Embedded but overlooked values
Ethical aspects of absolute environmental sustainability assessments
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19466902 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mia Heide (0000-0002-1721-2849, Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Section, Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering Technical University of Denmark Kgs Lyngby Denmark, corresponding author), Mickey Gjerris (0000-0001-5739-5988, Department of Food and Resource Economics University of Copenhagen Frederiksberg C Denmark) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 386-396 |
| Publication date | 2024-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Industrial Ecology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1088-1980 • E-ISSN: 1530-9290 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/jiec.13472 |
| OpenAlex | W4394578874 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 41 |
Currently used sharing principles (grandfathering and final consumption expenditure) do not align with the purpose of Absolute Environmental Sustainability Assessments (AESAs)—enabling all to meet basic needs within the planetary limits. This discrepancy, though niche within life cycle engineering, demands attention due to the integration of the sharing principles in the widely adopted Science Based Targets initiative, embraced by 4000+ companies, representing over a third of the global economy. This paper suggests operationalizing sufficientarianism as a fair sharing principle for AESAs guaranteeing a minimum threshold of well‐being for all. The theory of human needs is highlighted to distinguish luxuries from necessities. This is vital when assigning shares to products/companies, as there's no room for luxuries (products for someone which cause others to fall short), given the extremely limited individual safe operating space, regardless of the sharing approach. This paper argues that sufficientarian‐based sharing principles must overlook historically skewed material welfare distributions to ensure no one falls below the minimum threshold. It underscores the need for an interdisciplinary approach to sharing principles, acknowledging and discussing diverse value perspectives on equal grounds. The focus is to inform and discuss the development of new sharing principles, which introduces initial steps toward a sufficientarian‐based approach. The paper concludes that recognizing embedded values is paramount in sharing principle development. Failing to do so risks letting quantifiable metrics dictate the values integrated into AESAs without open discourse
Biology · Business · Environmental ethics · Environmental resource management · Epistemology · Industrial ecology · Sustainability · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Environmental Education and Sustainability · Environmental Science · Philosophy · Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy · Ecology
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
Climate change and sustainable welfare
Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”
Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis of achieved versus Paris-compliant CO2–GDP decoupling in high-income countries
A Doughnut for the Anthropocene
Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries
Impact of Population Growth
Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers
Planetary boundaries
A safe operating space for humanity
Increased transparency is needed for corporate science-based targets to be effective
Summary for Policymakers
Renewables 2021
Sharing the safe operating space
Reflecting the importance of human needs fulfilment in absolute sustainability assessments
The climate mitigation gap
Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions
Further uses for the luxury/subsistence distinction
Providing decent living with minimum energy
Distributive Justice and Climate Change. The Allocation of Emission Rights
Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions
Decent Living Standards
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |