successfully made their

business park more sustainable. Because of this the amount of people that were, or had

been, involved with initiatives that make a business park more sustainable were limited.

Apart from that, after a certain amount of interviews the degree of data that confirmed the

previous data grew and the degree of new data obtained with each interview decreased.

Almost all of the data obtained from the last 5 people that were interviewed confirmed data

obtained from the previous 13 people interviewed. Finally, because the purpose of this study

is exploratory, it was concluded that the total number of 18 people interviewed should be

sufficient for gathering adequate and relevant information.

10

3. Theoretical framework

3.1 The notion of sustainability

In this section we are trying to answer our first research question which is: what does

sustainability mean?

Because sustainability as a concept notion is very broad we will take a look at different

perspectives on the subject to get a sense of the different notions of sustainability that are

being used.

To start with the very basic information we will start with what the dictionary says about

sustainability. Next will be sustainability seen from the view of international institutions

followed up with the viewpoints of a couple of researchers.

The word “sustainability” is derived from the Latin word “sustinere” which is a combination of

the word “tenere”, which means “to hold”, and the word “sus”, meaning “up”. In English the

word “sustain” mostly stands for “to endure”, “maintain”, or “support”.

At international level there are many organisations dealing with sustainability. Two of them

are mentioned below.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) maintain the

following definition for sustainability (Glossary of Environmental Statistics 1997):

(a) use of the biosphere by present generations while maintaining its potential yield

(benefit) for future generations; and/ or

(b) non—declining trends of economic growth and development that might be impaired

by natural resource depletion and environmental degradation.

The Earth Charter Initiative (2000) states the following concerning sustainability:

11

community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global

society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a

culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our

responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.”

During the last couple of decades many researchers have created their own notion of

sustainability. As is stated in the introduction the starting point for a better understanding of

what sustainability entails this research will use the triple bottom line as phrased by Elkington

in 1998:

“sustainable describes an economy or business that delivers long-term value across triple

bottom lines (environmental, economic, social), while making use of the five capitals (natural,

human, social, manufactured, and financial) and helping move us forward becoming a safe,

secure healthy, equitable world.”

We have chosen to use Elkington’s triple bottom line as a starting point for further research

because it was the first well known and widely used term to addresses social and economic

dimensions in an integrated way (Henriques, A., Richardson, J., 2004).

This Triple Bottom Line concept displays a radical different view on the responsibility of

companies. Instead of the classical situation in which a company is primarily answerable to

its shareholders, in Elkington’s view the company’s responsibility is towards their

stakeholders. According to him the essence of running a company is not about maximizing

the shareholders profit but using the whole business entity to coordinate the stakeholders’

interests.

The notions stated above are all on a relatively high aggregation level. In this research we

will need a more detailed notion that is more operational. R.J.Jorna et al. (2004) have

defined sustainability in such a way that seems to meet this criterion. The paragraphs below

will elaborate on this matter.

12

degree of sustainability of a company cannot be easily assessed. The present situation can

considerably change in the coming year. Because of the latter they suggest to transform the

notion of ‘sustainability’ to ‘a process of sustainability’. This to emphasize that company

processes are constantly changing.

Jorna et al. (2004) state that there are several examples of offload (or externalities), taking

place. The removal contribution one pays when buying a new product, but also Brundtland’s

definition of sustainability, which takes the needs of future generations into account, can be

seen as ‘reduction in offload’. After all, we often do things where the offload is left for others

somewhere else (or sometime later). Working and living sustainable in the latter case means

realizing a reduction in offload for the benefit of our children. On the other hand leaving trash

behind in nature is also a form of offload, but so is using fossil fuels. Another example is a

company that is firing a major part of their employees and is thus creating e.g. a social,

financial and psychological burden for the society. A counterexample could be a society that

has the benefits of a good pension system. Such a social construction is an example of

realizing a reduction in offload.

Based on the idea that an artefact is sustainable when it is in a (dynamic) balance with its

environment, we see (a reduction in) offload as central operationalization. When reducing

offload four questions should be answered, namely:

1. What is being offloaded?

2. Who is offloading ‘the what’ on who?

3. Which period of time does this offloading take place?

4. What does a reduction in offload mean, this viewed in terms of ‘the what’ ‘the who’s’

and the period of time.

