Choosing sustainable technologies. Implications of the underlying sustainability paradigm in the decision-making process

When assessing the sustainability of a particular technology, a number of environmental, economic, and social indicators need to be taken into account. The aim of this paper is to analyze the underlying rationales for the prioritization of all these indicators i.e. the rationale for an integrated sustainability assessment. For this purpose, different alternative paradigms of sustainability are briefly discussed, with the focus on the concepts of weak and strong sustainability, which define a spectrum of views on the possibility to replace environmental capital with human-made capital. We conclude that there is a sound case for the strong sustainability paradigm and we argue that this conclusion has deep implications for the decision-making processes. Firstly, because it implies that a set of thresholds for a number of environmental indicators would need to be agreed upon. Secondly, because it implies that environmental impacts would no longer be ‘tradable’ for socio-economic benefits, when they are expected to go beyond the agreed threshold. We suggest that non-compensatory decision-making tools will need to be considered at some point in the process in order to account for the non-substitutability of critical environmental services. Using the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’ proposed by Rockstrom et al. we discuss how such information could be put into practice in decision-making. We suggest that the concept of planetary boundaries can provide both a preliminary basis for the prioritization of environmental impacts and a preliminary supporting argument for the definition of environmental thresholds that enable the use of non-compensatory decision-making approaches. Further work in this area is urgently required.

[1]  Audley Genus Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse , 2006 .

[2]  Joseph F. Coates,et al.  A 21st century agenda for technology assessment , 2001 .

[3]  Tugrul U. Daim,et al.  A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment , 2008 .

[4]  Lucas Reijnders,et al.  Broad sustainability contra sustainability: the proper construction of sustainability indicators , 2004 .

[5]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[6]  Martin Kumar Patel,et al.  Applying distance-to-target weighing methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials , 2007 .

[7]  Johan Schot,et al.  Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies , 1992, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[8]  John M. Hartwick,et al.  Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources , 2017 .

[9]  Deborah Leipziger The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development , 2017 .

[10]  Not Indicated,et al.  International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance , 2010 .

[11]  David Pearce,et al.  Economics, equity and sustainable development , 1988 .

[12]  Not Indicated,et al.  International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - Nomenclature and other provisions , 2010 .

[13]  E. Neumayer Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring The Limits Of Two Opposing Paradigms , 2010 .

[14]  M. Nilsson,et al.  Can Earth system interactions be governed? : Governance functions for linking climate change mitigation with land use, freshwater and biodiversity protection , 2012 .

[15]  D Waller,et al.  What's best for the patient? , 2001, Time.

[16]  B. D. Vries,et al.  Conceptualizing sustainable development An assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios , 2009 .

[17]  Saurabh Gupta,et al.  An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies , 2009 .

[18]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[19]  Werner Hediger,et al.  Reconciling “weak” and “strong” sustainability , 1999 .

[20]  Andreas Ciroth,et al.  The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! , 2010 .

[21]  Philip J. Vergragt,et al.  Traditional and Modern Technology Assessment: Toward a Toolkit , 1998 .

[22]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[23]  P Ekins,et al.  A Framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability , 2005 .

[24]  Walter Kloepffer,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessment of products , 2008 .

[25]  F. Chapin,et al.  A safe operating space for humanity , 2009, Nature.

[26]  John Robinson Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development , 2004 .

[27]  R. Goodland The Concept of Environmental Sustainability , 1995 .

[28]  H. Daly,et al.  Natural Capital and Sustainable Development , 1992 .

[29]  A. D. Schryver Value choices in life cycle impact assessment , 2011 .

[30]  Jeroen B. Guinee,et al.  Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards , 2002 .

[31]  Axel Gosseries,et al.  The egalitarian case against Brundtland's sustainability , 2005 .

[32]  A. Hoekstra,et al.  The water footprint of humanity , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Weighting environmental effects: Analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[34]  J. D. Pisani,et al.  Sustainable development – historical roots of the concept , 2006 .

[35]  R. D. Groot,et al.  A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services , 2002 .

[36]  Andreas Jørgensen,et al.  Methodologies for social life cycle assessment , 2008 .