Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Downscaling the planetary boundaries in absolute environmental

sustainability assessments e A review
Morten W. Ryberg*, Martin Marchman Andersen, Mikołaj Owsianiak, Michael Z. Hauschild
Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Group, DTU Management Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark,
Produktionstorvet, Building 424, 2800, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The safe operating space as defined by the Planetary Boundaries framework can be used as an envi-
Received 10 October 2019 ronmental sustainability reference in absolute environmental sustainability assessments (AESAs). In
Received in revised form AESAs, the safe operating space must be distributed among human activities so impacts associated with
10 June 2020
an activity can be related to its assigned share of the safe operating space to assess if the activity can be
Accepted 13 July 2020
Available online 31 July 2020
considered absolute sustainable. To ensure choices concerning sharing principles in AESA are deliberate,
there is a need for understanding the distributive justice theory underlying the sharing principles. This
Handling editor: Yutao Wang study provides a framework for determining and communicating the distributive justice theories that
underlie the choice of sharing principles in AESA. To comprehensively describe a sharing principle in
Keywords: relation to distributive justice theories, seven dimensions must be defined, i.e. target, currency, pattern,
Absolute environmental sustainability geographical scope, temporal scope, clauses, and constraints. We conducted a review of sharing principles
assessment used in AESAs in relation to contemporary distributive justice theories. 18 studies were identified with 34
Entitlement sharing principles being applied. The most commonly applied sharing principle is equal per capita
Sharing principles
sharing of the safe operating space among countries or individuals. This was often combined with
Distributive justice
utilitarian principles for sharing among industrial units. Based on the review and analysis of the results,
Safe operating space
we provide recommendations on best practice for defining sharing principles in AESAs systematically
based on distributive justice theories and recommendations for further research. The framework
developed in this study provide a first step towards a systematic and informed selection of sharing
principles used in AESAs.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Distributive justice theories in political philosophy and theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Review of sharing principles in PB-based AESAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Categorization of sharing principles according to distributive justice theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Review findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Application of sharing principle categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Applicability of sharing principles at different scales of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Selection of currency for distributing the safe operating space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Recommendations for definition of sharing principles in AESAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Selecting target for sharing the safe operating space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Selecting pattern and currency for sharing the safe operating space among humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Selecting pattern and currency for sharing the safe operating space among industrial actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Selecting other dimensions for sharing the safe operating space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: moryb@dtu.dk (M.W. Ryberg).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123287
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287