13

Figure 1: NIDO Afwenteling Model (NAM). (R.J.Jorna et al. 2004)

Whether or not there is the notion of offload being created is closely linked to Daly’s

principles. In their book: ‘For the common good’ H. Daly and J. Cobb state the following:

“The conditions that must be met by a society in order for sustainability to obtain:

1. Its rates of use of renewable resources do not exceed their (the resources’) rates of

regeneration;

2. Its rates of use of non-renewable resources do not exceed the rate at which alternative

renewable resources are developed;

14

In the above section the notion of sustainability has been looked at from different

perspectives. To have a clear understanding of what exactly is being meant each time the

word ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable’ is being used in this research a working definition must

be developed. As the objective of this research is to get more insight into the critical success

and fail factors of initiatives that make business parks more sustainable it is of crucial

importance to define which initiatives will be taken into account.

3.2 Working definition of sustainability

As the latter sub chapter made explicit the problem with the word sustainability is that it is

applied to many different situations and contexts. For every perspective or definition there

will be one or more reasons why that specific one is used. As Heinen (1994) stated:

“No single approach to ‘sustainable development’ or framework is consistently useful, given

the variety of scales inherent in different conservation programs and different types of

societies and institutional structures.”

In order to come to a working definition of sustainability for this research we will use material

from the book Sustainable Innovation (Jorna et al. 2004). As it makes the notion of

sustainability more measurable this approach to sustainability seems to be the most

workable for this research.

Now we are going to create a working definition of sustainability which means we are going

to elaborate along the four questions mentioned before, namely:

• What is being offloaded?

• Who is offloading ‘the what’ on who?

• Which period of time does this offloading take place?

• What does a reduction in offload mean, this viewed in terms of ‘the what’ ‘the who’s’

and the period of time.

What is being offloaded?

15

artefact always interacts with its environment, that this environment is also specified. After

all, an artefact can only be called sustainable when it is in a dynamic balance with its

environment. It can help to work along what Elkington called the ‘Triple Bottom Line’: the P’s

of Planet, People and Profit. For each of these P’s it is important to find quantifiable

variables. This will be the easiest to apply for e.g. the chemical- physical variables of the

ecology system and the financial variables of the economy. Operationalization of the

variables of human and organizational nature will tend to be more difficult to define, monitor

and assess.

Who is offloading ‘the what’ on who?

In the second place in this research a ‘reduction in offload’ will be used as the mechanism to

operationalize the notion of sustainability. In other words in our research any activity, act,

thing or construct is only defined as sustainable when it causes a reduction in offload. The

goal is to create a situation of balance, a certain equilibrium, a good ratio between artefact

and environment. The complete prevention of offload will often not be feasible; however the

awareness of the desirability and possible feasibility of the reduction of offload can imply a

great leap forward. It must be possible to have a certain standard to measure this reduction

in offload. Off course it depends on the artefact, the environment and the relation to which

characteristic is being offloaded. In the case of for instance the coffee production it is mainly

the production process, where a low price for us is being offloaded on the living conditions of

the farmers involved who are cultivating the coffee. A sustainable vehicle is mainly related to

harmful gas emissions of the motor or the use of fossil fuels without supplementing them. A

discussion about offloading thus always refers to the artefact or to the characteristic of the

artefact in relation to its environment.

Which period of time does this offloading take place?

16

What does a reduction in offload mean, this viewed in terms of ‘the what’ ‘the who’s’ and the

period of time?

In the fourth place, when we look at the different aggregation levels, as mentioned earlier

and with regard to individuals, groups, organizations and the society, offload can take place

in two directions. An individual can offload on a group and that group can offload on a

company and in turn that company can offload on the society. Offload can also take place in

the reverse direction, from society towards an organizational and to an individual level.

The discussion above leads to the conclusion that sustainability applies artefacts, as in

things and as in constructs. The latter can be made from man made things and ‘not man

made things’, like a basket made from bamboo stems. These artefacts should be seen

relatively and not absolute, in relation to the context and determined by the situation. They

change in dynamic interaction with their environment and thus they are not static. A dynamic

approach however does lead to an increase in complexity.

In conclusion the working definition we are using to further elaborate on sustainable business

parks consists of the four aspects mentioned above that together define whether there is a

reduction in offload. Before we will elaborate on the notion of reducing offload in the context

of a business park two notions on what a sustainable business park actually entails will be

put apart. This will be done in the next subsection.

3.3 The notion of Sustainable Business Parks

As is stated in the paragraph above this section will look into the concept of a sustainable

business park. In the literature there is little to be found about this notion. The two notions

mentioned below have been chosen to be used as a frame of reference. The first notion has

a more theoretical view and the second is more practical.

According to BECO

4

, an international consultancy agency for sustainable development, the

“advisory committee sustainable development” of the Ministry of Economic Affairs defined

“Sustainable development of a business park” as:

4

17

“collaboration between companies and between companies and governments to improve the

(companies) economic results, to decrease the impact on the environment and a more

efficient use of space”

They continue to state that in order to develop a sustainable business park one has to focus

on: social aspects (people), protecting the environment (planet) and economic development

(profit). The balance between these three pillars is essential. In the first place to ensure that

the value (economic, social and ecologic) of the business park is maintained on the long run.

BECO differentiates three levels of sustainable business park development. First of all there

is the business park itself, secondly, the collaboration between the companies and between

businesses and the government and thirdly, the individual companies.

DGMR defines a sustainable business area as: a multifunctional business area that is an

integral part of its environment and has added value for People, Planet and Profit

(ECO-munity, 2011). For a business park to be sustainable its constituents must be sustainable to.

These constituents are the following artefacts:

• business park itself: it fits in the surrounding landscape, pursues preservation of

ecological values, promotes diversity, generates renewable energy, manages water

conservation in the area etc.

• buildings: energy friendly buildings, use of sustainable materials, water saving

systems, health promotion activities etc.

• companies: energy friendly production processes, limiting waste, sustainable mobility,

social responsibility etc.

• collaboration and management: park management, collective purchase and shared

facilities, information sharing, synergy.

As it can be seen in the notions above the adjective sustainable is applied to one, or more, of

the following aspects; People, Planet and profit. Even though they give some insight in what

a sustainable business park can entail, the activities need a more detailed description and

definition before the sustainability of a business park can be properly assessed. This will be

done in the next subchapter.

18

In this section we will try to operationalize the notion of sustainability in the context of

business parks. This means that the areas that an initiative can have an impact on will be

determined. Once this is done it can be defined when an initiative is considered an initiative

that makes a business park more sustainable. This will be done in the next subchapter.

McElroy (2008) and Jorna (2004) both state that it is important for companies to get a solid

grasp of what its offload, or externalities, actually are. And obviously, to reduce it, one must

know how much exactly is being offloaded. As a business park consists of a group of

companies this statement might just as well apply to business parks.

To find out what the offload of a business park can be we will start with an inventory of

quotes about the three P’s of Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line.

Planet

In the report, “Calculation methodology for the national footprint accounts, 2010 edition”

Edwin et al. have operationalize the notion of sustainability for the planet aspect of

Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line. The four aspects used in our working definition of

sustainability to define whether there is a reduction in offload seem to be used as a

framework for this operationalization. The following four quotes clearly demonstrate how they

have done this:

“Human demand on ecosystem service continues to increase, and there are indications that

this demand is outpacing the regenerative and absorptive capacity of the biosphere. For this

reason the productivity of natural capital may increasingly become a limiting factor for the

human endeavour.”

“According to the 2010 Edition of the National Footprint Accounts, humanity demanded the

resources and services of 1.51 planets in 2007; such demand has increased 2.5 times since

1961. This situation, in which total demand for ecological goods and services exceeds the

available supply for a given location is known as overshoot. On the global scale, overshoot

indicates that stocks of ecological capital may be depleting and/ or that waste is

accumulating.”

19

As is mentioned before, offload is related to time. As the current generations demand on

ecosystem service outpaces the regenerative and absorptive capacity of the biosphere, the

demands of future generations may not be met because of this. Thus the current situation

can be seen as creating offload.

From this perspective when the current generations demand on ecosystem service would be

the same or less than the regenerative and absorptive capacity of the biosphere, there is no

offload taking place from the current generation to the next.

The Global Footprint Network states on their site

5

_:

“By measuring the Footprint of a population—an individual, city, business, nation, or all of

humanity—we can assess our pressure on the planet, which helps us manage our ecological

assets more wisely and take personal and collective action in support of a world where

humanity lives within the Earth’s bounds.”

Figure 2 The Ecological Footprint

5

20

To answer the question whether or not there is a reduction in offload the variables must be

known. As can be seen in figure 3.1, these are: fisheries, cropland & pasture, forest, built-up

land and carbon emissions.

People

Literature on social sustainability appears to be scarce. This is confirmed by Hutchins (2008),

when he states:

“It is common practice for decision-makers to address the economic pillar of sustainability,

and over the last decade, increasing effort has been directed at the environmental pillar

through attention to environmental life cycle impacts. Until recently, however, the pillar

associated with the social dimension of sustainability has not been well-defined. Discussion

of this element has received little attention in the literature, and when discussed, has

emphasized legislative issues or human health and safety rather than the cultural and ethical

ramifications of decisions.”

There seems to be only one method that measures the social performance of a company,

namely: the Social Footprint Method. As is stated in his thesis “Social Footprints, Measuring

the social sustainability performance of organizations”, M. McElroy argues that the Social

Footprint is the missing tool with which it is possible to fully operationalize the triple bottom

line. The chosen approach on how to create make this tool was based on the Ecological

Footprint Method and the sustainability principles of H. Daly, as put forward in 1990.

The Social Footprint Method

6

_{has a context-based and quantitative quotients approach to}

sustainability. It measures the impact of an organization on what they call anthro capital,

which consists of constructed, social and human capitol. Unlike ecological capitol, which is

not created by humans and is limited, most kinds of anthro capital are made by people and

can be grown practically at will. Another big difference between the Social Footprint Method

and other sustainability measurement tools is that, to assess the sustainability of a company

or business park, its impacts on vital capitals are compared to standards for what such

impacts should be in order to be considered sustainable.

6

21

Profit

Hutchins (2008) states the following about profit and sustainability:

“Some would argue that the purpose of a business is to reconfigure physical substances,

human resources, information, and financial resources in such a way so that the financial

resources that exit the system are larger than those that enter. Sustainability requires that

corporations maintain the integrity of social and environmental systems while undertaking

this reconfiguration.”

When a company stops making profit it will cease to exist and one or more people will lose

their jobs. Thus every company that stops making profit for a certain period of time will create

offload.

When business parks create offload in the category ‘Profit’, this will not be taken into account

during this research. The assumption is made that all involved companies as they exist are

viable, thus generate profit and will undertake all actions possible to continue to do so.

Whether or not there is a ‘reduction in offload’ will thus depend on whether or not there is a

reduction in offload on the environment or people.

3.4.1 Determining the areas of impact on a business park

In the former subchapters the dimensions; People, Planet and Profit have been discussed.

This section will focus on what the chosen variables entail when applied to a business park.

This will result in a list with areas of impact. This list will clarify what initiatives will be

considered as initiatives that make a business park more sustainable. Once this is clear, the

success and fail factors of these initiatives can be analysed.

The final list of areas of impact will be created by combining the list of The Ecological

Footprint with the areas of impact list that has been constructed by the Dutch Green Building

Council

7

(DGBC) and the DuOn-Quickscan list

8

that DGMR uses to assess the sustainability

of companies or organisations. With this tool the complex notion of sustainability can be

assessed for a company or companies in a comprehensible, concrete manner. The latter two

lists mentioned are used because they seem to be the only two lists that try to assess the

sustainability of business parks and have actually defined specific areas to do this.

7

www.dgbc.nl 8

22

In the figure below the list that The Dutch Green Building Council has made to measure the

sustainability of an area is shown.

