Abstract
Metrics are a prerequisite for the successful monitoring and management of progress toward goals. Within the context of sustainable development these “values” are stakeholder dependent with the interests of the individual, society, the environmental infrastructure and intergenerational liability differing significantly. These stakeholder priorities may also be mutually inconsistent or simultaneously unattainable. Therefore, a set of scale- and value-specific indicators will he required to represent the priorities of individuals, religious organizations, political and public interest groups, non-government organizations, firms and industry associations, as well as national and international institutions. Restricting the number of ecometrics, or creating aggregated sustainability indicators, risks disenfranchisement and ivalidation respectively.
Over the past three decades a series ofmicroecometrics have been developed to account for the impact of human activity, technology or products over regional, national, and sub-continental scales. These include life cycle energy consumption, dematerialization, waste minimization, as well as design for environment and eco-efficiency indicators, the latter two combining technological or economic aspects respectively with environmental factors.Metrics which evaluate the impact of a service, or the utility provided by a product, are lacking. A series of global measures, or macroecometrics have also been defined and include the average annual temperature as well as atmospheric compositions and concentrations, sea level, and earth based resources such as topsoil quantities. The validity of microecometrics as measures of global phenomena can be established through life cycle impact assessments which evaluate the “system’s” response to effects of products or services throughout their life cycle. However, the link between microecometrics and macroecometrics, their validity as indicators of sustainability, the subjectivity of sustainable developmentper se as a value, and the relationship of metrics and sustainable development with family values has not extensively been addressed. This paper summarizes recently proposed ecometrics, calls for the recognition of the subjectivity of indicators, the distinction between ecometrics used for internal corporate reporting and external decision making, and the establishment of a representative multistakeholder debate.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Molina, M. (1998): Ozone and Climate Change. Keynote Address to the Alliance for Global Sustainability, Zurich, January 22
Graedel, T.;Allenby, B. (1997): Industrial Ecology of the Automobile. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
WBSCD Ecoefficiency Workgroup, Geneva, Switzerland; Marcus Lehni, Director
Japan LCA Society Ecometrics Committee. For details, see, for example:M. Morimoto (1997): Int. J. LCA 2, 90; 2, 153
Ecometrics’98 was the first in an annual series of mulristakeholder workshops: Ecometrics’98, January 18-19, 1998, Lausanne, Switzerland; D. Hunkeler, Organizer
Schmidheiny, S.;Zorroquin, F. (1996): Financing Change: The Financial Community, Eco-efficiency and Sustainable Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Muzutani, H. (1996): Open Energy and Closed Materials: Are they compatible in LCA? Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference in Ecobalances, Tsukuba, Japan, p. 141
Christiansen, K. et al. (1996): Simplifying LCA: Just a Cut? SETAC Europe LCA Screening and Streamlining Working Group, Final Report
Cramer, J.;Quakernaat, T, et. al. (1993): Theory and Practice of Integrated Chain Management. TNO Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
Anon (1997): New Approach for Greenhouse Talks. Chemical and Engineering News, p. 22., Sept. 22
Karl, T.R.;Knight, R.W.;Eaterling, D.R.;QuayLe, R.G. (1995): Trends in US Climate During the Twentieth Century. Consequences, 1, 3
Heijungs, R.;Guinee, J.B.;Hums, G.;Landueher, R.M.;UDo de Haes, H.A.;Wegener Sleeswisk, A.;Anskms, A.M.M.;Eggels, P.G.;von Duin, R.;De Goede, H.P.(1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products — Guide & Backgrounds. Reprints No. 9266 & 9267, National Revise and Water Research Program NOH and Center of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden
Yamagiwa, Y.;Negishi, T. (1996): DAC-LCA-A Life Cycle Design Tool Enabling Designers to Simultaneously Evaluate Environmental Impacts and Assembly/Disassembly Ease. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ecobalances, Tsukuba, Japan, p. 153
Pearce, D.W.;Atkinson, G.D. (1993): Captial Theory and the Measurement of Sustainable Development: An Indicator of “Weak” Sustainability. Ecological Economics 8, 103;Atkinson, G. D.,Dubourg, R.,Hamilton, K.,Munasinghe, M.,Pearce, D.,Younc, C, (1997): Measuring Sustainable Development — Macroeconomics and the Environment. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar
Baumann, H.;Rydberg, T. (1997): A Comparison of Three Methods of Impact Analysis and Valuation. J. Cleaner Prod. 2,13
Fiskel, J. (1996): Design for Environment: Creating Eco-Efficient Products and Processes, pp. 77–99 McGraw Hill, New York, NY
Steen, B.A.;Ryding, S.O. (1992): The EPS Enviro-accounting Method. IVL, Göteborg, Sweden
Kroon, P.;Yberma, J.R.;Slanina, J.;Arends, B.G. (1994): Weighting Factors for Air Emissions. ECNR 94-006, Petten, The Netherlands
Gredel, T;Allenby B. (1995): Industrial Ecology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Correa, M.E. (1997): Consejo Empresarial Colombiano para el Desarrollo Sostenible (CECODES), Draft Report
Lehni, M. (1998): State-of-Play Report of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Project on Eco-Efficiency Metrics and Reporting. Geneva, Switzerland
GLauser, M.;MOller, P. (1997): Eco-Efficiency: A Prerequisite for Future Success. Chimia 51, 201
Jolliet, O. (ed.) (1996): Impact Assessment of Human Ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Assessment. SETAC-working group on Impact Assessment in LCA, Toxicology Subgroup, 6th and Final Draft, 28/8
Weidenhaupt, A.;Hungerbuhler, K. (1997): Integrated Product Design in Chemical Industry. A Plea for Adequate Life-Cycle Screening Indicators. Chimia 51, 217
DeSimone, L;Popoff F. (1997): Eco-Efficiency: The Business Link to Sustainable Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Kiernan, M.J.;Levinson, J. (1997): Environment Drives Financial Performance: The Jury is In. Environmental Quality Management7, 1
Zosel, T.W. (1992): Pollution Prevention Pans: The 3M Approach. Proc. 1st International Congress on Environmentally- Conscious Design and Manufacturing, Management Round Table, Boston
Steger, U. (1996): Managerial Issues in Closing the Loop. Business Strategy and the Environment 5, 252
Meyer, G.E. (1997): Adam Smith, the States and the Financial Eco-Metric Imperative. Environmental Quality Management 7, 81
Goedkoop, M. (1995): Ecoindicator 95. Pré & DUISF Consultency, Amersfoort, NL
Storebrand-Scuder Mutual Fund (see M. Lehni, ref. 21)
Kyoto Global Climate Conference (1997): Kyoto, Japan, December 8–12
Larson, T.J.;Brown, H.J. (1997): Designing Metrics that Fit: Rethinking Corporate Environmental Performance Systems. Environmental Quality Management 81, Spring
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hunkeler, D. Ecometrics for life cycle management. Int J LCA 4, 291–298 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979182
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979182