Skip to main content

Using the Framework for Integrated Sustainability Assessment (FISA) to expand the Multiregional Input–Output analysis to account for the three pillars of sustainability


Decision makers interested in promoting sustainable development must simultaneously consider the environmental, economic and social implications of any action. This article proposes the Framework for Integrated Sustainability Assessment (FISA), a methodological framework for conducting a sustainability impact assessment of any investment project. Based on a Multiregional Input–Output (MRIO) framework, FISA links the extended MRIO results with social risk data from the Social Hotspots Database (SHDB) in order to integrate the social with the environmental and economic pillars. Resulting impacts are simultaneously considered and reported by means of FISA charts, making it possible to assess the different impacts within the three sustainability pillars across countries involved in the whole supply chain of investment projects. This methodological framework can be applied not only to compare the sustainability impacts of two alternative projects, but also to derive specific recommendations aimed at minimizing the harmful social, environmental and economic effects along the whole project supply chain.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3






  • Caldés N., Lechón Y. (2010). Análisis de externalidades de las energías renovables. In: Tratado energías Renov [Internet]. Editorial Aranzadi; [cited 2015 Jun 30]; pp. 951–1004. España.

  • Alsamawi, A., Murray, J., & Lenzen, M. (2014). The employment footprints of nations: Uncovering master-servant relationships. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18, 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez S. (2014). Huella de carbono de organización y producto con enfoque híbrido: mejoras en el método compuesto de las cuentas contables. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

  • Andrew R., Peters G., Lennox J. (2009). Approximation and regional aggregation in multi-regional input–output analysis for national carbon footprint accounting. [Internet]. [cited 2015 Aug 31].

  • Archer, B., & Fletcher, J. (1996). The economic impact of tourism in the Seychelles. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 32–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arto I., Rueda-Cantuche J. M., Peters G. P. (2014). Comparing the Gtap-Mrio and Wiod databases for carbon footprint analysis. Economic Systems Research [Internet]. 26, 327–353.

  • Barrett, J., Peters, G., Wiedmann, T., Scott, K., Lenzen, M., Roelich, K., et al. (2013). Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: A UK case study. Climate Policy, 13, 451–470. doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.788858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol W. J., Wolff E. N. (1994). A key role for input-output analysis in policy design. Regional Science and Urban Economics [Internet]. [cited 2015 Aug 27]; 24, 93–113.

  • Benoît C., Aulisio D., Hallisey-kepka C., Tamblyn N., Norris G. A. (2012). Social scoping prototype strawberry yogurt. Arizona. New Earth and The sustainability consortium: A social hotspot database publication.

  • Bernow S., Marron D. (1990). Valuation of environmental externalities for energy planning and operations [Internet]. Boston; [cited 2015 Sep 10].

  • Bezerr J. (2012). Evaluation of two competing machining processes based on sustainability indicators. In Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World Proceedings of the 19 th CIRP Conference Life Cycle Engineering University Calif Berkeley, Berkeley, USA, May 23–25, 2012. Sao Paulo.

  • Breitschopf B., Nathani C., Resch G. (2012). IEA-RETD project: “Economic and Industrial Development” EID—EMPLOY. Methodological guidelines for estimating the employment impacts of using renewable energies for electricity generation. Karlsruhe, Germany.

  • Caldés, N., Coady, D., & Maluccio, J. A. (2006). The cost of poverty alleviation transfer programs: A comparative analysis of three programs in Latin America. World Development, 34, 818–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldés, N., Varela, M., Santamaría, M., & Sáez, R. (2009). Economic impact of solar thermal electricity deployment in Spain. Energy Policy, 37, 1628–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carraro C., Campagnolo L., Eboli F., Giove S., Lanzi E., Parrado R., Pinar M., Portale E. (2013). The FEEM sustainability index: An integrated tool for sustainability assessment [Internet].:169–193.

  • Casillas, C. E., & Kammen, D. M. (2012). Quantifying the social equity of carbon mitigation strategies. Climate Policy, 12, 690–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen A. (2009). The Multidimensional poverty assessment tool: User’s guide.

  • Corona B., De la Rúa C., San Miguel G. (2016). Socioeconomic and environmental effects of concentrated solar power in Spain: A multiregional input-output analysis. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells. (article in press).