Table 1 Dutch Green Building Assessment tool areas

Category

Subcategory

Resources

Decreasing primary energy use

Generating renewable energy

Water use

Material ‘cycle’

Environmental burden Material

Argumentation origin materials

Food

Special development

Land use

Use of space

Urban plan

Underground infrastructure

Mobility

Abiotic structures

Biotic structures

Cultural Heritage

Sustainability performance buildings

Well being

Social safety

Social cohesion

Ownership

Environmental experience

Regional employment

Regional business activity

Economical vitality

Social prosperity

Business area climate

Thermic outside climate

Wind climate

Sound

Light entre

Air quality

Water quality

Warmth

Soil quality & condition

Radiation

External safety

Synergy

Area vision

Area character

Adoptive capability

Sustainable effectiveness

Management

Management

23

The table below shows the planet and people aspects of the DuOn-Quickscan

Table 2 DuOn-Quickscan Areas of Impact

Planet

People

Environmental management

Human rights

Preventing pollution

Working conditions

Sustainable use of (natural) resources

Fair trade

Climate change

Consumer affairs

Protection of the natural environment

Social engagement and developement

The final list is created with the goal to include all defined aspects. As the DuOn-Quickscan

list seems to be more general this list will be used as a framework for the DGBC list and the

Ecological Footprint “list”. When two aspects seem to be more or less the same the more

general one is used. The profit aspects will not be taken into account in this research and

thus these aspects will not be added to the final list. As mentioned earlier the profit aspects

will be excluded from this research and thus these aspects will not be added to the final list.

As has been mentioned before this list will be used to determine whether an initiative makes

a business park more sustainable or not. The initiatives that do make business parks more

sustainable will be analysed for the reasons whether or not they became a success.

Table 3 Final List Areas of Impact

Planet

 

Environmental

management

 

Special

development  

Land use

     

 

Use of space

     

 

Urban plan

     

 

Underground

infrastructure

     

 

Mobility

     

 

Abiotic structures

     

 

Biotic structures

     

 

Cultural heritage

     

 

Sustainable

performance

buildings

   

Preventing pollution

 

 

Air quality

 

24

   

 

Soil quality &

condition

     

 

Radiation

   

Sustainable use of

(natural) resources

 

Fisheries

 

 

 

   

Cropland & Pasture  

Food

 

   

Forest

 

Material ‘cycle’

 

   

 

Environmental

burden material

     

 

Argumentation origin

materials

     

Built-up land  

     

Water use

 

   

Climate change

 

Carbon Footprint

 

Decreasing primary

energy use

     

 

Generation

renewable energy

   

Protection of the

natural environment

 

 

 

People

 

Human rights

 

 

 

 

Working conditions

 

Well being  

Social safety

 

25

3.5 Defining an initiative that makes a business park more

sustainable

When an initiative decreases the offload in one of the relevant areas of impact as defined in

the final list we will consider it as “an initiative that makes a business park more sustainable.

If for example a business park has initiated a project that decreases the use of fossil fuels

and this is actually realised, it will be seen as “an initiative that makes a business park more

sustainable”.

As is stated in chapter 3 the following four questions should be answered when offload is

being reduced:

1. What is being offloaded?

2. Who is offloading ‘the what’ on who?

3. Which period of time does this offloading take place?

4. What does a reduction in offload mean, this viewed in terms of ‘the what’ ‘the who’s’

and the period of time.

In the example above carbon emissions and fine particles is being offloaded as carbon

emissions contribute to global warming and fine particles cause health problems. The

business park is the entity that is offloading on society. And as carbon can stay in the

atmosphere for several decades this is also the time lap that this offload is taking place.

When there is a reduction in offload this means in this example that the amount of offload will

be less. The “who” and the period of time does not change.

Offload Initial state/ Before Current state/ After Decrease in offload Business park initiative

26

4. Case studies

In this section the business parks are listed where one or more people, of who were involved

in initiatives that made these business parks more sustainable, have been interviewed. As

mentioned earlier all these business parks are located in the Northern Provinces of Drenthe,

Groningen and Friesland.

4.1 Initiatives that have been implemented on business parks

Two criteria are used to define whether or not an initiative is seen as ‘a initiative that makes a

business park more sustainable’.

First of all the criteria as mentioned in chapter three, namely; it must decrease offload. The

second criterion is based on the second criterion used by Pellenbarg (2002) to define

sustainable business sites in the Netherlands. This criterion is:

“At least two (or more) firms on the site are engaged in some form of cooperation (with each

other, or with the local government) for environmental purposes.”

Because we use a broader definition of sustainability and our focus is on initiatives the

second criteria we use is: at least two or more firms on the site are engaged in some form of

cooperation with each other in relation to the relevant initiative.