5.5. Recommendations for selection and documentation of sharing principles in AESAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1. Introduction we are left with questions of how to split the burden of collectively
staying within the PBs. To know if e.g. a person or a company is
Since its introduction in 2009, the Planetary Boundaries (PB) absolute environmentally sustainable, we need to know that per-
framework (Rockstro €m et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015) has son’s or the company’s assigned SoSOS. How to determine a per-
attracted attention from both academia, industry, and government son’s or a company’s assigned SoSOS is not only normative, but
(Clift et al., 2017; Galaz et al., 2012; Sim et al., 2016; WBCSD, 2010). essentially a question of distributive justice.
The PB-framework defined a set of biophysical boundaries for key Previous studies have assessed the absolute sustainability of
Earth Systems processes that human impacts should stay within to different systems at different scales of study (e.g. countries, sectors,
maximize the probability of staying in a Holocene-like state and, companies and product) in relation to an assigned SoSOS (e.g.
thereby, avoid potentially unacceptable Earth System changes Nykvist et al., 2013; Sandin et al., 2015; Ryberg et al., 2018;
(Rockstro €m et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). The PBs, thus, delimit a Algunaibet et al., 2019). In particular, Sandin et al. (2015) and
safe operating space for humanity to manoeuvre within and this Ryberg et al. (2018) explicitly looked into the choice of sharing
has inspired an increased interest in integrating the PBs into principles (also referred to as allocation principles or distributive
product and technology oriented environmental assessment tools, principles in other literature). Both studies applied four different
such as Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) (Bjørn et al., 2015). In tradi- sharing principles and found that the choice of sharing principle
tional LCAs, impacts from an activity are normally related to an strongly influenced conclusions about the activity being considered
anthropogenic reference system. For instance, external normali- sustainable or not. Ryberg et al. (2018) evaluated the uncertainty of
zation where impacts of the assessed activity are normalized an AESA on laundry washing in EU and found that uncertainty from
against some measure of “background” impact of society (ISO, choice of sharing principle dwarfed uncertainty of the life-cycle
2006; Laurent and Hauschild, 2015). Such assessments are inventory and of the location of the PBs in the known zone of un-
referred to as relative environmental sustainability assessments. In certainty (Rockstro € m et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). Currently,
contrast, the development of e.g. the PBs, has allowed use of ab- there is no harmonization of the selection and application of
solute environmental boundaries as reference values that can be sharing principles in AESA and comprehensive presentations of the
related to the impact of human activities quantified using LCA or normative values and ethics underlying the selection of sharing
related life-cycle based approaches. The benefit being that the principles in previous AESAs are generally lacking. Because the
outcome of the evaluation of an activity’s environmental perfor- choice of sharing principle has such large influence on the outcome
mance will not depend on the performance of the anthropogenic of an AESA, there is a need for a more systematic and informed
reference system, but reflect its performance relative to absolute approach to the selection of sharing principle in AESA. The first step
environmental boundaries. This is referred to as an absolute envi- is to understand the values and ethics that underlie different
ronmental sustainability assessment (AESA). sharing principles to allow practitioners to make informed and
With regards to the PBs, normalization can be done relative to deliberate choices about which sharing principle to apply in an
the full safe operating space as delimited by the PBs. However, AESA.
direct normalization against the full safe operating space cannot Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide AESA practi-
reveal if an activity can be considered absolute sustainable (Bjørn tioners with a common framework for defining, documenting and
et al., 2015; Ryberg et al., 2016). To be operational, the full safe communicating sharing principles based on prevailing theories of
operating space must be apportioned and assigned to the actor or distributive justice. This is needed to ensure that sharing of the safe
activity that is being studied (i.e. downscaling), e.g. countries, operating space in AESA is based on established theories of distri-
companies, industry sectors, persons or products. The assigned bution and can be transparently documented in terms of which
share of the safe operating space (SoSOS) can be used as an absolute theory of distribution that has been selected. To enable such
environmental sustainability reference (AESR) in an AESA of the development, this article first presents the most prevailing theories
assessed activity. To be absolute sustainable, the impacts associated of distributive justice in the fields of political philosophy and the-
with the assessed activity must not exceed the assigned SoSOS ory, and the dimensions these consist of. Distributive justice the-
(Fang et al., 2015a). AESA and downscaling of the safe operating ories deal with the matter of how to distribute benefits and burdens
space is a method for making the ‘conceptual’ PB-framework in a “just” way among e.g. a group of individuals. This depend on
operational and allow decision-makers in e.g. industries and gov- ethical considerations about which rules to follow for performing
ernments to apply “PB-thinking” as part of their strategic planning such distribution and under which conditions and criteria the
(Biermann, 2012; Clift et al., 2017; Sim et al., 2016; Whiteman et al., distribution is done. In this study, we include the following
2013). The ability to assess if an activity is good enough relative to distributive justice theories: utilitarianism, prioritarianism, suffi-
environmental boundaries, such as the PBs, allow for setting cientarianism, the difference principle, egalitarianism, luck egali-
science-based relevant sustainability targets for an activity. More- tarianism, and libertarianism. A description of each theory and the
over, it allows for evaluating if new sustainability oriented initia- dimensions each consist of is given in Section 2.1. Afterwards, a
tives and strategies are sufficiently ambitious for making the review of the application of sharing principles in previous AESA-
activity sustainable in an absolute sense, or if more ambitious ac- studies using the PBs is conducted. The sharing principles in the
tions are needed (Hauschild, 2015; Ryberg et al., 2018). However, retrieved studies are categorized into sharing principle categories
 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287
based on their relation to the different distributive justice theories.
The findings of the review and the categorization of sharing prin-
ciples is discussed with regards to applicability of different sharing
principle categories in different types of AESAs and the data re-
quirements for their application. Based on the discussion of the
findings, specific short- and long-term recommendations to AESA
practitioners on the selection and application of sharing principles
in LCA-based AESAs are provided.
2. Theory
2.1. Distributive justice theories in political philosophy and theory
The economic, political, and social frameworks of a society
necessarily results in a distribution of benefits and burdens across
members of that society. Essentially distributive justice concerns
ideal just distribution of benefits and burdens. However, exactly
how such ideal just distribution would look is not given. Thus,
different distributive theories have been put forward and are being
discussed in political philosophy and theory. Indeed, when re-
sources are scarce, distributive justice is prevalent. In much polit-
ical philosophy and theory studying distributive justice,
sustainability itself is considered a matter of distributive justice.
Indeed, following the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sus-
tainable development, this is quite obvious as sustainable devel-
opment here is development that “… meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs.” (WCED, 1987). Sustainability, it may therefore be
suggested, is essentially a matter of what the current generation
owes to future generations (Gosseries, 2008). When downscaling
the PBs, the safe operating space represent a scarce resource that
should be distributed among non-global actors, e.g. countries or
persons. Given that the PBs are absolute boundaries for keeping the
Earth System in a Holocene-like state, if one person exceeds’ her
assigned SoSOS, she is, all else being equal, depriving others of their
assigned share of the safe operating space (Vanderheiden, 2009)
and, thus, not acting in an absolute sustainable manner.
To provide a common framework for selection of sharing prin-
ciples in AESA, founded on the prevailing theories of distributive
justice, we need to map the dimensions that distributive justice
theories consist of. According to Meyer and Roser (2006) “the three
most important questions for theories of distributive justice are:
Distribute what, how, and among whom?“. Along a similar line of
thinking, Bjørn et al. (2016) introduced the need for identifying the
different systems and activities (i.e. whom) that compete for an
environmental space (i.e. what) and quantify their assigned SoSOS
based on the value they contribute with relative to other systems
and activities (i.e. how). We echo the what, how, and whom but
suggest more comprehensively that for something to be a complete
distributive justice theory, it needs ultimately to specify an answer
to what currency it is that should follow a specific distribution
pattern among which targets in what geographical scope, during
which temporal scope and under which eventual constraints and
clauses? (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2015). These seven dimensions are
needed to characterize the specific differences between distributive
justice theories (see Table 1 for a short description of each
dimension).
Table 2 provides an overview of the prevailing distributive jus-
tice theories (based on Roemer, 1998; Meyer and Roser, 2006;
Lippert-Rasmussen, 2015) that are discussed in contemporary po-
litical philosophy and theory.
Utilitarianism holds that we should maximize the sum of welfare
(Scheffler, 1988). Utilitarianism needs the content of welfare to be
fully specified, and for it to be operational we need a time-limit (even
though utilitarianism has none (Crisp, 2014)) and comprehensive
3
knowledge (economic, psychological, etc.) on causes of welfare.
Notably, as the goal is to maximize the sum of welfare, utilitarianism
does not take into account potential increases in inequality (Meyer
and Roser, 2006). Prioritarianism is similar to utilitarianism in that
it holds that we should maximize the sum of prioritarian-weighted
welfare, meaning that a benefit has greater moral value the worse
the situation of the individual is to whom it accrues (Holtug, 2017).
The target and geographical scope of prioritarianism is the same as for
utilitarianism. This is in contrast to the difference principle for which
John Rawls suggested that social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-
advantaged members of society. Thus, the target is to be under-
stood as socio-economic groups and the scope is the society, rather
than everyone, as in utilitarianism and prioritarianism (Rawls, 1999).
Egalitarianism and luck egalitarianism holds respectively that it is
unjust for individuals to be worse off than others, and that it is
unjust for individuals to be worse off than others due to no re-
sponsibility of their own (Andersen, 2014; Temkin, 2003). In luck
egalitarianism, personal responsibility works as a constraint on an
otherwise equal distribution. An all else being equal clause is typi-
cally added to both distributive justice theories to avoid levelling
down implications. For instance, in a world populated by the blind
and the seeing, without an all else being equal clause, an egalitarian
would have to claim that there is something good about blinding
the sighted, if full equality can only be achieved by blinding the
seeing. However, any sensible egalitarian would consider both the
intrusion into personal liberty and the loss of welfare from being
blinded as far worse than the benefit of equality. Thus, all things
considered, an egalitarian would not recommend blinding the
seeing (Holtug, 1998). A key question in egalitarian distributive
justice theories is the currency on which to base equality (Dworkin,
1981a). Here different currencies have been proposed such as re-
sources, welfare, and capabilities (Cohen, 1989; Dworkin, 1981b;
Sen, 1979). Sufficientarianism holds that equality is not what mat-
ters; what matters is that everyone has enough, and thus suggests a
sufficiency level where people below the threshold have (absolute)
priority compared to people above the threshold (Nielsen, 2017).
Libertarianism, perhaps best defended by Robert Nozick (1974),
questions the idea of a fixed distribution; if there is an initial just
distribution, then any distribution following from that is just if it
results from voluntary transactions. Yet, libertarianism holds that
everyone should have equal basic rights (Nozick, 1974).
3. Methods
3.1. Review of sharing principles in PB-based AESAs
In accordance with this study’s purpose, LCA-based AESA
studies were selected from the literature following the criteria that
(i) the studies directly deal with the PBs or are based on the PBs as
defined in the PB-framework (Rockstro € m et al., 2009; Steffen et al.,
2015); and (ii) the studies deal with assigning a share of the safe
operating space or otherwise downscaling PBs to the scale of the
studied activity. All sharing principles evaluated in this study were
retrieved from Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection on December
20th, 2019, The time period of the review was set to between 2009
(i.e. year of first publication on Planetary Boundaries; Rockstro €m
et al., 2009) and 2019. All languages and all document types
where included in the review.
To retrieve relevant studies a specific search query string was
defined based on a list of key words for expressing Planetary
Boundaries, Sharing, and AESA. Because the focus is on sharing of
the safe operating space as delimited by the PBs, the key words
“Safe operating space”, “Planetary Boundaries” and “Planetary
Boundary” was selected as part of the search query. The term
4 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287

