The Cost of Sustainability Capital and the Creation of Sustainable Value by Companies

We develop and apply a valuation methodology to calculate the cost of sustainability capital, and, eventually, sustainable value creation of companies. Sustainable development posits that decisions must take into account all forms of capital rather than just economic capital. We develop a methodology that allows calculation of the costs that are associated with the use of different forms of capital. Our methodology borrows the idea from financial economics that the return on capital has to cover the cost of capital. Capital costs are determined as opportunity costs, that is, the forgone returns that would have been created by alternative investments. We apply and extend the logic of opportunity costs to the valuation not only of economic capital but also of other forms of capital. This allows (a) integrated analysis of use of different forms of capital based on a value-based aggregation of different forms of capital, (b) determination of the opportunity cost of a bundle of different forms of capital used in a company, called cost of sustainability capital, (c) calculation of sustainability efficiency of companies, and (d) calculation of sustainable value creation, that is, the value above the cost of sustainability capital. By expanding the well-established logic of the valuation of economic capital in financial markets to cover other forms of capital, we provide a methodology that allows determination of the most efficient allocation of sustainability capital for sustainable value creation in companies. We demonstrate the practicability of the methodology by the valuation of the sustainability performance of British Petroleum (BP).

Providing a healthcare input to children in special schools

The education of children with speical educational needs is often accompanied by a requirement for medical or healthcare provision. If this cannot be done safely then the child's access to education may be limited. No standardised template for the delivery of a healthacre input to children in special schools is apparent. This study sought to explore through the use of an indepth needs assessment exercise and focus group interviews, what the most appropriate healthcare roelewas for delivering heathcare in a special school catering for children with a broad range of severe learning disabilities. While an overwhelming viewpoint of participants in focus gorups perceived that a nurse was the only suitable person to undertake the role, the evidence gathered promoted the research steering group to suggest to the contrary, i.e. that the role of a healthcare with a national vocational qualification (NVQ) level 3 in care was more the appropriate person to maximise both the role of the nurse and the quality of care provided to these children.

Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in different primary healthcare systems with and without pay-for-performance

Objective: To compare baseline cardiovascular risk management between people recruited from two different healthcare systems, to a research trial of an intervention to optimize secondary prevention. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: General practices, randomly selected: 16 in Northern Ireland (NI) (UK NHS, ‘strong’ infrastructure); 32 in Republic of Ireland (RoI) (mixed healthcare economy, less infrastructure). Patients: 903 (mean age 67.5 years; 69.9% male); randomly selected, known coronary heart disease. Main outcome measures: Blood pressure, cholesterol, medications; validated questionnaires for diet (DINE), exercise (Godin), quality of life (SF12); healthcare usage. Results: More RoI than NI participants had systolic BP>140 mmHg (37% v 28%, p=0.01) and cholesterol >5mmol/l (24% v 17%, p=0.02): RoI mean systolic BP was higher (139 v 132 mm Hg). More RoI participants reported a high fibre intake (35% v 23%), higher levels of physical activity (62% v 44%), and better physical and mental health (SF12); they had more GP (5.6 v 4.4) and fewer nurse visits (1.6 v 2.1) in the previous year. Fewer in RoI (55% v 70%) were prescribed B blockers. Both groups’ ACE inhibitor (41%; 48%) prescribing was similar; high proportions were prescribed statins (84%; 85%) and aspirin (83%; 77%). Conclusions Blood pressure and cholesterol are better controlled among patients in a primary healthcare system with a ‘strong’ infrastructure supporting computerization and rewarding measured performance but this is not associated with healthier lifestyle or better quality of life. Further exploration of differences in professionals’ and patients’ engagement in secondary prevention in different healthcare systems is needed.