Investigating methodological aspects of absolute environmental sustainability assessment based on planetary boundaries

The integration of Planetary Boundaries (PBs) in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) enables the assessment of the environmental sustainability of systems, with the resulting approach termed Absolute Environmental Sustainability Assessments (AESA). This approach has gained significant interest from academia to policymaking, leading to increasing applications but also differing methodologies. To ensure the robustness and comparability of AESA studies, we critically investigate two key methodological aspects related to i) harmonisation of LCA indicators with the PBs control variables and ii) allocation of the Safe Operating Space delineated by the PBs to systems. We use as a case study the EU consumption Footprint to analyse the effects of these methodological aspects on AESA results. Our findings suggest that current consumption patterns in the EU are environmentally unsustainable under an equal per capita principle for all (harmonisation) methods, with at least one boundary transgressed. The extent of boundary transgression varies significantly across methods due to differences in modelling parameters or boundary definition. The choice of allocation principle also significantly affects AESA results, and can even reverse the study's conclusions (e.g. under the Acquired Rights principle). This highlights the utmost importance of employing multiple principles as a sensitivity analysis in AESA studies to ensure robust conclusions. Future work should align individual methods to use similar methodological assumptions, and investigate the merits of developing PB-dependent allocation factors. Regionalisation of boundaries and inclusion of the Biosphere integrity PB are also key limitations that should be investigated. • EU share varies over 1 order of magnitude depending on allocation principle. • Sensitivity analysis of allocation principle is key to interpret AESA results • AESA impact assessment methods yield significantly different results • Future research must harmonise assumptions in impact methods. • EU consumption exceeds PBs under most of the approaches investigated.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Published
2025-09-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108154
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
33.61

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Investigating methodological aspects of absolute environmental sustainability assessment based on planetary boundaries

Andrea Paulillo, Fabrizio Biganzoli, Esther Sanyé‐Mengual, Piotr Wierzgala
8 citations
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
33.61
article

Investigating methodological aspects of absolute environmental sustainability assessment based on planetary boundaries

Andrea Paulillo, Fabrizio Biganzoli, Esther Sanyé‐Mengual, Piotr Wierzgala
article en
8 citations

Abstract

The integration of Planetary Boundaries (PBs) in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) enables the assessment of the environmental sustainability of systems, with the resulting approach termed Absolute Environmental Sustainability Assessments (AESA). This approach has gained significant interest from academia to policymaking, leading to increasing applications but also differing methodologies. To ensure the robustness and comparability of AESA studies, we critically investigate two key methodological aspects related to i) harmonisation of LCA indicators with the PBs control variables and ii) allocation of the Safe Operating Space delineated by the PBs to systems. We use as a case study the EU consumption Footprint to analyse the effects of these methodological aspects on AESA results. Our findings suggest that current consumption patterns in the EU are environmentally unsustainable under an equal per capita principle for all (harmonisation) methods, with at least one boundary transgressed. The extent of boundary transgression varies significantly across methods due to differences in modelling parameters or boundary definition. The choice of allocation principle also significantly affects AESA results, and can even reverse the study's conclusions (e.g. under the Acquired Rights principle). This highlights the utmost importance of employing multiple principles as a sensitivity analysis in AESA studies to ensure robust conclusions. Future work should align individual methods to use similar methodological assumptions, and investigate the merits of developing PB-dependent allocation factors. Regionalisation of boundaries and inclusion of the Biosphere integrity PB are also key limitations that should be investigated. • EU share varies over 1 order of magnitude depending on allocation principle. • Sensitivity analysis of allocation principle is key to interpret AESA results • AESA impact assessment methods yield significantly different results • Future research must harmonise assumptions in impact methods. • EU consumption exceeds PBs under most of the approaches investigated.

Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewVol. 117
University of Luxembourg (LU), Fondazione Michelangelo (IT), Joint Research Centre (IT), University College London (GB)
Royal Academy of Engineering
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
33.61
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.