Table 1
Overview of the seven dimensions needed for comprehensively specifying distributive justice theories.

Dimension Description

Currency Answering what it is that ultimately should be distributed in some way (see Sen, 1979; Dworkin, 1981; Cohen, 1989 for detailed discussion)
Pattern The operational rule the distribution should follow, e.g. equality (see Hirose, 2014 for detailed discussion)
Target The target of distribution, being e.g. among individuals, among social groups, among countries. (see e.g. Lippert-Rasmussen, 2015 for
detailed decriptions)
Geographical scope The geographical scope of the distribution, e.g. global, national, or regional (see e.g. Lippert-Rasmussen, 2015 for detailed decriptions)
Temporal scope The temporal scope of the distribution, e.g. infinite time, a person’s life-time, or shorter periods of time (see e.g. Lippert-Rasmussen, 2015 for
detailed decriptions)
Constraints Some distributive principles are added a clause on the otherwise desired distribution. For instance, Luck egalitarianism is egalitarianism with
luck as a clause, meaning that personal responsibility does justify deviation from the relevant equal distribution. (see e.g. Lippert-
Rasmussen, 2015)
Clauses The all else being equal, or ceteris paribus, clause is added when a distributive principle is meant to be combined with another principle or
other moral consideration. This is typically the case with egalitarianism, meaning that equality matters, but it is not all that matters.
Utilitarianism, in contrast, is a single principle intended to answer all moral matters. Therefore, it is not followed by the ceteris paribus
clause. (see e.g. Hausman, 2018 for detailed descriptions and Section 2.1 for examples)

