298
3.2 Applying the Planetary Boundaries Approach for Business
Decision-Making
There are, however, few such examples since the operationalization of PB is still
immature. We argue for further methodological development to build on existing
data gathering and modelling initiatives using new GIS-based mapping and ‘big
data’ approaches e.g. Future Earth ( www.futureearth.org ) and the UK Centre for
Agricultural Innovation in the area of agri-informatics and sustainability metrics
(White 2015 ) in order to improve our ability to measure the PBs appropriately, but
to do so in a ‘solution-focused’ frame. That is to say that even when risks, impacts or
transgression of the PBs are uncertain, we still need approaches that will help to
move the PB approach into day-to-day decisions as a matter of priority. For this
reason, towards the end of 2014, Unilever’s Safety and Environmental Assurance
Centre (SEAC) and the Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, cohosted an expert workshop on this topic. The outcome is a ‘roadmap’ for how operationalizing the PB concept can be approached in practical decision-making. This is
a ‘forward looking’ agenda for research and implementation in which we will propose a possible framework for progress (Murphy et al. in prep ). In summary, the
agenda includes the need for: (1) additional science to underpin each boundary, but
particularly the biodiversity (now revised to ‘biosphere integrity’ in Steffen et al.
( 2015 )), chemical pollution (now ‘novel entities’ in Steffen et al. ( 2015 )) and freshwater boundaries
1
; (2) development or identifi cation of ‘rules of thumb’ that can be
implemented rapidly; (3) normative debate for example around equity, human/societal values, governance, land use contests, lifestyle changes, etc. and; (4) tools for
integrating the science in decision-making contexts. In particular, we see real value
in developing a distinct and novel, ‘PB-enabled’ normative LCA approach to support
the adoption of the PB concept in product/service/sectorial decision-making; this
would be a complement to, and not a replacement of, existing LCA uses.
4 Conclusion
It is evident that Unilever’s pioneering position in regards to sustainability is fi rmly
rooted in our innovative application of, and commitment to, environmental sustainability science. This has helped inform and shape the company’s thinking on
1 These boundary categories were chosen as the focus for the workshop as they are of particular
relevance to Unilever because of the types of products the company designs and markets (acknowledging of course that due to inter-linkages between PB categories, all are relevant in some way or
another to companies such as Unilever). In addition, we believe that (better) defi nition and consensus of the planetary boundary for these three is particularly important since the boundaries are
either missing entirely (chemical pollution/novel entities), challenging on the basis of scale
(regional vs global) (all three), or indeed now considered to be ‘core PBs’ in a ‘two level hierarchy
of boundaries’ (biodiversity/biosphere integrity) (Steffen et al. 2015 ).
S. Sim et al.
3.2 Applying the Planetary Boundaries Approach for Business
Decision-Making
There are, however, few such examples since the operationalization of PB is still
immature. We argue for further methodological development to build on existing
data gathering and modelling initiatives using new GIS-based mapping and ‘big
data’ approaches e.g. Future Earth ( www.futureearth.org ) and the UK Centre for
Agricultural Innovation in the area of agri-informatics and sustainability metrics
(White 2015 ) in order to improve our ability to measure the PBs appropriately, but
to do so in a ‘solution-focused’ frame. That is to say that even when risks, impacts or
transgression of the PBs are uncertain, we still need approaches that will help to
move the PB approach into day-to-day decisions as a matter of priority. For this
reason, towards the end of 2014, Unilever’s Safety and Environmental Assurance
Centre (SEAC) and the Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, cohosted an expert workshop on this topic. The outcome is a ‘roadmap’ for how operationalizing the PB concept can be approached in practical decision-making. This is
a ‘forward looking’ agenda for research and implementation in which we will propose a possible framework for progress (Murphy et al. in prep ). In summary, the
agenda includes the need for: (1) additional science to underpin each boundary, but
particularly the biodiversity (now revised to ‘biosphere integrity’ in Steffen et al.
( 2015 )), chemical pollution (now ‘novel entities’ in Steffen et al. ( 2015 )) and freshwater boundaries
1
; (2) development or identifi cation of ‘rules of thumb’ that can be
implemented rapidly; (3) normative debate for example around equity, human/societal values, governance, land use contests, lifestyle changes, etc. and; (4) tools for
integrating the science in decision-making contexts. In particular, we see real value
in developing a distinct and novel, ‘PB-enabled’ normative LCA approach to support
the adoption of the PB concept in product/service/sectorial decision-making; this
would be a complement to, and not a replacement of, existing LCA uses.
4 Conclusion
It is evident that Unilever’s pioneering position in regards to sustainability is fi rmly
rooted in our innovative application of, and commitment to, environmental sustainability science. This has helped inform and shape the company’s thinking on
1 These boundary categories were chosen as the focus for the workshop as they are of particular
relevance to Unilever because of the types of products the company designs and markets (acknowledging of course that due to inter-linkages between PB categories, all are relevant in some way or
another to companies such as Unilever). In addition, we believe that (better) defi nition and consensus of the planetary boundary for these three is particularly important since the boundaries are
either missing entirely (chemical pollution/novel entities), challenging on the basis of scale
(regional vs global) (all three), or indeed now considered to be ‘core PBs’ in a ‘two level hierarchy
of boundaries’ (biodiversity/biosphere integrity) (Steffen et al. 2015 ).
S. Sim et al.