297
2. For Unilever specifi cally, there is a strong connection between this framing and
the USLP transformational change agenda , particularly zero net deforestation
(principally aligned to the land system change boundary) and improving water,
sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) (particularly aligned to the biogeochemical fl ow
and freshwater boundaries) (see Hague 2014 ).
3. The PB focus and framing also encourages predictive assessment , as opposed to
descriptive or retrospective assessment, since the idea is to recognise the
approach to boundaries so as to fi nd ‘risk-reducing interventions’ (Steffen et al.
2015 ) and avoid transgressing the boundaries.
4. Planetary boundaries has received strong interest (with more than 60 peerreviewed papers on the subject since the seminal Rockström et al. paper in
2009a ) and reasonably widespread acceptance, due to its robust empirical base
which draws on both Earth System and Resilience Science. Clearly there is
potential to improve quantifi cation for all nine PB categories and efforts are ongoing in this regard (Carpenter and Bennett 2011 ; de Vries et al. 2013 ; Gerten
et al. 2013 ; Mace et al. 2014 ), but ‘the approach guarantee[s] a higher degree of
consistency and meaningful aggregation (commensurability) than composite
indices’ (Whiteman et al. 2013 ) such as the ‘ Ecological Footprint […] which fail
to fulfi l fundamental scientifi c requirements of validity and reliability (i.e. normalization, weighting, and aggregation), and reveal a high degree of arbitrariness’ (Böhringer and Jochem 2007 , in Whiteman et al. 2013 ).
5. Finally, the concept aims to hold focus on these nine categories simultaneously,
recognising the inter-dependencies between them: this imposes limits to tradeoffs in that temporal and spatial trade-offs could be considered within a PB category but not between them (Murphy et al. in prep ). Clearly this implies
considerable space for the development of multi-disciplinary approaches.
The planetary boundary (PB) concept is increasingly being accepted as a science
basis for understanding sustainability in business and government policy contexts
(e.g. EU Sustainable Foods Policy development, WBCSD Action 2020), although
measurement and analysis of the actions advocated is required to provide assurance
that actions will and indeed are leading to the right outcomes; or, otherwise stated,
‘to quantitatively measure the role of companies within the decline [or maintenance]
of Earth systems’ (Whiteman et al. 2013 ). ‘We therefore need more studies that
analyse how the micro role of fi rms and industries interacts with a macro-view of
the world informed by system dynamics in order to better address environmental
externalities (Whiteman et al. 2013 ). Indeed this is the challenge: PBs are planetaryscale and “conceptual” and we need to fi nd ways in which they can be made operational at various geographical scales (local, regional and global) (see for example,
Nykvist et al. 2013 ; Cole et al. 2014 ; Dearing et al. 2014 ) but particularly decisionmaking scales (product, portfolio, company and industry sector). This is where scientifi c advance aligned to the PB concept is required. An early attempt can be seen
at the sectorial scale with the ‘Mind the Science, Mind the Gap project’ (CDP et al.
2014 ), which proposes guidance on methodology to set science based GHG emissions reduction targets in line with a 2 °C decarbonisation pathway.
15 The Role of Science in Shaping Sustainable Business: Unilever Case Study
2. For Unilever specifi cally, there is a strong connection between this framing and
the USLP transformational change agenda , particularly zero net deforestation
(principally aligned to the land system change boundary) and improving water,
sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) (particularly aligned to the biogeochemical fl ow
and freshwater boundaries) (see Hague 2014 ).
3. The PB focus and framing also encourages predictive assessment , as opposed to
descriptive or retrospective assessment, since the idea is to recognise the
approach to boundaries so as to fi nd ‘risk-reducing interventions’ (Steffen et al.
2015 ) and avoid transgressing the boundaries.
4. Planetary boundaries has received strong interest (with more than 60 peerreviewed papers on the subject since the seminal Rockström et al. paper in
2009a ) and reasonably widespread acceptance, due to its robust empirical base
which draws on both Earth System and Resilience Science. Clearly there is
potential to improve quantifi cation for all nine PB categories and efforts are ongoing in this regard (Carpenter and Bennett 2011 ; de Vries et al. 2013 ; Gerten
et al. 2013 ; Mace et al. 2014 ), but ‘the approach guarantee[s] a higher degree of
consistency and meaningful aggregation (commensurability) than composite
indices’ (Whiteman et al. 2013 ) such as the ‘ Ecological Footprint […] which fail
to fulfi l fundamental scientifi c requirements of validity and reliability (i.e. normalization, weighting, and aggregation), and reveal a high degree of arbitrariness’ (Böhringer and Jochem 2007 , in Whiteman et al. 2013 ).
5. Finally, the concept aims to hold focus on these nine categories simultaneously,
recognising the inter-dependencies between them: this imposes limits to tradeoffs in that temporal and spatial trade-offs could be considered within a PB category but not between them (Murphy et al. in prep ). Clearly this implies
considerable space for the development of multi-disciplinary approaches.
The planetary boundary (PB) concept is increasingly being accepted as a science
basis for understanding sustainability in business and government policy contexts
(e.g. EU Sustainable Foods Policy development, WBCSD Action 2020), although
measurement and analysis of the actions advocated is required to provide assurance
that actions will and indeed are leading to the right outcomes; or, otherwise stated,
‘to quantitatively measure the role of companies within the decline [or maintenance]
of Earth systems’ (Whiteman et al. 2013 ). ‘We therefore need more studies that
analyse how the micro role of fi rms and industries interacts with a macro-view of
the world informed by system dynamics in order to better address environmental
externalities (Whiteman et al. 2013 ). Indeed this is the challenge: PBs are planetaryscale and “conceptual” and we need to fi nd ways in which they can be made operational at various geographical scales (local, regional and global) (see for example,
Nykvist et al. 2013 ; Cole et al. 2014 ; Dearing et al. 2014 ) but particularly decisionmaking scales (product, portfolio, company and industry sector). This is where scientifi c advance aligned to the PB concept is required. An early attempt can be seen
at the sectorial scale with the ‘Mind the Science, Mind the Gap project’ (CDP et al.
2014 ), which proposes guidance on methodology to set science based GHG emissions reduction targets in line with a 2 °C decarbonisation pathway.
15 The Role of Science in Shaping Sustainable Business: Unilever Case Study