F O OT P R I N T I N G

Towards an Integrated Family of Footprint

Indicators
Bradley G. Ridoutt and Stephan Pfister

Life cycle assessment (LCA) uses complex models to

In this column we argue for the importance of an integrated
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of products and footprint family that is based on LCA. However, to meet the
needs of a new generation of remote and
services across their life cycle. Insofar
as possible, the modeling comprises all . . . footprints should not be nontechnical consumers of LCA results, the
relevant impacts from exchanges with viewed as just new names for ex- practice of LCA must adapt and change
with the times. The LCA framework has not
the environment related to resource
use and emissions with the objective isting impact category indicators considerably changed since its inception and a
of avoiding problem shifting from one based on the area-of-protection rethinking under the new demand for simplified
part of the life cycle to another and paradigm, but rather indicator and publicly communicated environmental
product information is suggested.
from one type of environmental impact to another. Traditionally the re- results that address specific ensults have been used for strategic de- vironmental concerns of comcision making, aided by first-hand and munity interest. Herein lies the Imperative of the
often detailed interpretation from an
Life Cycle Approach
LCA expert. The usual complexity of basis for a universal footprint
interactions between a product system definitionpresently lacking.
The evolution of the water footprint has proand the environment means that the
vided many lessons about the subject of footidentification and assessment of tradeprints generally. First, there is the matter of environmental reloffs has always been a priority.
evance. The earliest conceptions of the water footprint, based
The advent of carbon footprinting changed this by opening on virtual water, were calculated by summing an inventory of
up LCA results to an exponentially wider audience (Weidema consumptive water use across the product life cycle. However,
et al. 2008). One key point of difference is that the audience due to the different forms of water available (e.g., surface and
is typically remote, largely nontechnical, and unable to benefit groundwater, soil moisture from natural precipitation) and
from first-hand support in interpretation. Another difference is regional variations in water stress, these virtual water footprints
the focus upon a single aspect, namely greenhouse gas (GHG) proved difficult to interpret and were potentially misleading
emissions, disregarding the core LCA principle of comprehen- if reducing environmental impacts related to water use was
siveness and the potential to assess trade-offs (Finkbeiner 2009). the goal. Numerous examples were found where products with
It is therefore interesting that there is now an apparently ever- large virtual water footprints were of less concern than products
expanding list of environmental indicators termed footprints where small quantities of surface or groundwater use occurred
that are vying for public and corporate attention. The next hori- in critically water-stressed locations. The consensus that was
zon appears to be the footprint family (Galli et al. 2012). From achieved early in the process to develop an international
the perspective of LCA, with its tradition of seeking compre- standard for water footprints (ISO 14046) was that a water
hensive environmental assessment, moving beyond the single footprint can only be claimed after impact assessment. Hence
indicator could be viewed as a helpful development. However, the LCA approach, with its provisioning of water use envithe concern raised in this column is that many of these so-called ronmental impact assessment models, became the imperative
footprint indicators are not based on the well-established princi- in order to report environmentally meaningful information.
ples of LCA (e.g., ISO 14040 and 14044) and early propositions This is consistent with the carbon footprint, which reports the
for a footprint family are emerging from outside the mainstream impact category indicator result for global warming and not an
LCA community, creating problems of inconsistency and over- aggregated inventory result for GHG emissions. By extension,
lap of methods.
it is recommended that all components of a footprint family
Address correspondence to: Bradley G. Ridoutt, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Victoria 3169, Australia.
Email: brad.ridoutt@csiro.au
2013 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12026
Volume 17, Number 3

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie

Journal of Industrial Ecology

337

F O OT P R I N T I N G

include some level of LCA-based impact assessment and

not simply report at the inventory level on resource use or
emissions.
There are a variety of further arguments that support the case
for a footprint family based on LCA. The comprehensibility of
the footprint family is enhanced if double counting of environmental burdens is avoided. This is a well-established practice in
LCA when a profile of indicator results is reported (ISO 14044,
section 4.4.2.2.3), but has been a problem with simultaneous
reporting of the carbon and ecological footprints. Also, there is
a need to make sense of the footprint family in aggregate. With
the carbon, virtual water and ecological footprints this is difficult. It is unclear how one option should be compared to another
that has a lower ecological footprint but a higher virtual water
footprint. On the other hand, it could be said that providing the
analytical capability to integrate diverse environmental impacts
is the overarching goal and special contribution of LCA. Although this task is accomplished imperfectly, what is important
is that it is performed transparently and with models based on
best available scientific evidence. Taking the LCA approach,
the potential exists to complement the footprint family with an
integrated sustainability score, thereby assisting interpretation.
It is acknowledged that not all LCA practitioners support the
reporting of LCA results in this way, as value judgments are inevitably involved. Nevertheless, we find the counterargument
persuasive: the alternative to providing a transparent, sciencebased sustainability score is the less desirable situation of leaving
the decision maker to subjectively interpret the collection of
footprint results using potentially vague criteria. A further case
for the LCA approach is that a footprint family should provide
guidance that is consistent with a comprehensive LCA, and
this is only assured when the footprints themselves are based on
LCA.