“planetary boundary layer” was excluded from the search query
string because this relates to the specific planetary boundary layer
of the Earth. This is often referred to in e.g. meteorological studies,
which are not relevant for AESAs and sharing of the safe operating
space. It is evident from existing AESA studies that a common ter-
minology is yet to be defined (Bjørn et al., 2020), thus many
different terms are used to express the sharing of the safe operating
space. Therefore, we identified the following words being used in
already known articles and reports that describe and deal with the
aspect of sharing the safe operating space. Different tenses for each
term were included to ensure that all relevant studies were iden-
tified. The following terms for “sharing” were included as part of
the search query string: “allocation” (Bjørn et al., 2019; Lucas et al.,
2020; Sabag Mun ~ oz and Gladek, 2017); “sharing” (Ryberg et al.,
2018); “downscaled” and “disaggregated” (Steffen et al., 2015);
“scaling” (H€ € et al., 2016). Finally, to ensure the focus on LCA-
ayha
based AESAs, we included four different terms expressing AESAs
and also terms that express LCA. The following terms were included
as part of the search query string: “absolute sustainability”, “ab-
solute environmental sustainability assessment”, “absolute sus-
tainability assessment” and “AESA” (Bjørn et al., 2019; Ryberg et al.,
2018); “life cycle assessment”; “life-cycle assessment”; “life cycle
analysis”; “life-cycle analysis”; “LCA”.
This resulted in the search query string: ALL ¼ ((“planetary
boundaries” OR “safe operating space” OR “planetary boundary” NOT
“planetary boundary layer”) AND (“share” OR “sharing” OR “shared”
OR “scaling” OR “scale” OR “scaled” OR “downscaled” OR “down-
scaling” OR “downscale” OR “allocating” OR “allocated” OR “allocate”
OR “disaggregate” OR “disaggregating” OR “disaggregated” OR “ab-
solute sustainability” OR “absolute environmental sustainability
assessment” OR “absolute sustainability assessment” OR “AESA” OR
“life-cycle assessment” OR “life cycle assessment” OR “life-cycle anal-
ysis” OR “life cycle analysis” OR “LCA")))
The WoS search query resulted in 196 studies (see Supple-
mentary Material (SM) 2 for full list). Hereafter, each study was
checked for relevance using the following inclusion criteria:
 Life-cycle based (YES/NO)
 Dealing with sharing of safe operating space (YES/NO)
 Using Planetary Boundaries as indicators (YES/NO)
 Relating quantified life-cycle impacts to assigned share of safe
operating space (YES/NO)
This resulted in a final list of 11 relevant studies. A bibliographic
check of the reference lists in the 11 retrieved studies was per-
formed to identify additional relevant studies and yielding seven

Table 2
List of the identified distributive justice theories and information for each theory in relation to the seven dimensions that define a distributive justice theory.

Distributive justice Currency Pattern Target Geographical Scope Temporal Scope Constraints Clauses Reference
theory

Utilitarianism Welfare Maximize the sum Everyone sensitive No limit Infinite None None (Crisp, 2014;
to welfare Scheffler, 1988)
Prioritarianism Welfare Prioritarian Everyone sensitive No limit infinite None None Holtug (2017)
function. Increase to welfare
for the worse off is
weighted higher
Difference Resources Maximize Socio-economic No specification, Life-spans None All else Rawls (1999)
principle generally resources of the groups can range from being equal
worse off group local to global scale
(termed
“Maximin”)
Luck Resources, Equality Individuals No specification, Over life-span, or Personal All else Lippert-Rasmussen
egalitarianism welfare, can range from smaller time responsibility being equal (2015)
capabilities local to global scale fragments
Egalitarianism Resources, Equality Individuals No specification, Over life-span, or None All else Temkin (2003)
welfare, can range from smaller time being equal
capabilities local to global scale fragments
Sufficientarianism Resources, Absolute priority to Individual, or No specification, Over life-span, or None or None Nielsen (2017)
welfare, those below a socioeconomic can range from smaller time personal
capabilities sufficiency level groups local to global scale fragments responsibility
Libertarianism Basic rights Equal Individuals No specification, Life-span None None Nozick (1974)
can range from
local to global scale
 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287 5

additional studies. Thus, a total of 18 studies fulfilling the inclusion

criteria were identified and listed in Table 3.

3.2. Categorization of sharing principles according to distributive

justice theories

The sharing principles retrieved from the AESA review were

categorized into sharing principle categories based on the distrib-
utive justice theories listed in Table 2. All sharing principles in the
retrieved studies were reviewed with regards to the target of the
sharing principle being human beings. This strict application of
humans as the target for the sharing principles was needed to
ensure consistency and comparability among the reviewed sharing
principles. This was, in particular, needed for the study by Ryberg
et al. (2018) that applied three sharing principles which were
characterized as egalitarian, but where the target of the sharing
principles was the industry. In the study by Ryberg et al. (2018), the
assigned share was proportional to economic output of the industry
or proportional to consumers’ revealed preferences for certain in-
dustries where the assigned SoSOS was distributed equally among
industries based on the magnitude of their economic output.
However, if humans were selected as target, and under the
assumption that companies’ economic output is a proxy for added
human welfare, these principles can be regarded as utilitarian
because the company with the largest assigned share has the Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of review method and process for identifying relevant
biggest contribution to economic output. Thus, in this study the studies complying with the defined inclusion criteria.
sharing principles were categorized as utilitarian rather than
egalitarian because the target was changes from industries to
humans. is reported in SM 1 Table S2 and Fig. 1. Sharing principles that do not
Categorization of each sharing principle with relation to rely on the prevailing distributive justice theories (as listed in
distributive justice theories started from analysing the applied Table 2) were also identified and are presented and discussed in the
sharing principle in relation to the dimensions presented in results and discussion section, respectively.
Tables 1 and 2, starting from selection of currency, then pattern and
so forth. Using this method each sharing principle was categorized
according to a distributive justice theory. Some sharing principles 4. Review findings
were based on a combination of distributive justice theories. For
instance, first an egalitarian equal per capita downscaling to 4.1. Application of sharing principle categories
regional level followed by a utilitarian based sharing among com-
panies in the region. Such combinations were identified during the In total, 18 studies were identified in the review and 34 sharing
analysis of each sharing principle and the combination of different principles were applied in total. The retrieved sharing principles
distributive justice theories needed for defining a sharing principle were categorized according to the distributive justice theories

Table 3
List of studies identified in the review, the Planetary Boundaries covered in each study, the scale of the object of study (i.e. country, industry sector, company or product), and
the sharing principle category or categories applied in the study. See Table S1 and Table S2 in SM1 for more details.

