Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts

  • POLICIES AND SUPPORT IN RELATION TO LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The planetary boundaries (PBs) framework suggests global limits for environmental interventions which could be used to set global goals for reducing environmental impacts. This paper proposes a procedure for using such global goals for setting impact-reduction targets at the scale of products for use, for example, in life cycle assessment (LCA) contexts, e.g. as a basis for evaluating the potential of interventions to reduce the environmental impact of products.

Methods

The procedure consists of four steps: (i) identifying the PBs quantified in literature that correspond to an impact category which is studied in the product assessment context in question; (ii) interpreting what the identified PBs imply in terms of global impact-reduction targets; (iii) translating the outcome of (ii) to reduction targets for the particular global market segment to which the studied product belongs; and (iv) translating the outcome of (iii) to reduction targets for the studied product. The procedure requires some assumptions and value-based choices—the influence of these is tested by applying the procedure in a specific LCA context: a study of Swedish clothing consumption.

Results and discussion

The application of the procedure in an LCA context suggested the need for eliminating all or nearly all impact of Swedish clothing consumption for most impact categories. Thus, it is improbable that a single type of impact-reduction intervention (e.g. technological development or changed user behaviour) is sufficient. The outcome’s strong dependence on impact category suggests that the procedure can help in prioritising among impact categories. Furthermore, the outcome exhibited a strong dependence on the chosen method for allocating the globally allowed impact between regions—this was tested by applying different principles identified in a literature review on the allocation of emissions rights. The outcome also strongly depended on the geographical scope—this was tested by changing the geographical scope from Sweden to Nigeria.

Conclusions

The proposed procedure is feasible to use for LCA practitioners and other environmental analysts, and data is available to apply the procedure in contexts with different geographical scopes. Value-based choices are, however, unavoidable and significantly influence the outcome, which accentuates the subjectivity and potentially controversial nature of allocating a finite impact space to certain regions, market segments and products. How to match PBs with appropriate LCA impact categories is an important area for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hoschchorner E (2011) Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod 19(2–3):145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beton A, Dias D, Farrant L, Gibon T, Le Guern Y, Desaxce M (2014) Environmental improvement potential of textiles (IMPRO Textiles). JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=6960. Accessed Nov 2014

  • Biermann F (2012) Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: exploring the links. Ecol Econ 81:4–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn A, Diamond M, Owsianiak M, Verzat B, Hauschild MZ (2015) Strengthening the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to support development within planetary boundaries. Environ Sci Technol 20(7):1005–1018

    Google Scholar 

  • Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson J et al (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Account’s underlying methodology and framework. Ecol Indic 24:518–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens L (2011) A Lockean defense of grandfathering emission rights. In: Arnold DG (ed) The ethics of global climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 124–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brandão M, Milà i Canals L (2013) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1243–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caney S (2009) Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions. J Glob Ethics 5(2):125–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, de Baan L, de Schryver A, van Zelm R, Hellweg S, Köllner S et al (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:70–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Souza DM, Flynn DFB, DeClerck F, Rosenbaum RK, de Melo Lisboa H, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1231–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond ML, de With CA, Molander S, Scheringer M, Backhaus T, Lohmann R et al (2015) Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution. Environ Int 78:8–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ding ZL, Duan XN, Ge QS, Chang ZQ (2009) Control of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 2050: a calculation on the emission rights of different countries. Sci China Ser D 52(10):1447–1469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes: development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galli A, Wackernagel M, Iha K, Lazarus (2014) Ecological footprint: implications for biodiversity. Biol Conserv 173:121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garibaldi JA (2014) The economics of boldness: equity, action, and hope. Clim Pol 14(1):82–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Footprint Network (2010) National footprint accounts (2010 edition). http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_data_and_results/. Accessed Nov 2014

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, de Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008 first edition (version 1.08)—report I: characterisation (updated May 2013). http://www.lcia-recipe.net. Accessed Oct 2014

  • Grasso M (2012) Sharing the emission budget. Polit Stud 60:668–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grübler A (1998) Technology and global change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, de Koning A, Guinée JB (2014) Maximizing affluence within the planetary boundaries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1331–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al. (eds) Working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Accessed Oct 2014

  • ISO (2006) 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardisation

  • Jørgensen SV, Hauschld MZ, Nielsen PH (2014) Assessment of urgent impacts of greenhouse gas emissions—the climate tipping potential (CTP). Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:919–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knopf B, Kowarsch M, Lüken M, Edenhofer O, Luderer G (2012) Chapter 26: a global carbon market and the allocation of emission rights. In: Edenhofer et al. (eds) Climate change, justice and sustainability: linking climate and development policy. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, pp 269–285. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4540-7_26

