Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the Handprint research project Originalbeitrag / Original article First Online: 01 February 2019 Abstract
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent consensual, global scale targets, encouraging not only the fight against unsustainable aspects in society (e. g., poverty or hunger) but also positive contributions to sustainable development (e. g., renewable energy use or human well-being). The SDGs are, however, not per se designed as a performance measurement system for businesses and products. Consequently, research is challenged to develop convincing approaches and indicator systems that capture how businesses contribute to the SDGs.
Against this background, the Handprint approach was developed. This paper documents methodological developments of a respective research project and extends the focus from reducing unsustainable, negative business practices toward striving for positive contributions to sustainable development in sustainability assessment and management. We first summarize the status quo of assessing positive contributions to sustainable development in research and practice. While a “Footprint” approach primarily measures negative environmental and/or social impacts, the “Handprint” approach focuses on positive contributions to sustainable development. Second, we illustrate and prioritize core assessment categories and indicators. Third, we describe how a sustainability assessment approach to evaluate positive contributions to sustainable development at the product level was developed and demonstrate its feasibility in a pilot case study.
Keywords Handprint Life cycle sustainability assessment Sustainable development goals Product sustainability assessment Multi-method approach Fuzzy set theory Notes Acknowledgements
The project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number: 01UT1422C), for which the authors and project team are very grateful.
Conflict of interest
M. Kühnen, S. Silva, J. Beckmann, U. Eberle, R. Hahn, C. Hermann, S. Schaltegger and M. Schmid declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Massa I, Valente C (2016) State of the art in S‑LCA: Integrating literature review and automatic text analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1082-0 Google Scholar
Bansal P (2005) Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strateg Manage J 26(3):197–218.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.441 Google Scholar
Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? J Ind Ecol 17(4):517–527.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12016 Google Scholar
Baumgartner RJ, Ebner D (2010) Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sust Dev 18(2):76–89.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.447 Google Scholar
Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: Just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0147-8 Google Scholar
Beske-Janssen P, Johnson MP, Schaltegger S (2015) 20 years of performance measurement in sustainable supply chain management: what has been achieved? Supply Chain Manag 20(6):664–680.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0216 Google Scholar
Blass V, Corbett CJ (2018) Same supply chain, different models: Integrating perspectives from life cycle assessment and supply chain management. J Ind Ecol 22(1):18–30.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12550 Google Scholar
Burks SV, Krupka EL (2012) A multimethod approach to identifying norms and normative expectations within a corporate hierarchy: evidence from the financial services industry. Manage Sci 58(1):203–217.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1478 Google Scholar
Burritt R, Schaltegger S (2014) Accounting towards sustainability in production and supply chains. Br Account Rev 46(4):327–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.10.001 Google Scholar
Corona B, Bozhilova-Kisheva KP, Olsen SI, San Miguel G (2017) Social life cycle assessment of a concentrated solar power plant in Spain: a methodological proposal. J Ind Ecol 21(5):1566–1577.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12541 Google Scholar
Curran MA (2013) Life cycle assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Curr Opin Chem Eng 2(3):273–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2013.02.002 Google Scholar
Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The sage handbook of organizational research methods. SAGE, London, pp 671–689
Di Cesare S, Silveri F, Sala S, Petti L (2018) Positive impacts in social life cycle assessment: State of the art and the way forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(3):406–421.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1169-7 Google Scholar
Dhingra AK, Rao SS, Kumar V (1992) Nonlinear membership functions in multiobjective fuzzy optimization of mechanical and structural systems. AIAA J 30(1):251–260.
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.10906 Google Scholar
Doran GT (1981) There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manage Rev 70(11):35–36
Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.08.223 Google Scholar
Eberle U, Schmid M (2016) A preliminary methodological framework to assess potential contributions of food to sustainable transformation. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment of Food 2016, pp 328–333
Ekener E, Hansson J, Gustavsson M (2018) Addressing positive impacts in social LCA: Discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(3):556–568.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1058-0 Google Scholar
Ekener-Petersen E, Moberg Å (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA: part 2 - reflections on a study of a complex product. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):144–154.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0443-6 Google Scholar
Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2(10):3309–3322.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su2103309 Google Scholar
Fontes J, Tarne P, Traverso M, Bernstein P (2018) Product social impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(3):547–555.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1125-6 Google Scholar
Freidberg S (2018) From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(7):1410–1414.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0879-6 Google Scholar
George C (2001) Sustainability appraisal for sustainable development: Integrating everything from jobs to climate change. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 19(2):95–106.