Study Planetary Boundaries covered Scale of study Sharing principle categories applied

Nykvist et al. (2013) BI; OD; Pg; N; LC; FU Country Egalitarian

Hoff et al. (2014) CC; BI; Pg; N; LC; FU Country Egalitarian
Dao et al. (2015) CC; BI; OA; Pg; N; LC Country Egalitarian
Fang et al. (2015b) CC; LC; FU Country Egalitarian
Kahiluoto et al. (2015) Pr; Pg; N Country Egalitarian
Sandin et al. (2015) CC; BI; Pr; Pg; N; LC; FU Industry Sector Egalitarian & Utilitarian; Acquired rights & Utilitarian
Fanning and O’Neill (2016) CC; Pg; N; FU Country Egalitarian; Acquired rights
Roos et al. (2016) CC; Pg; N; LC; FU Industry Sector Egalitarian & Utilitarian
Brejnrod et al. (2017) CC; OD; N Industry Sector Egalitarian & Utilitarian
Wolff et al. (2017) BI Company Egalitarian & Acquired rights
Hoff et al. (2017) CC; Pg; N; LC; FU Country Egalitarian
Ryberg et al. (2018) CC; OD; OA; Pr; Pg; N; LC; FU; AL Industry Sector Egalitarian (allocation-based) & Utilitarian
(outcome-based); Utilitarian (outcome-based)
Dao et al. (2018) CC; BI; OA; Pg; N; LC Country Egalitarian
Lucas and Wilting (2018) CC; BI; Pg; N; LC Country Acquired rights; Egalitarian
O’Neill et al. (2018) CC; Pg; N; FU Country Egalitarian
Chandrakumar et al. (2019) CC Product Acquired rights; Acquired rights & Utilitarian
Algunaibet et al. (2019) CC; OD; OA; Pg; N; LC; FU Industry Sector Egalitarian & Utilitarian
Li et al. (2019) Pr Country Acquired rights

