Comparing “socially responsible” and “sustainable” commercial property investment
| Published date | 07 August 2009 |
| Date | 07 August 2009 |
| Pages | 470-480 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14635780910982340 |
| Author | Philip Kimmet |
| Subject Matter | Property management & built environment |
Comparing “socially responsible”
and “sustainable” commercial
property investment
Philip Kimmet
School of Urban Development, QUT, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to set out to explore the similarities and differences between
jargon used to describe future-focussed commercial building product. This is not so much an exercise
in semantics as an attempt to demonstrate that responses to challenges facing the construction and
property sectors may have more to do with language than is generally appreciated.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual analysis which draws upon relevant
literature.
Findings – Social responsibility and sustainability are often held to be much the same thing, with
each term presupposing the existence of the other. Clearly, however, there are incidences where
sustainable commercial property investment (SCPI) may not be particularly socially responsible,
despite being understood as an environmentally friendly initiative. By contrast, socially responsible
assets, at least in theory, should always be more sustainable than mainstream non-ethically based
investment. Put simply, the expression of social responsibility in the built environment may evoke,
and thereby deliver, a more sustainable product, as defined by wider socially inclusive parameters.
Practical implications – The findings show that promoting an ethic of social responsibility may
well result in more SCPI. Thus, the further articulation and celebration of social responsibility concepts
may well help to further advance a sustainable property investment agenda, which is arguably more
concerned about demonstrability of efficiency than wider public good outcomes.
Originality/value – The idea that jargon affects outcomes is not new. However, this idea has rarely,
if ever, been applied to the distinctions between social responsibility and sustainability. Even a
moderate re-emphasis on social responsibility in preference to sustainability may well provide
significant future benefits with respect to the investment, building and refurbishment of commercial
property.
Keywords Social responsibility, Property, Investments, Sustainabledevelopment, Ethics
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The role of social responsibility in real estate investment has been poorly articulated in
comparison to the more general notion of ethical investment, often referred to as
socially responsible investment (SRI). It is possible to generalise though by declaring
that it often promotes environmental stewardship, consumer protection, equity and
access and basic human rights. These commonalities however remain unspecified and
under-analysed. By contrast, sustainability and its accomplice, sustainable
development, has if anything been over-used and exhaustively defined (Parkin,
2000), both in general applications (Dresner, 2002) and within the built environment
context specifically (Doughty and Hammond, 2004; Lu
¨tzkendorf and Lorenz, 2007;
Montiel, 2008). Rather than add clarity, this has caused the term to be used loos ely to
describe anything that has some sort of a future (Hopwood et al., 2005). In other words,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-578X.htm
JPIF
27,5
470
Journal of Property Investment &
Finance
Vol. 27 No. 5, 2009
pp. 470-480
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-578X
DOI 10.1108/14635780910982340
To continue reading
Request your trial