Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework



The Sustainability and Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise (SHINE) project is dedicated to improving the scientific basis for transformative environmental, social, and economic positive changes called handprints. Organizations and individuals can create handprints relative to their business-as-usual (BAU) through voluntary reductions in their own footprint as well as in the footprints of others. The novel SHINE handprint framework expands thus the scope, retains accountability for the outcomes, and increases widespread pursuit of net-positive goals.


Handprints are quantified using the dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA)-based modeling and measured in footprint-related impact units. Like LCA, the SHINE handprint framework includes the goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. Existing life cycle inventory databases are adopted to promote widespread use of the method. However, in the SHINE handprint framework, the BAU footprint and the actor’s actions and positive changes (handprints) are defined. The scope of the handprint assessment includes changes caused by the action within the system boundary. The BAU footprint is then compared with actual footprint calculated with changes to assess the handprint. An additional element for making comparative claims about net positivity that are meant to be disclosed to the public is an attestation.

Results and discussion

The SHINE handprint framework is demonstrated through a case study collaboration with Interface, a global carpet tiles and flooring manufacturer. Historic handprints are estimated from Interface’s initiative to capture and flare nearby landfill gas and utilize a portion of the captured gas to produce heat in their facility and in a third actor’s facility. The handprints are calculated by dynamic LCA which included Interface’s BAU footprint during the years of landfill gas capture and the amount of natural gas displaced from landfill gas use in both facilities, and the amount flared at the landfill. Results are presented for the years of landfill gas capture and flaring (2003–2016). The results showed Interface could achieve net positive outcomes when all actions leading to positive changes are activated.


While actors’ efforts to reduce their own footprints are essential, this perspective alone may not be enough to encourage the scale of action necessary to face global challenges. The SHINE handprint framework quantifies positive actions and changes caused by an actor, both within and outside the scope of the actor’s footprint. This shift in accounting for change can promote innovation and collaboration by multiple actors, which ultimately creates widespread ripple effects of positive impacts.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (2001) Chapter 5: landfill gas control measures. In: Landfill gas primer - an overview for environmental health professionals

  2. Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13:687–696.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baum CM, Gross C (2017) Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change. JBioeconomics 19:53–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Behm K, Husgafvel R, Hohenthal C et al (2016) Carbon handprint - communicating the good we do. In: Sitra. Accessed 3 Jul 2019

  5. Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Albers A, Hélias A et al (2020) Addressing temporal considerations in life cycle assessment. Sci Total Environ, p 743

  6. Biemer J (2018) Environmental handprints. In: Clear. - Support. Environ. Lit. Educ. Packfic Northwest Cascadia bioregion. Accessed 22 Jun 2019

  7. Biemer J, Dixon W, Blackburn N (2013) Our environmental handprint - the good we do. In: 2013 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability, SusTech 2013. IEEE, pp 146–153

  8. Boulay AM, Bare J, Benini L et al (2018) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bulle C, Margni M, Kashef-Haghighi S et al (2018) IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Int J Life Cycle Assess

  10. Centre for Environmental Education (2007) Handprint action towards sustainability. In: Handprint. . Accessed 22 Jun 2019

  11. Chalendar JA, Benson SM (2019) Why 100% renewable energy is not enough. Joule 3:1389–1393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Curran MA (2012) Life cycle assessment handbook. Wiley Online Books

  13. Dahlmann F, Branicki L, Brammer S (2019) Managing carbon aspirations: the influence of corporate climate change targets on environmental performance. J Bus Ethics 1–24

  14. Delmas MA, Burbano VC (2011) The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management Review 54:64–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dreher A, Gaston N, Martens P (2008) Measuring globalisation: gauging its consequences. Springer

  16. Dyckhoff H, Kasah T (2014) Time horizon and dominance in dynamic life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 18:799–808.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. EPA (2017) Municipal solid waste landfills: new source performance standards (NSPS), emission guidelines (EG) and compliance times

  18. Germanwatch (2007) Hand print - action towards sustainability. In: Germanwatch. Accessed 22 Jun 2019

  19. GIZ (2013) Corporate sustainability handprint®. In: GIZ. Accessed 22 Jun 2019

  20. GIZ (2015) Corporate sustainability handprint® (CSH) - report 2014/15. In: GIZ. Accessed 15 Aug 2019

  21. Grönman K, Pajula T, Sillman J et al (2019) Carbon handprint – an approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. J Clean Prod 206:1059–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hardisty DJ, Weber EU (2020) Impatience and savoring vs. dread: asymmetries in anticipation explain consumer time preferences for positive vs. negative events J Consum Psychol 30:598–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hay B (2019) Email message to author

  24. Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJ., Elshout PMF et al (2016) ReCiPe 2016: a harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and enpoint level - report 1 : characterization

  25. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland

  26. International Organization for Standardization (2014) ISO 14046:2014 - Environmental management - water footprint - principles, requirements and guidelines. In: ISO. Accessed 22 Feb 2017

  27. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. In: ISO. Accessed 22 Feb 2017

  28. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. In: ISO. Accessed 22 Feb 2017

  29. ISO (2014) ISO/TS 14072:2014 - Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines for organizational life cycle assessment. In: ISO. Accessed 22 Feb 2017

  30. ISO (2018) ISO 14067:2018 - Greenhouse gases - carbon footprint of products - requirements and guidelines for quantification (revised). In: ISO. Accessed 3 Sep 2018

  31. ISO (2006c) ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental management - life cycle assessment — principles and framework. In: ISO.

  32. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M et al (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44:3169–3174.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Manfredi S, Allacker K, Chomkhamsri K et al (2012) Product environmental footprint (PEF) guide

  34. Marquardt D, Montenay E (2016) Corporate sustainability handprint report for 2015 / 16

  35. MIT (2019) Sustainability and Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise (SHINE) | shine. Accessed 22 Jun 2019

  36. Norris G (2019) Net positive methodology summary. Accessed 22 Aug 2019

  37. Norris G (2013) Business and the common good: some fundamental issues. In: Uncertainty, diversity and the common good: changing norms and new leadership paradigms. Gower Publishing, pp 1–26

  38. Norris G (2015) Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Accessed 30 Jan 2021

  39. Norris G (2017) A framework for comparing and understanding net positive goals. Accessed 30 Jan 2021  

  40. Norris G (2011) Footprints and Handprints: The Ripple Effects of our Presence | Trim Tab. Accessed 30 Jan 2021

  41. Norris GA (2006) Special Issue Honouring Helias A . Udo de Haes : Broadening the Scope of LCA Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:97–104.

  42. Norris G, Korngold D, Le Grand Z (2016) Net positive project working group. In: Netpositive Proj. Accessed 22 Aug 2019

  43. Norris G, Korngold D, Le Grand Z (2018) Net positive project. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

  44. Norris G, Phansey A (2015) Handprints of product innovation : a case study of computer-aided design in the automotive sector

  45. Pajula T, Vatanen S, Pihkola H, et al (2018) Carbon Handprint Guide. Accessed 30 Jan 2021

  46. Pehnt M (2006) Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energy 31:55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pelletier N, Allacker K, Manfredi S et al (2012) Organisation environmental footprint (OEF) guide

  48. Philipps S, Ohlsen H, Raab C (2015) Extra-financial performance made tangible: a handprint approach for financial institutions. In: Responsible investment banking: risk management frameworks, sustainable financial inovation and softlaw standard. pp 1–704

  49. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton Timothy M., Scheffer Marten, Folke Carl, Schellnhuber Hans Joachim, Nykvist Björn, de Wit Cynthia A., Hughes Terry, van der Leeuw Sander, Rodhe Henning, Sörlin Sverker, Snyder Peter K., Costanza Robert, Svedin Uno, Falkenmark Malin, Karlberg Louise, Corell Robert W., Fabry Victoria J., Hansen James, Walker Brian, Liverman Diana, Richardson Katherine, Crutzen Paul, Foley Jonathan A. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rohwedder R (2016) Ecological handprints: breakthrough innovations in the developing world. Atavist

  51. Russell S (2018) Estimating and Reporting the Comparative Emissions Impacts of Products | World Resources Institute. Accessed 30 Jan 2021

  52. Schneider CR, Zaval L, Weber EU, Markowitz EM (2017) The influence of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision making. PLoS ONE 12:e0188781.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sohn J, Bisquert P, Buche P et al (2020) Argumentation corrected context weighting-life cycle assessment: a practical method of including stakeholder perspectives in multi-criteria decision support for LCA. Sustain 12:.

  54. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016) Natural gas prices in 2016 were the lowest in nearly 20 years. Accessed 22 Aug 2019

  55. Vatanen S, Gronman K, Pajula T et al (2018) The carbon handprint approach to assessing and communicating the positive climate impact of products

  56. Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers

  57. Weidema BP (2018) The social footprint—a practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:700–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. World Resource Institute (2015) Greenhouse gas protocol. Accessed 31 Jan 2019

  59. Wu J, Liao H, Wang JW, Chen T (2019) The role of environmental concern in the public acceptance of autonomous electric vehicles: A survey from China. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 60:37–46.

  60. Takahashi M, Kang N (2019) Proposal of a Bin to Change Human Behavior with Positive Emotion. In: Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer Verlag, pp 394–401

Download references


This research was part of a SHINE initiative. The authors would like to thank all SHINE members for the fruitful discussions and support within the SHINE initiative. The SHINE member significantly contributed to the development of the scientific basis supporting the SHINE handprint method. We would like to offer special thanks to SHINE members Christian Bauer (SIG), Avantika Shastri (EATON), Erin Mizen and Buddy Hay (Interface), and Russell Greenberg (Stickbulb), as well as Jason Jay from the Sloan School of Management for their invaluable feedback and support in the development of the SHINE handprint methodology and the creation of this paper.


This research was supported from the Sustainability and Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise (SHINE) membership program offered by Materials System Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. SHINE members funded some of the research leading to development of the SHINE handprint method.

Author information



Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Gregory A. Norris or Jasmina Burek.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Communicated by Melissa Bilec.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 39 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Norris, G., Burek, J., Moore, E.A. et al. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2021).

Download citation


  • Handprint
  • Footprint
  • Life cycle assessment
  • Net positive
  • Environmental impacts
  • Impact of positive change
  • Voluntary action