IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v25y2021i1p6-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sharing the safe operating space: Exploring ethical allocation principles to operationalize the planetary boundaries and assess absolute sustainability at individual and industrial sector levels

Author

Listed:
  • Anjila Wegge Hjalsted
  • Alexis Laurent
  • Martin Marchman Andersen
  • Karen Holm Olsen
  • Morten Ryberg
  • Michael Hauschild

Abstract

In the light of increasing human pressures on the Earth system, the issue of sharing in the face of scarcity is more pressing than ever. The planetary boundary framework identifies and quantifies nine environmental boundaries and corresponding human pressures. However, when aiming to make the concept operational for decision support it is unclear how this safe operating space (SOS) within each of the planetary boundaries should be shared. This study proposes a two‐step approach, where the operating space is first downscaled to the individual level using ethical allocation principles and next scaled up to a higher organizational level using different upscaling methods. For the downscaling, three allocation principles are demonstrated: egalitarian (equal per capita); grandfathering (proportional to current share of the total impacts); and ability to pay (proportional to economic activity). For upscaling from the individual level final consumption expenditure is used as a proxy for the priority that the individual gives to the product or sector. In an alternative upscaling approach, an additional upscaling factor is based on the eco‐efficiency (ratio between turnover and environmental impact) of the product or sector. A demonstration of the method's application is given by applying the framework to two of the planetary boundaries, climate change and biogeochemical flows, with the Danish, Indian and global dairy sectors as cases. It is demonstrated how the choices of allocation and upscaling approaches influence the results differently in the three cases. The developed framework is shown to support an informed and transparent selection of allocation principles and upscaling methods and it provides a step toward standardization of distributing the SOS in absolute environmental sustainability assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Anjila Wegge Hjalsted & Alexis Laurent & Martin Marchman Andersen & Karen Holm Olsen & Morten Ryberg & Michael Hauschild, 2021. "Sharing the safe operating space: Exploring ethical allocation principles to operationalize the planetary boundaries and assess absolute sustainability at individual and industrial sector levels," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(1), pages 6-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:25:y:2021:i:1:p:6-19
    DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13050
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jiec.13050?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    2. Harald Winkler & Thapelo Letete & Andrew Marquard, 2013. "Equitable access to sustainable development: operationalizing key criteria," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 411-432, July.
    3. Narasimha Rao, 2014. "International and intranational equity in sharing climate change mitigation burdens," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 129-146, May.
    4. Oskar Krabbe & Giel Linthorst & Kornelis Blok & Wina Crijns-Graus & Detlef P. van Vuuren & Niklas Höhne & Pedro Faria & Nate Aden & Alberto Carrillo Pineda, 2015. "Aligning corporate greenhouse-gas emissions targets with climate goals," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1057-1060, December.
    5. Heng Yi Teah & Tomohiro Akiyama & Ricardo San Carlos & Orlando Vargas Rayo & Yu Ting Joanne Khew & Sijia Zhao & Lingfeng Zheng & Motoharu Onuki, 2016. "Assessment of Downscaling Planetary Boundaries to Semi-Arid Ecosystems with a Local Perception: A Case Study in the Middle Reaches of Heihe River," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-11, November.
    6. Greaker, Mads & Stoknes, Per Espen & Alfsen, Knut H. & Ericson, Torgeir, 2013. "A Kantian approach to sustainable development indicators for climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 10-18.
    7. Kai Fang & Reinout Heijungs & Zheng Duan & Geert R. De Snoo, 2015. "The Environmental Sustainability of Nations: Benchmarking the Carbon, Water and Land Footprints against Allocated Planetary Boundaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xuemei Bai & Syezlin Hasan & Lauren Seaby Andersen & Anders Bjørn & Şiir Kilkiş & Daniel Ospina & Jianguo Liu & Sarah E. Cornell & Oscar Sabag Muñoz & Ariane Bremond & Beatrice Crona & Fabrice DeClerc, 2024. "Translating Earth system boundaries for cities and businesses," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 108-119, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Céline Guivarch & Nicolas Taconet, 2020. "Inégalités mondiales et changement climatique," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 35-70.
    2. Morten W. Ryberg & Troels K. Bjerre & Per Henrik Nielsen & Michael Hauschild, 2021. "Absolute environmental sustainability assessment of a Danish utility company relative to the Planetary Boundaries," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(3), pages 765-777, June.
    3. Mechthild Donner & Anne Verniquet & Jan Broeze & Katrin Kayser & Hugo de Vries, 2021. "Critical success and risk factors for circular business models valorising agricultural waste and by-products," Post-Print hal-03004851, HAL.
    4. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    5. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    6. Jim Butcher, 2006. "The United Nations International Year of Ecotourism: a critical analysis of development implications," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 6(2), pages 146-156, April.
    7. Denise Ravet, 2011. "Lean production: the link between supply chain and sustainable development in an international environment," Post-Print hal-00691666, HAL.
    8. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    9. Megan Devonald & Nicola Jones & Sally Youssef, 2022. "‘We Have No Hope for Anything’: Exploring Interconnected Economic, Social and Environmental Risks to Adolescents in Lebanon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Rigby, Dan & Woodhouse, Phil & Young, Trevor & Burton, Michael, 2001. "Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 463-478, December.
    11. Michael Howes & Liana Wortley & Ruth Potts & Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes & Silvia Serrao-Neumann & Julie Davidson & Timothy Smith & Patrick Nunn, 2017. "Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Shiferaw, Bekele & Holden, Stein, 1999. "Soil Erosion and Smallholders' Conservation Decisions in the Highlands of Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 739-752, April.
    13. Ibrahim Ari & Muammer Koc, 2018. "Sustainable Financing for Sustainable Development: Understanding the Interrelations between Public Investment and Sovereign Debt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, October.
    14. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    15. Pengji Wang & Adrian T. H. Kuah & Qinye Lu & Caroline Wong & K. Thirumaran & Emmanuel Adegbite & Wesley Kendall, 2021. "The impact of value perceptions on purchase intention of sustainable luxury brands in China and the UK," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(3), pages 325-346, May.
    16. Christoph M. Schmidt & Nils aus dem Moore, 2014. "Wie geht es uns? Die W3-Indikatoren für eine neue Wohlstandsmessung," RWI Positionen, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, pages 16, 03.
    17. Katundu Imasiku & Valerie M. Thomas & Etienne Ntagwirumugara, 2020. "Unpacking Ecological Stress from Economic Activities for Sustainability and Resource Optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-12, April.
    18. Chin-Shan Lu & Kuo-Chung Shang & Chi-Chang Lin, 2016. "Examining sustainability performance at ports: port managers’ perspectives on developing sustainable supply chains," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(8), pages 909-927, November.
    19. Kebede, Yohannes, 1993. "The Limits to Common Resource Management: The Bypassed Commons or Commons without Tragedy," MPRA Paper 662, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 May 1993.
    20. John Stanley & Janet Stanley, 2023. "Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-18, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:25:y:2021:i:1:p:6-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.