alongside the PB thresholds, will provide a platform to benchmark the environmental sustainability performance of a system at a global level. However, further
research is necessary to benchmark similar environmental impacts on a sub-global
level, given that most of the impacts are, in fact, a result of the accumulated effects
of discrete regional and local problems [2, 4]. Hence, some suggest allocating the
global boundaries to sub-global levels using a variety of allocation principles [e.g.
3, 4], while others propose developing appropriate independent boundaries at
sub-global levels [e.g. 2, 6, 8].
Finally, in order to develop an ASAM framework, future studies should focus on
linking the SDGs and PBs with the Impact Assessment phase of LCA. Such an
ASAM has potential to inform whether the chosen system is aligned (or not) with
the environmental goals and targets listed in the SDGs as well as whether they are
operating within the carrying capacity of the Earth system.
References
1. Rockström J, Steffen W, et al., Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for
humanity, Ecology and Society, vol. 14, 2009.
2. Steffen W, Richardson K, et al., Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human
development on a changing planet, Science, vol. 347, p. 1259855, 2015.
3. Roos S, Zamani B, et al., A life cycle assessment (LCA)-based approach to guiding an
industry sector towards sustainability: the case of the Swedish apparel sector, Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 133, pp. 691–700, 2016.
4. Sandin G, Peters G.M, Svanström M, Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting
impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, vol. 20, pp. 1684–1700, 2015.
5. Nykvist B, Persson A, et al., National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries,
A Study for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm,
Sweden2013.
6. Bjørn A, Hauschild M.Z, Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA:
framework and development of references at midpoint level, The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, vol. 20, pp. 1005–1018, 2015.
7. Bjørn A, Hauschild M.Z, Absolute versus Relative Environmental Sustainability, Journal of
Industrial Ecology, vol. 17, pp. 321–332, 2013.
8. Bjørn A, Margni M, et al., A proposal to measure absolute environmental sustainability in life
cycle assessment, Ecological Indicators, vol. 63, pp. 1–13, 2016.
9. Hauschild M.Z, Better—But is it Good Enough? On the Need to Consider Both
Eco-efficiency and Eco-effectiveness to Gauge Industrial Sustainability, Procedia CIRP,
vol. 29, pp. 1–7, 2015.
10. Borucke M, Moore D, et al., Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s
regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and
framework, Ecological Indicators, vol. 24, pp. 518–533, 2013.
11. United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
2015.
12. United Nations, Revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal Indicators
13. Brandi C, Safeguarding the earth system as a priority for sustainable development and global
ethics: the need for an earth system SDG, Journal of Global Ethics, vol. 11, pp. 32–36, 2015.
422
C. Chandrakumar and S. J. McLaren
research is necessary to benchmark similar environmental impacts on a sub-global
level, given that most of the impacts are, in fact, a result of the accumulated effects
of discrete regional and local problems [2, 4]. Hence, some suggest allocating the
global boundaries to sub-global levels using a variety of allocation principles [e.g.
3, 4], while others propose developing appropriate independent boundaries at
sub-global levels [e.g. 2, 6, 8].
Finally, in order to develop an ASAM framework, future studies should focus on
linking the SDGs and PBs with the Impact Assessment phase of LCA. Such an
ASAM has potential to inform whether the chosen system is aligned (or not) with
the environmental goals and targets listed in the SDGs as well as whether they are
operating within the carrying capacity of the Earth system.
References
1. Rockström J, Steffen W, et al., Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for
humanity, Ecology and Society, vol. 14, 2009.
2. Steffen W, Richardson K, et al., Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human
development on a changing planet, Science, vol. 347, p. 1259855, 2015.
3. Roos S, Zamani B, et al., A life cycle assessment (LCA)-based approach to guiding an
industry sector towards sustainability: the case of the Swedish apparel sector, Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 133, pp. 691–700, 2016.
4. Sandin G, Peters G.M, Svanström M, Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting
impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, vol. 20, pp. 1684–1700, 2015.
5. Nykvist B, Persson A, et al., National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries,
A Study for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm,
Sweden2013.
6. Bjørn A, Hauschild M.Z, Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA:
framework and development of references at midpoint level, The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, vol. 20, pp. 1005–1018, 2015.
7. Bjørn A, Hauschild M.Z, Absolute versus Relative Environmental Sustainability, Journal of
Industrial Ecology, vol. 17, pp. 321–332, 2013.
8. Bjørn A, Margni M, et al., A proposal to measure absolute environmental sustainability in life
cycle assessment, Ecological Indicators, vol. 63, pp. 1–13, 2016.
9. Hauschild M.Z, Better—But is it Good Enough? On the Need to Consider Both
Eco-efficiency and Eco-effectiveness to Gauge Industrial Sustainability, Procedia CIRP,
vol. 29, pp. 1–7, 2015.
10. Borucke M, Moore D, et al., Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s
regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and
framework, Ecological Indicators, vol. 24, pp. 518–533, 2013.
11. United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
2015.
12. United Nations, Revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal Indicators
13. Brandi C, Safeguarding the earth system as a priority for sustainable development and global
ethics: the need for an earth system SDG, Journal of Global Ethics, vol. 11, pp. 32–36, 2015.
422
C. Chandrakumar and S. J. McLaren