Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-18T15:22:59.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a unified absolute environmental sustainability decoupling indicator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Manon Villers ,
Daniela C. A. Pigosso ,
Thomas J. Howard  and
Tim C. McAloone
Manon Villers*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, DTU Construct, Denmark Technical University of Denmark, Centre for Absolute Sustainability, Denmark
Daniela C. A. Pigosso
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, DTU Construct, Denmark Technical University of Denmark, Centre for Absolute Sustainability, Denmark
Thomas J. Howard
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Centre for Technology Entrepreneurship, Denmark
Tim C. McAloone
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, DTU Construct, Denmark Technical University of Denmark, Centre for Absolute Sustainability, Denmark
*
mchvi@dtu.dk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Manufacturing firms are facing the critical need to manage their business growth while staying within the biophysical limits of the planet. Absolute environmental sustainability decoupling (AESD) combines these goals and is one of the keys for manufacturing firms to achieve their sustainable transition. This study offers an initial contribution to categorise decoupling at the firm level while incorporating absolute environmental sustainability goals. It also explores the role of design in achieving AESD and opens doors for further research on manufacturing firms' sustainability transition.

Keywords

absolute environmental sustainabilitydecouplingmanufacturing firmecodesigndesign strategy

Information

Type
Design for Sustainability
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 1507 - 1516
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2024.

References

Aurich, J.C., Werrel, M. and Glatt, M. (2022), “Design Guidelines towards Absolute Sustainability for technical Product-Service Systems”, 11th International Conference on Through-Life Engineering Services - TESConf2022, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.57996/cran.ceres/1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjørn, A., Matthews, H.D., Hadziosmanovic, M., Desmoitier, N.L.R., Addas, A. and Lloyd, S.M. (2023), “Increased transparency is needed for corporate science-based targets to be effective”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. in print, https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01727-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjørn, A., Tilsted, J.P., Addas, A. and Lloyd, S.M. (2022), “Can Science-Based Targets Make the Private Sector Paris-Aligned? A Review of the Emerging Evidence”, Current Climate Change Reports, Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 1 June, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40641-022-00182-w.Google Scholar
Ducoulombier, F.Y. (2021), “Understanding the Importance of Scope 3 Emissions and the Implications of Data Limitations”, The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing, Vol. 1 No. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzzo, D., Walrave, B. and Pigosso, D.C.A. (2023), “Unveiling the dynamic complexity of rebound effects in sustainability transitions: Towards a system's perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 405, p. 137003, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2023.137003.Google Scholar
Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P., Fishman, T., et al. (2020), “A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: Synthesizing the insights”, Environmental Research Letters, Institute of Physics Publishing, Vol. 15 No. 6, https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AB842A.Google Scholar
Hauschild, M.Z. (2015), “Better - but is it good enough? On the need to consider both eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness to gauge industrial sustainability”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 29, Elsevier, pp. 1–7, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickel, J. and Kallis, G. (2020), “Is Green Growth Possible?”, New Political Economy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 469–486, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, G. (2002), “Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development A review of state of the art”, Environmental Management and Health, # MCB UP Limited, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 956–6163, https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09566160210417868.Google Scholar
McAloone, T.C. and Pigosso, D.C.A. (2020), “Ecodesign: Developing products with enhanced environmental performance”, in Bender, B. and Gericke, K. (Eds.), Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre - Methoden Und Anwendung Erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung, Springer Vieweg Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–33, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57303-7.Google Scholar
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002), Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, North Point Press: New York, North Point Press.Google Scholar
Metic, J. and Pigosso, D.C.A. (2022), “Research avenues for uncovering the rebound effects of the circular economy: A systematic literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, 25 September, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133133.Google Scholar
Moshrefi, S., Abdoli, S., Kara, S. and Hauschild, M. (2020), “Product portfolio analysis towards operationalising science-based targets”, Procedia CIRP, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 90 No. March, pp. 377–382, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.127.Google Scholar
OECD. (2002), Indicators to Measure Decoupling of Environmental Pressure from Economic Growth.Google Scholar
Otero, I., Farrell, K.N., Pueyo, S., Kallis, G., Kehoe, L., Haberl, H., Plutzar, C., et al. (2020), “Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth”, Conservation Letters, Vol. 13 No. 4, p. 33, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkanen, A. and Spangenberg, J.H. (2019), “Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability”, European Environmental Bureau, p. 80.Google Scholar
Pigosso, D. and McAloone, T. (2017), “How can design science contribute to a circular economy?”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vol. 5: Design, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 299–307.Google Scholar
Pigosso, D.C. a, Mcaloone, T.C. and Rozenfeld, H. (2014), “Systematization of best practices for ecodesign implementation”, Proceedings of the 13th International Design Conference DESIGN 2014, Design Society, pp. 1651–1662.Google Scholar
Plouffe, S., Lanoie, P., Berneman, C. and Vernier, M.F. (2011), “Economic benefits tied to ecodesign”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 6–7, pp. 573–579, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rekker, S., Ives, M.C., Wade, B., Webb, L. and Greig, C. (2022), “Measuring corporate Paris Compliance using a strict science-based approach”, Nature Communications, Nature Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/S41467-022-31143-4.Google Scholar
Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S.E., Donges, J.F., Drüke, M., et al. (2023), “Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries”, Science Advances, NLM (Medline), Vol. 9 No. 37, p. eadh2458, https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/SCIADV.ADH2458.Google Scholar
Ryberg, M.W., Owsianiak, M., Clavreul, J., Mueller, C., Sim, S., King, H. and Hauschild, M.Z. (2018), “How to bring absolute sustainability into decision-making: An industry case study using a Planetary Boundary-based methodology”, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SBTi, . (2023a), Monitoring Report 2022.Google Scholar
SBTi. (2023b), SBTi Corporate Manual, Science Based Targets.Google Scholar
Science Based Targets Network. (2021), SBTs for Nature Initial Guidance for Business Technical Annexes.Google Scholar
Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., et al. (2022), Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.Google Scholar
Vadén, T., Lähde, V., Majava, A., Järvensivu, P., Toivanen, T., Hakala, E. and Eronen, J.T. (2020), “Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature”, Environmental Science and Policy, Elsevier Ltd, 1 October, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016.Google Scholar
Vezzoli, C. and Manzini, E. (2008), Design for Environmental Sustainability, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-163-3 British.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjalsted, Wegge, Laurent, A., Andersen, A., Olsen, M.M., Ryberg, K.H., and Hauschild, M., M. (2020), “Sharing the safe operating space Exploring ethical allocation principles to operationalize the planetary boundaries and assess absolute sustainability at individual and industrial sector levels”, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Streeck, J., Pichler, M., Mayer, A., et al. (2020), “A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part I: Bibliometric and conceptual mapping”, Environmental Research Letters, Institute of Physics Publishing, 1 June, https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8429.Google Scholar