  • Koellner T, Geyer R (2013) Global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1185–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Murray SA (2001) A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecol Econ 37(2):229–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Geschke A (2013) Building Eora: a global multi-region input–output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ Syst Res 25(1):20–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowska A, Matuscak-Flejszman A (2014) Eco-design as a normative element of Environmental Management Systems—the context of the revised ISO 14001:2015. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1794–1798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeijer E (2000) Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. J Clean Prod 8:313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2011) National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprints of production and consumption. Volume 2: appendices. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 50, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, DA Delft, The Netherlands

  • Metson GS, Bennett EM, Elser JJ (2012) The role of diet in phosphorus demand. Environ Res Lett 7(4). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044043

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nike (2014) Targets & performance. http://www.nikeresponsibility.com/report/content/chapter/targets-and-performance. Accessed Nov 2014

  • Nykvist B, Persson Å, Moberg F, Persson L, Cornell S, Rockström J (2013) National environmental performance on planetary boundaries: a study for the Swedish environmental protection agency. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-Naturvardsverket/Publikationer/ISBN/6500/978-91-620-6576-8/. Accessed Feb 2015

  • Pisano U, Berger G (2013) Planetary boundaries for SD: from an international perspective to national applications. http://www.sd-network.eu/quarterly%20reports/report%20files/pdf/2013-October-Planetary_Boundaries_for_SD.pdf. Accessed Feb 2015

  • Rao ND (2014) International and intranational equity in sharing climate change mitigation burdens. Int Environ Agreements 14:129–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper, February 2012. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf. Accessed Nov 2014

  • Reijnders L (1998) The factor X debate: setting targets for eco-efficiency. J Ind Ecol 2(13):13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robért K-H, Broman GI, Basile G (2013) Analyzing the concept of planetary boundaries from a strategic sustainability perspective: how does humanity avoid tipping the planet. Ecol Soc 18(2):5

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin S, Lambin E et al (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/. Accessed Oct 2014

  • Roos S, Sandin G, Zamani B, Peters G (2015) Environmental assessment of Swedish fashion consumption: five garments—sustainable futures. A Mistra Future Fashion report, June 2015. http://www.mistrafuturefashion.com/en/media/news/Sidor/LCAnewunderstanding.aspx. Accessed Jun 2015

  • Rowley HV, Peters GM, Lundie S, Moore SJ (2012) Aggregating sustainability indicators: beyond the weighted sum. J Environ Manag 111:24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Goralczyk M (2013) Chemical footprint: a methodological framework for bridging life cycle assessment and planetary boundaries for chemical pollution. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9(4):623–632

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013a) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013b) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1686–1697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2013) Moving down the cause-effect chain of water and land use impacts: an LCA case study of textile fibres. Resour Conserv Recycl 73:104–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholes RJ, Biggs G (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. doi:10.1126/science.1259855

    Google Scholar 

  • Stranddorf HK, Hoffmann L, Schmidt A (2005) Update on impact categories, normalisation and weighting in LCA–selected EDIP97 data. Environmental Project Nr. 995 2005. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen. http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-570-0/pdf/87-7614-571-9.pdf. Accessed Oct 2014

  • Tuomisto HI, Hodge IH, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2012) Exploring a safe operating approach to weighting in life cycle impact assessment—a case study of organic, conventional and integrated farming systems. J Clean Prod 37:14–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2013) World population prospects: the 2012 revision, volume I: comprehensive tables ST/ESA/SER.A/336. http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf. Accessed Oct 2014

  • Zijp MC, Posthuma L, van de Meent D (2014) Definition and applications of a versatile chemical pollution footprint methodology. Environ Sci Technol 48:10588–10597

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was funded by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the Mistra Future Fashion research programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Brinellgatan 4, Box 857, 501 05, Borås, Sweden

    Gustav Sandin

  2. Chalmers University of Technology, Chemical Environmental Science, Kemivägen 10, 412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Greg M. Peters & Magdalena Svanström

Authors
  1. Gustav Sandin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Greg M. Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Magdalena Svanström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gustav Sandin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Jeroen Guinée

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sandin, G., Peters, G.M. & Svanström, M. Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 1684–1700 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0984-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0984-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation