The purpose of this work is to identify and select safeguard subjects and state indicators that are suitable for sustainability assessment in product and production development, using an interpretation of the Brundtland definition of sustainable development. The purpose is also to investigate how indicators selected in this way differ from other selections in the literature.
We use a top-down approach, which starts with reviewing the Brundtland definition of sustainability and identifying the corresponding human basic needs to be satisfied. For each basic need, we identify relevant satisfiers, and for each satisfier, a number of safeguard subjects. The safeguard subjects represent critical resources for making satisfiers available. For each safeguard subject, a number of state indicators (=endpoint category indicators) are selected that are relevant for describing impacts from product life cycles on the safeguard subject.
Results and discussion
Ecosystem services, access to water, and abiotic resources are identified as environmental safeguard subjects. Technology for transports, environment, textiles, housing, food, information, and energy, together with income, are identified as economical safeguard subjects. Human health, land availability, peace, social security, continuity, knowledge, jobs/occupation, and culture are identified as social safeguard subjects. In comparison with the other selections of safeguard subjects in literature, our safeguard subjects are structured differently and delimited in scope, but there are also many similarities. The best agreement is on environmental issues, but we classify human health as a social issue. For social issues, we identify fewer safeguard subjects and state indicators than recommendations from UNEP/SETAC. For economic issues, we diverse from current LCC and approach UNECE measures of sustainability.
Identification and selection of safeguard subjects and state indicators benefit from a clear definition of sustainability, needs to be satisfied, and satisfiers. The interpretation of the sustainability concept has a large influence on which safeguard subjects that are included and which indicators that are needed to describe their state. Capacity building is an important sustainability indicator, which should be developed further for use in life cycle sustainability assessment. The top-down approach offers a good arena for a further research and discussions on how to structure and focus LCSA. Our results shall be seen as one example of which safeguard subject that may be identified with the top-down approach presented here.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Almer B, Dickson W, Ekstrom C, Hornstrom E, Miller U (1974) Effects of acidification on Swedish lakes. Ambio 3:30–36
Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Davis D, Bell M, Fletcher T (2002) A look back at the London smog of 1952 and the half century since. Environ Health Perspect 110:734–735
Finkbeiner M, Schau E, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322
Galtung J (1996) Peace by peaceful means. SAGE Publications, London, p 128
Goedkoop M, Spriensmaa R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort
Griggs D et al (2013) Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495:305–307
Harada M (1995) Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Crit Rev Toxicol 25:1–24
Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (eds) (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC, Pensacola, FL (US). CRC Press, Boca Raton
ISO (2006a) ISO standard 14040:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework
ISO (2006b) ISO standard 14044:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines
Jolly R (1976) The world employment conference: tripartite World Conference on Employment, income distribution and social progress and the International Division of Labour organised by the International Labour Office, Geneva, 4–17 June 1976. Futures 8:363–365
Jørgensen A, Herrmann I, Bjørn A (2013) Analysis of the link between a definition of sustainability and the life cycle methodologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1440–1449
JRC (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook - general guide for life cycle assessment - detailed guidance. European Commission - joint research centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability: first edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95
Litwack L (2007) Basic needs—a retrospective. Int J Real Ther 26:28–30
Lütkenhorst W (1982) Operationalizing basic needs: a few fundamental reflections. Intereconomics 1982:244–250
Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50:370–396
Max-Neef M (1993) Desarrollo a Escala Humana. Editorial Nordan-Comunidad, Montevideo
Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384
Steen B (1997) On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority setting. J Clean Prod 5:255–262
Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W, Pesonen H-L, Ciroth A, Brent A, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:389–391
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation, Chapter 1 retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org/ 16 December 2014.
UN (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf, accessed 10 December 2014
UNDP (1997) Human development report 1997. Oxford University Press, New York Oxford
UNEP (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, UNEP/SETAC’s Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, 2009
UNEP (2011) Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC’s Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, 2011
UNEP (2013) The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA ), Pre-publication version, UNEP/SETAC’s Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, 2013
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2014) Conference of European Statisticians recommendations on measuring sustainable development. United Nations, New York and Geneva
UNU-IHDP and UNEP (2012) Inclusive wealth report 2012. Measuring progress toward sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Weidema B (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598
WHO (2006) WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide Global update 2005. WHO Press, World Health Organization, Geneva
WHO (2011) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edn. WHO Press, World Health Organization, Geneva
Funding from the Swedish Innovation Agency, VINNOVA, and from Chalmers Sustainable Production Initiative is greatly acknowledged.
Conflicts of interest
No potential conflicts of interest exist to our knowledge.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
No such research is carried out.
Not applicable for this work
Responsible editor: Alessandra Zamagni
About this article
Cite this article
Steen, B., Palander, S. A selection of safeguard subjects and state indicators for sustainability assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21, 861–874 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1052-6
- Basic needs
- Impact indicators
- Life cycle assessment
- Safeguard subjects