Business Park Emmen

The Society of Managers of the Business Parcs of Emmen (“Vereniging Parkmanagement

Bedrijventerreinen te Emmen =VPB”) took the following joined initiatives for more sustainable

management;

• Joined collection of waste products. This they do in cooperation with waste

processing company SITA. They use a “CO2 barometer” to show how much

reduction in CO2 exhaustion by this initiative is realized and what the decrease is in

mileage used by all the lorries involved. This initiative holds a TNO certificate.

• Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

27

considerably contribute to decreasing CO2 emissions and other particles that can

damage one’s health.

• There is a study going on to examine the possibilities to join an initiative that re-uses

concrete fragments freed in demolition processes for the manufacturing of new

concrete.

Business Park Hoorn

At this business park firstly a sustainability scan was done to identify the several different

options. Hereafter 60 enterprises were asked to select from these the initiatives for increased

sustainable management that mostly fitted their own business. Till now 40 businesses have

started to implement their selected initiatives for increased sustainability. A number of

enterprises have started to re-analyze their production lines in the search for increased

sustainability measurements while others are seeking ways to buy more sustainably

‘produced’ raw materials. The introduction of a “CO2 Footprint” and an “Energy Barometer”

has demonstrated that by some simple adjustments the energy consumed at the business

park can be reduced by 25-35%. Annual meetings were introduced in which 25 businesses

participate in order to discuss their experience and to exchange new ideas for upgrading the

level of their sustainability performances.

At this moment 3 brand new initiatives are started up;

• A research project on the joined collection of waste products. For this every business

will join in a waste scan for the assessment which waste products can be separated

already at their source and which of these products can be re-utilized. The aim is to

reduce ‘waste transport movements’ with 50%-60%.

• A study for the joined purchase of energy.

• There is a study to assess the feasibility of building an energy plant. There are e.g. 40

hectares roof surface available for the installation of solar panels, of which the

cost-benefit ratio is getting increasingly more competitive now the costs of fossil energy

are steadily rising.

Park Management of the Drachten Region

28

Business Park “De Wieken” in Hoogeveen

The aim and ambition is to make this business park the “First Energy-Neutral” business park

in the Netherlands! In order to realize this, the local government authorities and the

entrepreneurs jointly seek for sustainable options. Possibilities for a Biomass Energy Plant,

Cold-Heat storage, Thermal ground- energy techniques and the different types of solar

energy collectors are evaluated. At the end it is the plan to start with their own “Local

Sustainable Energy Plant”

There are plans in this context to redesign the several business areas, to improve the

infrastructure and to upgrade the over-all outlook and visual presentation of the business

park.

To summarize, all initiatives that have been implemented at the business parks above are:

•

Joined collection of waste products (2x)

•

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) distilled from waste

•

Re-use of concrete fragments freed in demolition processes

•

Purchase of more sustainably ‘produced’ raw materials

•

The introduction of a “CO2 Footprint” and an “Energy Barometer” for the reduction of

energy

•

The introduction of annual meetings in which 25 businesses participate in order to

discuss their experience and to exchange new ideas for upgrading the level of their

sustainability performances.

•

A research project on the joined collection of waste products. For this every business

will join in a waste scan for the assessment which waste products can be separated

already at their source and which of these products can be re-utilized. The aim is to

reduce ‘waste transport movements’ with 50%-60%.

•

A study for the joined purchase of energy

•

A study to assess the feasibility of starting their own energy plant

•

The improvement of the security of the area with security cameras

•

The maintenance of the energy and water infrastructure

•

The creation of a glass fiber high-speed network.

•

A plan to create the “First Energy-Neutral” business park in the Netherlands

29

4.2 Comparison of areas of impact

In the table 4 the areas of impact of each initiative that was implemented at the analysed

business parks was identified. The final list of areas of impact, which is the result of literature

study, was used to identify the area of impact of the relevant initiative. If this list is not

sufficient, it will be coded as a new area of impact that seems most fitting. When the initiative

had an impact on more than one area the most relevant one is selected. Three initiatives

were excluded from the list: (1) a study for the joined purchase of energy (2) the

maintenance of the energy and water infrastructure and (3) the creation of a glass fiber

high-speed network. This because the latter two do not decrease any offload and the goal of the

first is solely aiming to increase profit.

