A selection of safeguard subjects and state indicators for sustainability assessments

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Conclusions

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Almer B, Dickson W, Ekstrom C, Hornstrom E, Miller U (1974) Effects of acidification on Swedish lakes. Ambio 3:30–36

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Finkbeiner M, Schau E, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Galtung J (1996) Peace by peaceful means. SAGE Publications, London, p 128

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goedkoop M, Spriensmaa R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  7. Griggs D et al (2013) Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495:305–307

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Harada M (1995) Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Crit Rev Toxicol 25:1–24

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (eds) (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC, Pensacola, FL (US). CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  10. ISO (2006a) ISO standard 14040:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework

  11. ISO (2006b) ISO standard 14044:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Litwack L (2007) Basic needs—a retrospective. Int J Real Ther 26:28–30

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lütkenhorst W (1982) Operationalizing basic needs: a few fundamental reflections. Intereconomics 1982:244–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50:370–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Max-Neef M (1993) Desarrollo a Escala Humana. Editorial Nordan-Comunidad, Montevideo

    Google Scholar 

  20. Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Steen B (1997) On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority setting. J Clean Prod 5:255–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

  24. 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

  25. UNDP (1997) Human development report 1997. Oxford University Press, New York Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  26. UNEP (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, UNEP/SETAC’s Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, 2009

  27. UNEP (2011) Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC’s Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, 2011

  28. 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

  29. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2014) Conference of European Statisticians recommendations on measuring sustainable development. United Nations, New York and Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  30. UNU-IHDP and UNEP (2012) Inclusive wealth report 2012. Measuring progress toward sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weidema B (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. WHO (2006) WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide Global update 2005. WHO Press, World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  33. WHO (2011) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edn. WHO Press, World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding from the Swedish Innovation Agency, VINNOVA, and from Chalmers Sustainable Production Initiative is greatly acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bengt Steen.

Ethics declarations

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.

Informed consent

Not applicable for this work

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alessandra Zamagni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Basic needs
  • Eco-design
  • Eco-innovation
  • Impact indicators
  • Life cycle assessment
  • Safeguard subjects
  • Satisfiers
  • Sustainability