Climate change (CC); Change in Biosphere integrity (BI); Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD); Ocean acidification (OA); Biogeochemical flows P, regional (Pr); Biogeochemical
flows P, global (Pg); Biogeochemical flows N (N); Land-system change (LC); Freshwater use (FU); Atmospheric aerosol loading (AL); Introduction of novel entities (NE).
6 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287
described in Section 2.1 (Table 2). Out of the 18 studies, seven
studies are related to assessment of products, companies or in-
dustrial sectors with the remaining being country scale assess-
ments (see Table 3).
Fig. 2 shows the observed usage frequency of sharing principle
categories differentiated by the scale of the object of study. The
most commonly applied sharing principle was equal per capita
sharing of the safe operating space, i.e. where the pattern followed
is egalitarian and the currency is the safe operating space as a
resource expressed in a metric reflecting the particular impact
category, e.g. expressed as ppm CO2 or kg CO2-eqs emitted per year
for global warming (Fig. 2). An equal per capita sharing was only
applied as stand-alone sharing principle in country scale assess-
ments. The equal per capita sharing principle was also used in
sector and company scale assessments, but always in combination
with other sharing principle categories, such as utilitarian-based
sharing principles to account for the value (i.e. utility) the sector
or company delivers to people. Indeed, equal per capita sharing was
often used to downscale the boundary to the relevant geographical
scale of the industry or company after which utilitarian sharing
principles were used within that geographical scale (see e.g. Ryberg
et al., 2018; Algunaibet et al., 2019). One country scale assessment
study applied sharing principles categorized as prioritarian (Lucas
and Wilting, 2018) in which the assigned SoSOS was inversely
proportional to countries’ “ability to pay” and capacity to cope with
a reduced SoSOS. None of the sharing principles applied in the
reviewed AESAs were based on distributive justice theories related
to sufficientarianism, libertarianism, or the difference principle.
The results show that it is generally possible to categorize
sharing principles according to distributive justice theories. This
indicate that most sharing principles are, to some extent, based on
distributive justice theories although the relative short list of
distributive theories used and the similarity in selection of pattern,
currency, etc. could indicate that new AESA studies tend to apply
sharing principles applied in previous studies and, thus, not
deliberately selecting sharing principles for the specific AESA study.
The only type of sharing principles that could not be categorized
based on prevailing distributive justice theories are based on what
can be referred to as acquired rights principles (Banuri et al., 1996).
Sharing principles applying acquired rights principles was observed
in 13 out of 34 sharing principles. In acquired rights principles, the
sharing of the safe operating space among activities is based on the
Fig. 2. Usage frequency of different sharing principles in the retrieved studies categorized in terms of distributive justice theories and differentiated by the scale of the object of
study.
activities’ current or historical acquired rights or property, such as
occupied land area or contribution to environmental pressures
(Banuri et al., 1996). For instance, the distribution of a CO2 emission
budget among countries could be based on the relative share of CO2
emissions among countries in a specific reference year. Such
approach was used for the Annex I countries for the Kyoto protocol
where emission reduction targets were defined with respect to
emissions levels in 1990 (Caney, 2009). Thus, a relatively large
emitter of CO2 in 1990 will be assigned a proportionally large share
of the emission budget. Acquired rights based principles are dis-
cussed in relation to allocation of e.g. CO2 emissions budgets, but
are not discussed as part of distributive justice in political philo-
sophical as distribution based on acquired rights is generally
considered unjust (Caney, 2009; Meyer and Roser, 2006).
In total 12 of the 34 sharing principles were derived by
combining different distributive justice patterns. The most com-
mon combination is egalitarianism and utilitarianism (used in
seven studies; Fig. 2). Here, the initial downscaling to a geograph-
ically specific area is done using an egalitarian resource-based
equal per capita sharing principle, which is followed by utilitarian
distribution among industries in the specific area based on their
approximated utility to people. Another common combination is
acquired rights and utilitarianism where historical contribution to
environmental pressure is used for downscaling to a geographically
specific area after which distribution within the region is based on
utilitarianism. The need for applying a combination of distributive
justice patterns for assigning a share of SoSOS appear to increase
inversely with the scale of the object of study. A single stand-alone
sharing principle is generally applied in country scale studies. A
combination of two sharing principles is used in 12 out of 16 ap-
proaches for sharing the safe operating space in sector, company or
product scale AESAs.
The most commonly assessed PBs are those related to biogeo-
chemical flows, i.e. nitrogen and phosphorous, freshwater use,
land-system change, and climate change which were all assessed
in, at least, 10 out of 18 studies (Table 3). Change in biosphere
integrity, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, and
atmospheric aerosol loading are only included in a few studies. We
do not see a pattern in terms of application of specific impact cat-
egories for different scales of study. Likewise there is not a clear
temporal pattern in the impact category coverage. It appears
coverage of impact categories is dependent on the study’s goal and
 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287
the availability of life-cycle impact assessment models for quanti-
fying impacts for the different PBs (please see SM 1 Section S2 for
discussion of the coverage of Planetary Boundaries in AESAs).
4.2. Applicability of sharing principles at different scales of study
As evidenced from the usage frequency of sharing principles in
the reviewed studies (Fig. 2), egalitarian sharing principles are
commonly applied for assessments of countries where the safe
operating space is treated as a finite resource and equally distrib-
uted among countries based on population numbers. Egalitarian
sharing can also be applied for assessments at person scale with
equal sharing among people. While it is possible to apply different
currencies for an egalitarian distribution, all retrieved studies use
the safe operating space as the currency for equal distribution
among people (see SM 1 Table S2 for overview). As indicated in
Fig. 2, the egalitarian sharing principles can be, and are often, used
as single stand-alone sharing principles at country and person scale
assessment. For assessment of sectors, companies or products,
egalitarian sharing principles are often used as an initial sharing
principle in combination with other sharing principles related to
other sharing principle categories (see Fig. 2 and Table S1 for de-
tails). Here, egalitarian sharing principles are used to scale down
from global scale to the population of the relevant geographical
scale or down to individual person scale. Hereafter, the review
shows that other sharing principles (e.g. based on utilitarianism)
can be applied for further sharing of the safe operating space
among companies or industries. Indeed, egalitarian sharing prin-
ciples using the safe operating space as currency cannot be used
directly for sharing at product, company or sector scale. This is
because it is hard to justify using anything but human individuals as
our ultimate distributive target. To further assign shares among
products, companies or sectors, an additional sharing must be
applied that take into account the value that the products, com-
panies or sectors have for its users, our ultimate target: individual
humans.
Both utilitarian and prioritarian distributive justice theories use
welfare as currency, thus, sharing principles based on utilitarianism
and prioritarianism should rely on indicators that reflect the wel-
fare for people (see Table 2). Utilitarian and prioritarian based
sharing principles can be directly applied at person and country
scale, where e.g. the share assigned to a person using a utilitarian
sharing principle should be based on a formulation that maximizes
the sum of utilities across all persons. Both utilitarian and prior-
itarian based sharing principles can be used as stand-alone sharing
principles at company and sector scale if the distribution of the safe
operating space among companies and sectors is such that it
maximizes the utility (welfare or prioritarian weighted welfare) of
people. Thus, for application in AESAs, the currency for distribution
of the safe operating space should be based on the products’,
companies’ or sectors’ contribution to utility and should be pro-
portional to their contribution to total utility relative to other
product, companies or sectors. For instance, using methods for
measuring the marginal utility of income as shown by Layard et al.
(2008) or the marginal utility change from consumption of
different products and services. Other possible indicators of utility
could be peoples’ preferences for specific products over others,
contribution to economic value, contribution to happiness, or
fulfilment of human needs relative to e.g. Maslow’s pyramid of
needs (Maslow, 1943). The choice of indicator to express utility is a
challenge that is further discussed in Section 4.3. Sharing principles
belonging to the Acquired rights sharing principle category can be
applied to studies at all scales either as stand-alone or in combi-
nation with other sharing principles related to other sharing prin-
ciple categories (see Figure and Table S1 for examples).
7
In general, the complexity of sharing the safe operating space is
inversely proportional with the scale of the object of study. It is
relatively simple to perform an equal per capita sharing of the safe
operating space in a national scale assessment and communicate
how this is done and the underlying choices. It is substantially more
complex to assign a SoSOS to a product because this requires
additional steps in the downscaling procedure. For instance,
Chandrakumar et al. (2019) uses up to four steps for assigning a
share of the safe operating space at the scale of individual agri-food
products. Each step requires an additional choice of sharing prin-
ciple and associated data for calculating the share. Thereby,
increasing the associated uncertainty of the assessment due to
value-based choices (Ryberg et al., 2016). Without a standard or
consensus on how to consistently estimate the assigned SoSOS to
