IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p7041-d295961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Doing” Sustainability Assessment in Different Consumption and Production Contexts—Lessons from Case Study Comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Engelmann

    (Department of Food, Nutrition, Facilities, FH Münster University of Applied Sciences, 48149 Münster, Germany)

  • Daniel Fischer

    (Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
    School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA)

  • Marianne Lörchner

    (Thünen Institute of Rural Studies, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany)

  • Jaya Bowry

    (IZT—Institute for Future Studies and Technology Assessment, 14129 Berlin, Germany)

  • Holger Rohn

    (Department of Business Engineering, TH Mittelhessen University of Applied Sciences, 61169 Friedberg, Germany)

Abstract

Sustainability as a guiding idea for societal and economic development causes a growing need for reliable sustainability assessments (SAs). In response, a plethora of increasingly sophisticated, standardizAed, and specialized approaches have emerged. However, little attention has been paid to how applications of SAs in different contexts navigate the challenges of selecting and customizing SA approaches for their research purposes. This paper provides an exploration of the context-specific conditions of SA through a case study of three research projects. Each case study explores the different approaches, methodologies, as well as difficulties and similarities that researchers face in “doing” SA based on the research question “What are common challenges that researchers are facing in using SA approaches?” Our case study comparison follows a most different approach for covering a wide range of SA applications and is structured along with three key challenges of doing SA: (i) Deliberation, learning and assessment; (ii) normative assessment principles; (iii) feasibility, especially regarding data quality/availability. Above all, the comparative case study underlines the role and importance of reflexivity and context: We argue that a more explicit and transparent discussion of these challenges could contribute to greater awareness, and thus, to improving the ability of researchers to transparently modify and customize generic SA methodologies to their research contexts. Our findings can help researchers to more critically appraise the differences between SA approaches, as well as their normative assumptions, and guide them to assemble their SA methodology in a reflexive and case-sensitive way.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Engelmann & Daniel Fischer & Marianne Lörchner & Jaya Bowry & Holger Rohn, 2019. "“Doing” Sustainability Assessment in Different Consumption and Production Contexts—Lessons from Case Study Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-25, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7041-:d:295961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7041/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7041/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnold Tukker & Arjan de Koning & Richard Wood & Troy Hawkins & Stephan Lutter & Jose Acosta & Jose M. Rueda Cantuche & Maaike Bouwmeester & Jan Oosterhaven & Thomas Drosdowski & Jeroen Kuenen, 2013. "Exiopol - Development And Illustrative Analyses Of A Detailed Global Mr Ee Sut/Iot," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 50-70, March.
    2. Engelmann1, Tobias & Speck, Melanie & Rohn, Holger & Bienge, Katrin & Langen, Nina & Howell, Eva & Göbel, Christine & Friedrich, Silke & Teitscheid, Petra & Liedtke, Christa, 2017. "Sustainability assessment of out of-of-home meals: poten-tials and obstacles applying indicator sets NAHGAST Meal-Basis and NAHGAST Meal-Pro," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    3. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    4. Robin Kortright & Sarah Wakefield, 2011. "Edible backyards: a qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(1), pages 39-53, February.
    5. Matthias Finkbeiner & Erwin M. Schau & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marzia Traverso, 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Tom Waas & Jean Hugé & Thomas Block & Tarah Wright & Francisco Benitez-Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability Assessment and Indicators: Tools in a Decision-Making Strategy for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-23, August.
    7. Arnold Tukker & Bart Jansen, 2006. "Environmental Impacts of Products: A Detailed Review of Studies," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 10(3), pages 159-182, July.
    8. Engelmann, Tobias & Speck, Melanie & Rohn, Holger & Bienge, Katrin & Langen, Nina & Howell, Eva & Göbel, Christine & Friedrich, Silke & Teitscheid, Petra & Liedtke, Christa, 2017. "Sustainability assessment of out of-of-home meals: poten-tials and obstacles applying indicator sets NAHGAST Meal-Basis and NAHGAST Meal-Pro," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276927, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    9. Kirk Brown & Tim Kasser, 2005. "Are Psychological and Ecological Well-being Compatible? The Role of Values, Mindfulness, and Lifestyle," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 349-368, November.
    10. Arnould, Eric & Plastina, Alejandro & Ball, Dwayne, 2009. "Does Fair Trade Deliver on Its Core Value Proposition? Effects on Income, Educational Attainment, and Health in Three Countries," Staff General Research Papers Archive 39169, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    12. Sala, Serenella & Ciuffo, Biagio & Nijkamp, Peter, 2015. "A systemic framework for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 314-325.
    13. Flavio Comim & Rie Tsutsumi & Angels Varea, 2007. "Choosing sustainable consumption: a capability perspective on indicators," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 493-509.