  • De la Rúa, Lope C. (2009). Desarrollo de la herramienta integrada “análisis de ciclo de vida—Input Outout análisis para España y aplicación a tecnologías energéticas avanzadas”. Madrid: CIEMAT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer L. C., Hauschild M. Z., Schierbeck J. (2006). A Framework for social life cycle impact assessment. International Journal [Internet]. 11:88–97.

  • Duscha V., Ragwitz M., Breitschopf B. (2014). Employment and growth effects of sustainable energies in the European Union [Internet]. 199.

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erumban A., Gouma R., De Vries G., De Vries K., Timmer M. (2012). Sources for national supply and use table input files [Internet]. Brussels.

  • Esmaeili, A., & Shahsavari, Z. (2011). Valuation of irrigation water in South-western Iran using a hedonic pricing model. Applied Water Science, 1, 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETSU, METROECONOMICA. (1995). ExternE. Externalities of Energy. Methodology.

  • Feng K., Chapagainb A., Suhc S., Pfisterc S., Hubacek K. (2011). Comparison of bottom-up and top-down approaches to calculating the water footprints of nations. [Internet]. [cited 2015 Sep 10].

  • Ferroukhi R., Lucas H., Renner M., Lehr U., Breitschopf B., Lallement D., Petrick K. (2013). Renewable energy and jobs. International Renewable Energy Agency, 1–144.

  • Franze J. 2013. Working with the social hotspots database in openLCA.

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The Social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13(32–33), 122–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlhar M. (1996). Reconciling bilateral trade data for use in GTAP. GTAP Technical Paper. Paper 10.

  • Graymore, M. L. M. (2014). Sustainability reporting: An approach to get the right mix of theory and practicality for local actors. Sustainability, 6, 3145–3170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green Delta. (2013). Social hotspot database introductory user tutorial. York: SHDB project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harslett P. (2013). The GTAP data base construction procedure by GTAP working paper No. 76.

  • Hertwich E., Peters G. (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environment Science and Technology [Internet]. 43, 6414–6420.

  • Hohmeyer O. (1988). Social costs of energy consumption: External effects of electricity generation in the Federal Republic of Germany [Internet]. Germany; [cited 2015 Sep 10].

  • Holland D., Cooke S. C. (1992). Sources of structural change in the Washington economy. The Annals of Regional Science [Internet]. [cited 2015 Jun 30]; 26, 155–170.

  • Hong, J., Xu, C., Hong, J., Tan, X., & Chen, W. (2013). Life cycle assessment of sewage sludge co-incineration in a coal-based power station. Waste Management, 33(9), 1843–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff K., McDougall R., Walmsley T. (2000). Contributing input-output tables to the GTAP data base contributing input-output tables to the GTAP data base GTAP technical paper No. 1. Guelph.

  • Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2009). The role of the social dimension in life cycle engineering. International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, 1, 238–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isard W. (1951). Interregional and regional input-output analysis: A model of a space-economy [Internet]. [cited 2015 Sep 7].

  • Jala A., & Nandagiri L. (2015). Evaluation of economic value of Pilikula Lake using travel cost and contingent valuation methods. Aquatic Procedia [Internet]. 4:1315–1321.

  • Jones L., Wang Z., Xin L., Degain C. (2014). The similarities and differences among three major inter-country input-output databases and their implications for trade in value added estimates. Washington.

  • Kajikawa, Y. (2008). Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 3, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofoworola F., Gheewala S. (2008). An input–output analysis of Thailand’s construction sector [Internet]. [cited 2015 Aug 27].

  • Kondo, Y., Moriguchi, Y., & Shimizu, H. (1998). CO2 emissions in Japan: Influences of imports and exports. Applied Energy, 59, 163–174.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, G. (1999). Disclosing new worlds: A role for social and environmental accounting and auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen, M. (1998). Primary energy and greenhouse gases embodied in Australian final consumption: An input-output analysis. Energy Policy, 26, 495–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leontief W. (1936). Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. The Review of Economic Statistics [Internet]. [cited 2015 Jun 30]; 18, 105–125.

  • Linke B. S., Corman G. J., Dornfeld D. A., Tönissen S. (2013). Sustainability indicators for discrete manufacturing processes applied to grinding technology. Journal of Manufacturing Systems [Internet]. 32, 556–563.

  • Mc Bain D. (2015). Social indicators for use with Multiregional Input Output analysis. Sydney.

  • McBain D., Alsamawi A. (2014). Quantitative accounting for social economic indicators. Natural Resources Forum [Internet]. 38, 193–202.

  • Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009). Input—output analysis. Foundations and extensions. Second. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moses L. (1955). The stability of interregional trading patterns and input-output analysis [Internet]. [cited 2015 Jul 30].

  • Munda, G. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: Some methodological issues. Ecological Economics, 19(2), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro F. (2012). Modelos multisectoriales input-output en el estudio de los impactos ambientales: Una aplicación a la economía de Cataluña. p. 217.

  • NEEDS (2009). New energy externalities developments for sustainability deliverable no 5-RS 1d “External Costs Aggregation”.

  • New Earth. (2013). SHDB supporting documentation. United States.

  • UNEP, SETAC, Life Cycle Iniciative. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Belgium.

  • Ottinger R. L., Wooley D., Robinson N., Hodas D., Babb S. (1990). Environmental costs of electricity [Internet]. New York, NY (United States); Oceana Publications; [cited 2015 Sep 10].

  • Oxfam. (2013). Exploring the links between international business and poverty reduction: Bouquets and beans from Kenya. Oxford [Internet]. 128.

  • Pearce D., Bann C., Georgiou S. (1992). The social cost of fuel cycles [Internet]. [cited 2015 Sep 10].

  • Ranis G., & Stewart F., (2010). Success and failure in Human Development 1970–2007. Human Development Research Paper 2010/10.

  • Schoolman, E. D., Guest, J. S., Bush, K. F., & Bell, A. R. (2012). How interdisciplinary issustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustainability Science, 7, 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senhbruch K. (2004). From the quantity to the quality of employment: An application of the capability approach to the Chilean labour market. Center for Latin American Studies Working Paper. No. 9:1–66.

  • Shakya, B. D., Aye, L., & Musgrave, P. (2005). Technical feasibility and financial analysis of hybrid wind-photovoltaic system with hydrogen storage for Cooma. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 30, 9–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith L. M., Case J. L., Smith H. M., Harwell L. C., Summers J. K. (2013). Relating ecoystem services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a U.S. index. Ecological Indicators [Internet]. 28, 79–90.

  • Spence, L. J., & Bourlakis, M. (2009). The evolution from corporate social responsibility to supply chain responsibility: The case of Waitrose. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford University (2005). Guidelines for LCCA in Buildings. Standford.

  • Stone R. (1966). The social accounts from a consumer´s point of view. An outline and discussion of the revised United Nations system of national accounts. Review of Income Wealth [Internet]. [cited 2015 Aug 27]; 12, 1–33.

  • Stone R. (1986). Social accounting: The state of play [Internet]. [cited 2015 Aug 17].

  • Tate E. (2012). Uncertainty analysis for a social vulnerability index. Annals of the Association of American Geographers [Internet]. [cited 2015 Sep 7]; 103, 526–543.

  • Ten Raa T. (2006). The economics of input-output analysis [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; [cited 2015 Jun 30]./ebook.jsf?bid = CBO9780511610783.

  • Teske S., Sawyer S., Ash K. (2014). Energy [r]evolution. United States.

  • Tukker A., Dietzenbacher E. (2013). Global multiregional input–output frameworks: An introduction and outlook. Economic Systems Research [Internet]. 25:1–19.

  • Vucetich, J. A., & Nelson, M. P. (2010). Sustainability: Virtuous or Vulgar? BioScience, 60, 539–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B. P. (2006). The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment [Internet]. 11:89–96.

  • Wiedmann T., Wood R., Minx J. C., Lenzen M., Guan D., Harris R. (2010). A carbon footprint time series of the UK—results from a multi-region input–output model. Economic Systems Research [Internet]. [cited 2015 Jul 30]; 22, 19–42.

  • Wolff H., Chong H., Auffhammer M. (2010). Classification, detection and consequences of data error: Evidence from the Human Development Index.

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future, the Brundtland report.

  • Wyckoff, A. W., & Roop, J. M. (1994). The embodiment of carbon in imports of manufactured products. Energy Policy, 22, 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zafrilla, J. E., Cadarso, M.-N., Monsalve, F., & De La Ruá, C. (2014). How carbon-friendly is nuclear energy? A hybrid MRIO-LCA model of a Spanish facility. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(24), 14103–14111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene Rodríguez-Serrano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodríguez-Serrano, I., Caldés, N., De La Rúa, C. et al. Using the Framework for Integrated Sustainability Assessment (FISA) to expand the Multiregional Input–Output analysis to account for the three pillars of sustainability. Environ Dev Sustain 19, 1981–1997 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: