An Outlook into a Possible Future of Footprint Research

“ . . . whilst we’re at it, why not consider the ultimate purpose of life, and contemplate developing happiness footprints, by utilising ever-improving data on subjective wellbeing, and by pushing for such data to be collected at the level of industry sectors so that it can be used in footprint calculations. Subjective wellbeing is seen as strongly related to environmental quality, and so would be a relevant and interesting addition to the footprint family.” very definition of a carbon footprint (Wiedmann and Minx 2008) exemplifies how every footprint analysis is aimed at capturing the direct, immediate effects of any given activity, but also the indirect, flow-on effects that ripple along a complex supply-chain network. In this sense, footprint analysis has a lot in common with its older, more mature sibling, life cycle assessment (LCA). Footprint analysis has indeed learned and borrowed a fair bit from LCA. For starters, the development of footprint-applicable standards, such as the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol or PAS 2050,1 was guided by the already existing, broad, and comprehensive International Organization for Standardization (ISO) series on LCA. Perhaps not surprising then, a review of the literature listed on ScienceDirect suggests that LCA methodologies are being used extensively for the enumeration of footprints. At the very least, as expressed on the United Nations Environment Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative’s Web site,2 footprints and LCA are in the same “life cycle thinking basket.” Given the close relationship between footprints and LCA, one might wonder whether footprint analysis might undergo methodological and application extensions similar to those that LCA has experienced over its long history.