    14. Tom Waas & Jean Huge & Thomas BLOCK & Tarah Wright & Francisco Javier Benitez Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189410, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. Michael Kühnen & Samanthi Silva & Janpeter Beckmann & Ulrike Eberle & Rüdiger Hahn & Christoph Hermann & Stefan Schaltegger & Marianne Schmid, 2019. "Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the Handprint research project," NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum | Sustainability Management Forum, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 65-82, March.
    16. Hager, Tiffany J. & Morawicki, Ruben, 2013. "Energy consumption during cooking in the residential sector of developed nations: A review," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 54-63.
    17. Sonja Maria Geiger & Daniel Fischer & Ulf Schrader, 2018. "Measuring What Matters in Sustainable Consumption: An Integrative Framework for the Selection of Relevant Behaviors," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 18-33, January.
    18. Jenny Pope & Alan A.M. Bond & Jean Huge & Angus Morrison-Saunders, 2017. "Reconceptualising sustainability assessment," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/242233, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Roope Husgafvel, 2021. "Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint—Part 2: Sustainable Development and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-35, October.
    2. Anastasiia Moldavska, 2017. "Defining Organizational Context for Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Cross-Disciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
    3. Jiean Ling & Eve Germain & Richard Murphy & Devendra Saroj, 2021. "Designing a Sustainability Assessment Framework for Selecting Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Technologies in Corporate Asset Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, March.
    4. Anastasiia Moldavska & Torgeir Welo, 2018. "Testing and Verification of a New Corporate Sustainability Assessment Method for Manufacturing: A Multiple Case Research Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-40, November.
    5. Etheldreder Trecia Koppa & Innocent Musonda & Sambo Lyson Zulu, 2023. "A Systematic Literature Review on Local Sustainability Assessment Processes for Infrastructure Development Projects in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-37, January.
    6. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Johan Du Plessis & Wouter Bam, 2018. "Comparing the Sustainable Development Potential of Industries: A Role for Sustainability Disclosures?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, March.
    8. Jean Hugé & Nibedita Mukherjee & Camille Fertel & Jean-Philippe Waaub & Thomas Block & Tom Waas & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2015. "Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Lhermie, Guillaume & Wernli, Didier & Jørgensen, Peter Søgaard & Kenkel, Donald & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia & Tauer, Loren William & Gröhn, Yrjo Tapio, 2019. "Tradeoffs between resistance to antimicrobials in public health and their use in agriculture: Moving towards sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Karel Doubravský & Alena Kocmanová & Mirko Dohnal, 2018. "Analysis of Sustainability Decision Trees Generated by Qualitative Models Based on Equationless Heuristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Ye Sun & Tomohiro Akiyama, 2018. "An Empirical Study on Sustainable Agriculture Land Use Right Transfer in the Heihe River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    12. Ahmed M. N. Masoud & Marika Belotti & Amani Alfarra & Sabrina Sorlini, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Analysis for Evaluating Constructed Wetland as a Sustainable Sanitation Technology, Jordan Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-24, November.
    13. Boggia, Antonio & Massei, Gianluca & Pace, Elaine & Rocchi, Lucia & Paolotti, Luisa & Attard, Maria, 2018. "Spatial multicriteria analysis for sustainability assessment: A new model for decision making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 281-292.
    14. Khalid Butti Al Shamsi & Paolo Guarnaccia & Salvatore Luciano Cosentino & Cherubino Leonardi & Paolo Caruso & Giuseppe Stella & Giuseppe Timpanaro, 2019. "Analysis of Relationships and Sustainability Performance in Organic Agriculture in the United Arab Emirates and Sicily (Italy)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-25, February.
    15. Michiel C. Zijp & Reinout Heijungs & Ester Van der Voet & Dik Van de Meent & Mark A. J. Huijbregts & Anne Hollander & Leo Posthuma, 2015. "An Identification Key for Selecting Methods for Sustainability Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, March.
    16. Arjan Kirkels & Vince Evers & Gerrit Muller, 2021. "Systems Engineering for the Energy Transition: Potential Contributions and Limitations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, May.
    17. Carole Brunet & Oumarou Savadogo & Pierre Baptiste & Michel A Bouchard & Jean Chrysostome Rakotoary & Andry Ravoninjatovo & Céline Cholez & Corinne Gendron & Nicolas Merveille, 2020. "Impacts Generated by a Large-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant Can Lead to Conflicts between Sustainable Development Goals: A Review of Key Lessons Learned in Madagascar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-33, September.
    18. Nomeda Dobrovolskienė & Rima Tamošiūnienė & Audrius Banaitis & Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Nerija Banaitienė & Kamilė Taujanskaitė & Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, 2019. "Developing a composite sustainability index for real estate projects using multiple criteria decision making," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 617-635, September.
    19. Juan Diego Araya & Ana Hernando & Rosario Tejera & Javier Velázquez, 2023. "Sustainable Tourism around Ecosystem Services: Application to a Case in Costa Rica Using Multi-Criteria Methods," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    20. Anke Schaffartzik & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Nina Eisenmenger, 2015. "Raw Material Equivalents: The Challenges of Accounting for Sustainability in a Globalized World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-26, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7041-:d:295961. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.