Table 4 Areas of impact

Material cycle

2

Decreasing primary energy use

4

Generation renewable energy

2

Social safety

1

Environmental experience

1

Participation

1

The main category that stands out when comparing the possible areas of impact that were

found in the literature research with the areas of impact that were implemented at the visited

business areas, is that most initiatives that have been executed had to do with decreasing

offload in the category planet.

Three out of four visited business parks have initiatives that aim to decrease the carbon

footprint by decreasing primary energy use or generating renewable energy. The most

ambitious example of this is business park De Wieken in Hoogenveen as they have the goal

to become completely climate neutral.

30

5. Data analysis

As stated before 17 interviews were conducted with 18 people. During these semi-structured

interviews data were either collected in the form of handwritten notes or typed field notes.

After the interviews, the data were processed and converted into ups”. These

“write-ups” can be found in the appendix. In this section the data from these “write-“write-ups” will be

analysed.

31 Table 5 Quotes success factors

‘Success quotes’

Total

number mentioned

Total number mentioned

How fast people can find each other, work together and learn

from each other

11 2

Social cohesion

11 2

Sense of urgency

111111 6

Growing Awareness that ‘something’ must be done

111111 6

More profitable

111 3

Measureable

11 2

Political awareness

1 1

Law

1 1

Wanting to contribute to society

1 1

Governmental example projects and commitment to become

sustainable

11 2

Subsidies

11 2

Money

11 2

Bottom up

11111 5

Directly applicable

1 1

Short payback time

111 3

Park management

1111111111 10

Sense of co-responsibility by entrepreneurs

1111 4

Commitment and support at the business area

111111 6

Transparency

1 1

Close cooperation between local government and entrepreneurs

1111 4

One vision and mission

11111 5

Passion

1 1

Guts

11 2

The process

111 3

Trust between parties

1 1

All parties should be involved

1111 4

Good communication

111 3

It’s a priority

1 1

“the man” behind the project

1 1

32 Table 6 Quotes fail factors

‘Fail quotes’

Total

number mentioned

Total number mentioned

Caught in social structures

1 1

To long payback time

11 2

Payback time is unclear

1 1

No awareness

111 3

No knowhow

11 2

Competition instead of working together

11 2

Lack of money

111111 6

Pedantic approach

1111 4

Government is not trustworthy, inconsistent policy making

111111 6

“what’s in it for me?” attitude of entrepreneurs

111 3

Hippie image of sustainability

1 1

No priority

1 1

Laws

111111 6

Communication barrier between entrepreneurs and civil servant

11 2

Building of new business areas

1 1

Added value is unclear

1 1

Gap between wanting something and concrete action is difficult to

bridge

11111 5

Short time focus of governments

11 2

Contacting the entrepreneurs is difficult

1 1

Lack of vision

11 2

To little support from the business areas

11 2

Lack of passion

1 1

Decreasing interest after the start

11 2

Permissiveness

1 1

Now the quotes about the success and fail factors are counted and listed in the tables above

these can be coded. Coding is about how the collected data are combined, differentiated and

about our reflections on these issues (B. Miles & M. Huberman, 1994).

33

structure that will be used to code the quotes parallels the following scheme made by

Lofland’s (1971):

1.

“Acts: action in a situation that is temporally brief, consuming only a few seconds,

minutes or hours

2.

Activities: actions in a setting of more major duration – days, weeks, months –

constituting significant elements of people’s involvements

3.

Meanings: the verbal productions of participants that define and direct action

4.

Participation: people’s holistic involvement in or adaptation to a situation or setting

under study

5.

Relationships: interrelationships among several persons considered simultaneously

6.

Settings: the entire setting under study conceived as the unit of analysis”

Table 7 ‘Success’ quotes coded by Lofland’s scheme

Codes

‘Success quotes’

Times

mentioned

Relationships

How fast people can find each other, work together

and learn from each other

1

Relationships

Social cohesion

11

Meaning

Sense of urgency

1

Meaning

Growing Awareness that ‘something’ must be done

111

Settings

More profitable

11

Settings

Measureable

11

Meaning

Political awareness

111111

Settings

Law/ rules

1111

Meaning

Wanting to contribute to society

111111

Meaning

Governmental example projects and commitment to

become sustainable

111

Setting

Subsidies

1

Setting

Money

1

Participation

Bottom up

111111

Settings

Directly applicable

11

Setting

Short payback time

1

Activities

Park management

1

34

Participation

Commitment and support on the business park

11

Relationships

Transparency

1

Relationships

Close cooperation between local government and

entrepreneurs

1111

Meanings

One vision and mission

11

Meanings

Passion

11

Meanings

Guts

1

Activities

The process

11

Relationships

Trust between parties

1

Participation

All parties should be involved

1

Relationships

Good communication

11

Meaning

It’s a priority

1

Settings

Easy accessible, not too much time and money

involved

111

Meaning

“the man” behind the project

11

In table 8 the quotes are grouped by code. Furthermore each group is categorized with the

following descriptive codes:

Financial = FIN

Government = GOV

Innovation = INN

Social Cohesion = SOC

Communication = COM

Attitude = ATT

35 Table 8 ‘Success’ quotes categorized by descriptive codes

‘Success quotes’ Codes Times

mentioned

• More profitable • SET – FIN • 3

• Money • SET – FIN • 2

• Subsidies • SET – FIN • 2

• Short payback time • SET – FIN • 3

• Measureable • SET – INN • 2

• Directly applicable • SET – INN • 1

Settings

• Easy accessible, not too

much time involved •

SET – INN • 3

• How fast people can find each other, work together and learn from each other

• REL - SOC • 2

• Social cohesion • REL – SOC • 2

• Close cooperation between local government and entrepreneurs

• REL – SOC • 4

• Trust between parties • REL – SOC • 1

• Transparency • REL – COM • 1

Relationships

• Good communication • REL – COM • 3

• Sense of urgency • MEA – AWA • 6

• Growing Awareness that

‘something’ must be done •

MEA – AWA • 6

• Wanting to contribute to

society •

MEA - ATT • 1

• Passion • MEA – ATT • 1

• Guts • MEA – ATT • 2

• It’s a priority • MEA – ATT • 1

• Sense of co-responsibility by

entrepreneurs •

MEA – ATT • 4

• The man behind the project • MEA – ATT • 2

• Governmental example

projects and commitment to become sustainable

• MEA – GOV • 2

Meaning

• Political awareness • MEA – GOV • 1

• Bottom up • PAR – PRO • 5

• All parties should be involved • PAR – PRO • 4

Participation

• Commitment and support on

the business park •

PAR – PRO • 6

• The process • ACT – PRO • 3

Activities

• Park management • ACT – PAR • 10

• One vision and mission • PRO • 5

Other

• Law/ rules • GOV • 1

As can be seen in the table above two quotes did not fit into Lofland’s scheme; they were put

in the section ‘other’.

36 Table 9 ‘Fail’ quotes categorized by descriptive codes

‘Fail quotes’ Codes Times

mentioned

• Caught in social structures • SET – SOC • 1

• To long payback time • SET – FIN • 2

• Payback time is unclear • SET – FIN • 1

• Lack of money • SET - FIN • 6

• Added value is unclear • SET – INN • 1

• Building of new business

areas •

SET – GOV • 1

Settings

• Laws • SET – GOV • 6

• Competition instead of

working together •

REL – SOC • 2

• Pedantic approach • REL – COM • 4

• Contacting the entrepreneurs

is difficult •

REL – COM • 1

• Communication barrier between entrepreneurs and civil servant • REL – COM • 2 Relationships • Government is not trustworthy, inconsistent policy making • REL - GOV • 6

• No awareness • MEA – AWA • 3

• Hippie image of sustainability • MEA – AWA • 1

• No knowhow • MEA – AWA • 2

• “what’s in it for me?” attitude

of entrepreneurs •

MEA – ATT • 3

• No priority • MEA – ATT • 1

• Permissive attitude • MEA – ATT • 1

• Lack of passion • MEA – ATT • 1

Meaning

• Lack of vision • MEA – PRO • 2

• Short time focus of

governments •

PAR – GOV • 2

• To little support from the

business areas •

PAR – PRO • 2

Participation

• Decreasing interest after the

start •

PAR – PRO • 2

Other • Gap between wanting

something and concrete action is difficult to bridge