https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767104 Google Scholar
Gibson RB (2013) Avoiding sustainability trade-offs in environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 31(1):2–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.764633 Google Scholar
Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod 47:345–354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014 Google Scholar
Grießhammer R, Buchert M, Gensch C-O, Hochfeld C, Manhart A, Rüdenauer I (2007) PROSA: Product Sustainability Assessment. Öko-Institut, Freiburg
Guenther E, Schneidewind U (2017) Sustainability management: Integrating the multiple dimensions of an interdisciplinary research discipline. Umw Wirtsch Forum 25(1-2):1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-017-0460-9 Google Scholar
Hacking T, Guthrie P (2008) A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(2-3):73–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002 Google Scholar
Hart SL, Milstein MB (2003) Creating sustainable value. Acad Manage Exec 17(2):56–67.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2003.10025194 Google Scholar
Haupt M, Vadenbo C, Hellweg S (2017) Do we have the right performance indicators for the circular economy? Insight into the Swiss waste management system. J Ind Ecol 21(3):615–627.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12506 Google Scholar
ISO (2006) ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. ISO, Geneva
Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products: with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376 Google Scholar
Kroeger A, Weber C (2015) Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value creation. Acad Manage Rev 40(1):43–70.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0344.test Google Scholar
Kühnen M, Hahn R (2017) Indicators in social life cycle assessment: a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience. J Ind Ecol 21(6):1547–1565.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12663 Google Scholar
Kühnen M, Hahn R (2018a) From SLCA to positive Sustainability performance measurement: a two-tier Delphi study. J Ind Ecol:1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12762 Google Scholar
Kühnen M, Hahn R (2018b) Systemic social performance measurement: systematic literature review and explanations on the academic status quo from a product life-cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 205:690–705.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.201 Google Scholar
Lindner JP (2015) Quantitative Darstellung der Wirkungen landnutzender Prozesse auf die Biodiversität in Ökobilanzen. Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart (Dissertation)
Linstone HA, Turoff M, Helmer O (eds) (2002) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (Online edition of the original published in 1975)
Maas K, Schaltegger S, Crutzen N (2016) Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. J Clean Prod 136:237–248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.008 Google Scholar
Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang Y‑J, Finkbeiner M (2015) Social organizational LCA (SOLCA): A new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(11):1586–1599.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0960-1 Google Scholar
Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 11th edn. Beltz Pädagogik. Beltz, Weinheim
Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang Y‑J, Wolf K, Finkbeiner M (2014) Impact pathways to address social well-being and social justice in SLCA: Fair wage and level of education. Sustainability 6(8):4839–4857.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su6084839 Google Scholar
Norris GA (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles: towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(S1):97–104.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.017 Google Scholar
OECD (2017b) Green growth.
. Accessed 9 Nov 2017
Pauw IC, Kandachar P, Karana E (2014) Assessing sustainability in nature-inspired design. Int J Sust Eng 8(1):5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2014.977373 Google Scholar
Pavláková Dočekalová M, Doubravský K, Dohnal M, Kocmanová A (2017) Evaluations of corporate sustainability indicators based on fuzzy similarity graphs. Ecol Indic 78:108–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.038 Google Scholar
Reisch L, Eberle U, Lorek S (2013) Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 9(2):7–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908111 Google Scholar
Rieckhof R (2017) The life cycle metaphor: Its emergence, understanding, and conceptualisation in business research. Umw Wirtsch Forum 25(1-2):91–107.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-017-0455-6 Google Scholar
Rost Z (2015) The increasing relevance of product responsibility. Umw Wirtsch Forum 23(4):299–305.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-015-0369-0 Google Scholar
Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013a) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress: part 2. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1686–1697.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0509-5 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(9):1653–1672.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0508-6 Google Scholar
Saling P (2017) Sustainability management in strategic decision-making processes. Umw Wirtsch Forum 11(1):1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-017-0461-8 Google Scholar
Schaltegger S, Burritt R (2005) Corporate sustainability. The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, pp 185–222
Schaltegger S, Burritt R (2006) Corporate sustainability accounting: a nightmare or a dream coming true? Bus Strategy Environ 15(5):293–295.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.537 Google Scholar
Schaltegger S, Burritt R (2014) Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply chains: review and sustainability supply chain management framework. J Supply Chain Manag 19(3):232–241.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-02-2014-0061 Google Scholar
Schaltegger S, Lüdeke-Freund F, Hansen EG (2016) Business models for sustainability. A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation and transformation. Organ Environ 29(3):264–289.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026616633272 Google Scholar
Schaltegger S, Beckmann M, Hockerts K (2018) Collaborative entrepreneurship for sustainability. Creating solutions in light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Int J Entrep Ventur 10(2):131–151
Schaubroeck T, Rugani B (2017) A revision of what life cycle sustainability assessment should entail: towards modeling the net impact on human well-being. J Ind Ecol 21(6):1464–1477.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12653 Google Scholar
Schmidt RC (1997) Managing Delphi Surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decis Sci J 28(3):763–774.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01330.x Google Scholar
Seuring S, Gold S (2012) Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag 17(5):544–555.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609 Google Scholar
Silva S, Guenther E (2018) Setting the research agenda for measuring sustainability performance—systematic application of the world café method. Sustain Acc Manag Policy J 24(4):277.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2017-0060 Google Scholar
The Economics of Ecosystems of Biodiversity (2017) Home.
. Accessed 9 Nov 2017
Timmermans S, Tavory I (2012) Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociol Theory 30(3):167–186.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914 Google Scholar
Toumi O, Le Gallo J, Rejeb BJ (2017) Assessment of Latin American sustainability. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 78:878–885.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.013 Google Scholar
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 Google Scholar
UN (2015) Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world.
. Accessed 28 July 2017
UNEP, SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP, Paris
UNEP, SETAC (2013) The methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). UNEP, Paris
Verboven H, Vanherck L (2016) Sustainability management of SMes and the UN sustainable development goals. Umw Wirtsch Forum 24(2):165–178.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-016-0407-6 Google Scholar
Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island
Wilhelm M, Hutchins M, Mars C, Benoit-Norris C (2015) An overview of social impacts and their corresponding improvement implications: A mobile phone case study. J Clean Prod 102:302–315.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.025 Google Scholar
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2010) Vision 2050.
. Accessed 9 November 2017
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. WCED, Oxford
World Resources Institute (2012) The corporate ecosystems services review.
. Accessed 9 November 2017
Zellmer-Bruhn M, Gibson C (2006) Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Acad Manage J 49(3):501–518
Zimmermann H‑J (2010) Fuzzy set theory. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2(3):317–332.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.82 Google Scholar Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019