Meeting the Needs of Remote and

Nontechnical Life Cycle Assessment
Information Consumers
The current life cycle impact assessment paradigm involves
the classification and grouping of impacts in relation to areas
of protectionnatural resources, natural environment, human
health, and, more recently, the built environment. These are
considered the ultimate safeguard subjects. This framework is
robust and continues to be meaningful; however, it is not the
lens through which the broader community views environmental protection, which tends to be oriented more toward specific
environmental concerns. As such, the carbon footprint appeals
specifically to community concerns about global warming and
the water footprint to concerns about water stress. It appears
that if the LCA community wishes to engage the broader community in life cycle thinking and the use of LCA results for
decision making, then further development of footprint-style
indicators is required. However, footprints should not be viewed
as just new names for existing impact category indicators based
on the area-of-protection paradigm, but rather indicator results
that address specific environmental concerns of community in338

Journal of Industrial Ecology

terest. Herein lies the basis for a universal footprint definition

presently lacking.
The complexity is that some environmental issues of community concern cut across the traditional areas of protection
and cannot be assessed by a single impact category indicator.
For example, water use can lead to depletion of natural resources as well as impacts on both the natural environment and
human health through water scarcity and water quality degradation. Unlike the global warming midpoint indicator, there is
no analogous midpoint for water use that is relevant to all the
many potential impact pathways. As such, in the traditional
LCA reporting context, a profile of indicators would normally
be used to report environmental impacts related to water use.
However, for the remote and nontechnical audience amenable
to simplified footprint indicators, the various potential impacts
related to water use need to be integrated and expressed in a
single stand-alone result. Such a solution has been presented
for the water footprint (Ridoutt and Pfister 2013), whereby impacts related to both consumptive and degradative water use
are assessed and integrated using the ReCiPe endpoint modeling system (Goedkoop et al. 2009), with results subsequently
translated into units deemed to be intuitively meaningful and
therefore suitable for public communication (i.e., liters of water equivalents). This is possibly a model for other footprint
indicators where the issue of environmental concern is complex and requires multiple environmental mechanisms to be
modeled for comprehensive assessment. A land use footprint is
a prime example and a toxicity footprint is possibly another.
Clearly the family of footprint indicators might vary depending
on relevance to the product category.
This brings the subject of weighting into focus. The reality is
that in many cases an environmental issue of community concern cannot be addressed by a single-score footprint indicator
without some form of weighting. Therefore if the LCA community is going to meet the public and corporate demand for
footprint-style indicators, then a greater use of weighting will be
required. Admittedly the associated value judgments raise issues
for some among the LCA expert community. However, value
judgments are not so uncommon in other aspects of LCA that
have a broad base of acceptance. The use of GHG characterization factors based on the arbitrary 100-year global warming
potential is one obvious example. Weighting should be viewed
positively if it is likely to improve decision making, if its purpose is to provide new and additional information, and where
access to disaggregated data is possible. That being said, the
further evaluation and development of transparent, consensusbased weighting methods, such as is occurring within the European context (Huppes et al. 2012), are encouraged to support
the quality and scientific acceptance of footprints. Additional
consideration of the uncertainty introduced through weighting
steps is also desirable.

Final Thoughts
LCA has always been intended to support practical decision
making. The popular interest in footprints and the emergence

F O OT P R I N T I N G

of the footprint family concept should therefore be viewed with

much enthusiasm as the opportunity is arising to influence a
vastly expanded number of decisions. Although individual decisions may be small in consequence, they may have a large
impact in aggregate. However, to take advantage of this opportunity the LCA community must take seriously the needs of
remote and nontechnical LCA information consumers. We argue for the development of a universal footprint definition that
is based on LCA and supports the calculation of single-score,
stand-alone indicators aligned with specific environmental concerns of broad community interest. As discussed in this column,
this will require the LCA community to further embrace the
optional weighting stage of LCA. The risk is if the LCA community does not meet the wider communitys demand for footprint
indicators then this need will likely be met in less satisfactory
ways by others working outside or on the periphery of LCA.

References
Finkbeiner, M. 2009. Carbon footprintingOpportunities and threats.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14(2): 9194.
Galli, A., T. Wiedmann, E. Ercin, D. Knoblauch, B. Ewing, and
S. Giljum. 2012. Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a footprint family of indicators: Definition and role
in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators
16(SI): 100112.
Goedkoop, M., R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs,
and R. van Zelm. 2009. ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indica-

tors at the midpoint and the endpoint level, 1st ed. Ruimte en
Milieu, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
en Milieubeheer, The Netherlands.
Huppes, G., L. van Oers, U. Pretato, and D. W. Pennington. 2012.
Weighting environmental effects: Analytical survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17(7): 876891.
ISO 14040. 2006. Environmental management Life cycle assessment Principles and framework. International Organisation for
Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 14044. 2006. Environmental management Life cycle assessment
Requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for
Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ridoutt, B. G. and S. Pfister. 2013. A new water footprint calculation
method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a
single stand-alone weighted indicator. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 18(1): 204207.
Weidema, B. P., M. Thrane, P. Christensen, J. Schmidt, and S. Lkke.
2008. Carbon footprint. A catalyst for life cycle assessment? Journal of Industrial Ecology 12(1): 36.

About the Author

Bradley Ridoutt is a Principal Research Scientist in the Sustainable Agriculture National Research Flagship at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,
Australia. Stephan Pfister is a Senior Research Associate in
the Institute for Environmental Engineering at ETH Zurich,
Switzerland.

Ridoutt and Pfister, Towards an Integrated Family of Footprint Indicators

339