products based on accepted values and approaches, a comparison
of results among AESAs becomes very challenging as the difference
in choice of sharing principle will likely lead to large discrepancies
(as illustrated in Ryberg et al. (2018)). Hence, it is important to
investigate the current relevance of AESAs and sharing of the safe
operating space at different scales of study. As presented by Ryberg
et al. (2016), it currently appears more practical to assign a SoSOS in
large scale studies such as country, company, or industrial sector
scale, and avoid AESAs at product scale. The larger scale require
fewer choices with regard to defining the sharing principle, thus
keeping uncertainty due to value-based choices low. An additional
benefit is that it gives central actors involved with the studied
system room for making internal decisions and decide on specific
trade-offs within the country, company or sector. For instance, a
company might have different options for making the environ-
mental improvements needed for staying within the assigned
SoSOS. Which option they opt for should be up to the company
based on its priorities and interests.
4.3. Selection of currency for distributing the safe operating space
A key aspect with regard to sharing of the safe operating space is
the selection of currency. For instance, the egalitarian distribution
of the safe operating space will likely differ substantially depending
on the sharing being based on equality in the assigned SoSOS (as a
resource) or equality in welfare among humans from a distribution
of the safe operating space. From a decision-making perspective, it
appears more relevant to base sharing on currencies that express an
outcome (e.g. to increase welfare of people) rather than the means
to reach the outcome, e.g. equal distribution of the safe operating
space as a resource. Nevertheless, the review showed that all
country scale AESAs, which apply an egalitarian sharing principle,
use an equal per capita sharing of the safe operating space as a finite
resource (Table S2). The lack of outcome-based sharing principles
might be because of increased complexity and uncertainty when
moving from a relatively simple distribution of the safe operating
space as a resource, towards an outcome-based distribution.
Indeed, outcome-based sharing principles require knowledge of
the causal links between an assigned SoSOS and the currency in
which the outcome is to be expressed. For instance, emissions of
CO2 can be measured with certainty but the welfare experienced by
people as a result of an assigned CO2 emission budget cannot be
measured easily and must be estimated e.g., using surveys or
models that can link the assigned CO2 emission budget to welfare.
Prediction of outcome-based indicators, such as personal welfare,
are challenging. For instance, the correlation between monetary
value, its distribution, and human welfare is a difficult and
controversial matter (Easterlin et al., 2010). Methods for creating
indicators of subjective welfare are available such as indicators of
“happiness“ (Diener, 2000) and application of these should be
investigated. In the absence of more specific indicators of welfare,
8 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287
more readily available economic indicators could be (and are being)
applied as proxies for welfare (e.g. Chandrakumar et al., 2019;
Ryberg et al., 2018), with the limitation that proportionality be-
tween economic output and welfare is not always observed
(Diener, 2000; Easterlin et al., 2010; Jebb et al., 2018).
Moreover, the debate in political philosophy and theory on how
the right to emit e.g. greenhouse gases should be distributed ini-
tiates on the challenge of whether we should distribute the right to
impact the climate isolated from other concerns of distributive
justice (isolationism), or in light of such other concerns (Caney,
2012). According to most theories of justice, the current global
distribution of benefits and burdens is probably unjust. Should that
not influence the distribution of rights to impact the environment?
If so, it seems very complicated and fragile to first determine the
principles of overall justice and then “deduce” a just distribution of
rights to occupy the safe operating space. Indeed, equality in wel-
fare should not only be based on the right to occupy the safe
operating space, but should also take other concerns into consid-
eration. In contrast to the outcome-based sharing principles, the
sharing of the safe operating space as a resource is more straight
forward in its use as the size of the safe operating space is already
known and can be distributed among people using either egali-
tarian or acquired rights based sharing principles.
5. Recommendations for definition of sharing principles in
AESAs
Based on the identified theories of distributive justice and the
review of sharing principles used in previous AESAs, we attempt to
provide recommendations for a more harmonized and standard-
ized approach for assigning a SoSOS. We consider this important as
a first step towards standardizing application of AESAs, to increase
comparability across AESAs, and to make choices about assigning
SoSOS transparent and deliberate. To be consistent and enhance
transparency, the principle on which to assign the safe operating
space should not only specify the overall distributive justice theory
(e.g. utilitarianism or egalitarianism) or the particular pattern or
currency used. It should specify all relevant dimensions of distrib-
utive justice and communicate them explicitly in an AESA. For
instance, an egalitarian distributive justice theory might be applied,
but the actual sharing principle will depend on the choice of cur-
rency, thus, it is important to state not only that the sharing prin-
ciple is based on egalitarianism, but also that the currency is e.g.
equal distribution of the safe operating space and not equal dis-
tribution of welfare or capabilities. Target, scope, and time are most
often relevant dimensions too.
5.1. Selecting target for sharing the safe operating space
Regarding target, we should recall that even though the aim in
AESA is to analyse the sustainability of different units, such as in-
dustrial sectors, companies, or products and services, we should
not confuse such units with targets in the basic dimensional sense
of distributive justice. This is so because obviously we do not owe
anything to the products, the companies, the institutions, and the
countries themselves. When we owe something to a country it is
because we owe something to its inhabitants, when we owe
something to a company it is because we owe something to its
users. In accordance with Lippert-Rasmussen (2015) distribution
among individual human beings should be our target, because it is
individual human beings that we ultimately owe anything (WCED,
1987) and which are to operate within the safe operating space for
humanity (Rockstro € m et al., 2009). Therefore, even though we
should analyse the absolute environmental sustainability of
different industry related units, these units should ultimately be
defined in terms of their linkage to individuals, such that the SoSOS
assigned to industry related units depends on the number of in-
dividuals using the units and the units’ value to these individuals.
5.2. Selecting pattern and currency for sharing the safe operating
space among humans
As stated above, the overall target should be individual human
beings, however, regarding recommendations for patterns and
currencies we distinguish between short-term and long-term rec-
ommendations for distributing the safe operating space among
humans.
Short-term recommendations concern how the safe operating
space can currently be shared in AESAs using a pragmatic approach
that rely on existing available information. Thus, in the short-term,
we recommend that the following patterns and currencies are
applied in AESAs. We recommend using equal per capita sharing of
the safe operating space as a resource to distribute from global to
national, regional, or individual scale. This is based on the following
arguments. First, the complexity of estimating equality in e.g.
welfare or capabilities, suggests that we must distribute the safe
operating space in isolation from other concerns of justice. Indeed,
it is highly controversial what more precisely a fully just world
would look like. Thus, to be operational in a non-ideal world, we
suggest to distribute shares of the safe operating space as a resource
in isolation from other concerns of justice. If we accept isolationism,
it seems hard to justify using other currencies than equal per capita
sharing of the safe operating space. Any deviation from this cur-
rency and pattern would need a justification and such justification
can, presumably, only stem from other concerns of justice e con-
cerns we just accepted to isolate ourselves from. In terms of data
needed for calculating equal per capita sharing of the safe operating
space, only population numbers are needed to apply this approach.
This approach is also the most common approach in the reviewed
studies (see Fig. 2), which indicate an overall acceptance among
AESA researchers. A general acceptance of this approach would be
beneficial as it would increase the comparability of different AESA
studies.
Long-term recommendations concern what we should be
aiming towards in terms of sharing principles in AESAs. Here,
further research is needed to operationalize sharing based on
outcome-based currency indicators such as welfare or capabil-
ities rather than using the safe operating spaces as a resource as
currency. As stated above, the question about a distribution of
the safe operating space being just cannot be performed in
isolation of other concerns of justice. These other concerns must
be taken into account to evaluate if the overall distribution of all
concerns is just. This will require substantially more complex
models and data that is currently not available. Therefore, we
recommend research on development of operational methods for
sharing of the safe operating space among humans and industrial
units, based on some recognized pattern of distribution, such as
maximization of equalization, of welfare or capabilities among
people. To do so, such models must include other concerns (e.g.
economic and social distribution of burdens and benefits) and
integrate these with the distribution of an environmental safe
operating space to estimate a comprehensive just distribution of
burdens and benefits.
The equal per capita sharing of the safe operating space as a
resource was short-term recommended because it can be per-
formed in isolation from other concerns of justice. If models are
developed that convincingly link SoSOS to welfare or capabilities,
then it is still an open matter whether the distribution of the safe
operating space should be based on an egalitarian, utilitarian, pri-
oritarian or sufficientarian pattern of distribution. This choice
 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287 9

depends on normative ethics and should be decided as part of a

political standardization process. Hence, we recommend working
towards a consensus in the AESA community to standardize sharing
in AESAs and ensure comparability among AESA studies. The long-
term recommendations should, therefore, also be seen as a first
step towards a consensus buildings process and as a starting point
for future discussions on the approaches used for sharing. An
alternative or complementary approach to a standardization could
be to apply different sharing principles based on different theories
of distributive justice to obtain a range of AESA results rather than a
single result. Decisions on the basis of the AESA could, hereafter, be
based on an evaluation of all results that can be considered absolute
sustainable.

5.3. Selecting pattern and currency for sharing the safe operating
space among industrial actors

The target of downscaling of the safe operating space is, in

accordance with the basic dimensional sense of distributive justice,
individual human beings (see Section 5.1). Thus, assignment of a
SoSOS among industrial units in AESAs (e.g. industrial sectors,
companies, or products and services) must be relative to this target.
A two-step approach is, therefore, recommended for downscaling
of the safe operating space to industrial units. First, a SoSOS must be
assigned to all people following a recognized pattern and currency
e in our short-term recommendation: equal per capita and shares
of the safe operating space (Section 5.2). Hereafter, the share
assigned to an industrial unit should be based on the utility that the
industrial unit provides to the people using the industrial unit.
Thus, the SoSOS assigned to the industrial unit will depend on the
number of users (and their assigned SoSOS) and the utility the unit
provides to its users.
As expressed in Section 4.3 determination of the utility to in-
dividuals is not simple and will have to be based on approximations
of utility based on the availability of relevant data. A set of rules
must hereafter be defined. Approaches for indicating the added
utility of a product relative to other products or services could, for
instance, be based on marginal utility studies or studies looking
into the revealed consumption preferences of individuals (Section
4.3). In lieu of such methods, previous studies have primarily
sought to approximate utility to individuals from assessed indus-
trial units relative to other industrial units based on existing eco-
nomic indicators such as gross value added (GVA) or final
consumption expenditure (FCE) (Algunaibet et al., 2019; Ryberg
et al., 2018). We recommend continuing this approach in the
short term, but stress the need for research on development of
better methods for approximating the added utility to people and
the development of better data to support such method
development.
5.4. Selecting other dimensions for sharing the safe operating space
For Geographical scope, we recommend to apply a geographical
scope that is in line with the scope of the environmental impact.
This implies a global geographical scope for global impacts such as
climate change. As the scope of the PB-framework is global
(although regional and local boundaries are part of the framework),
a global scope is recommended for sharing of the safe operating
space. For AESAs dealing with environmental impacts that are
confined to a regional area, the scope for assigning a SoSOS can also
be confined to the regional area. However, care should be taken
because most product life cycles cover multiple regions (and often
span globally). Indeed, what appears to be a confined regional area
may turn out to be influenced by outside factors, and it is important
to account for these factors when assigning a SoSOS. Because of the
Fig. 3. Recommendations for selection sharing principles used in AESA with specifi-
cation for the seven dimensions required for comprehensively specifying and
communicating a sharing principle used in AESA.
globalization of value chains and environmental impacts, we
recommend that a global geographical scope is generally applied.
This entails that the safe operating space is globally shared and that
all humans have a right to the safe operating space, but also that all
humans should, in principle, share the safe operating space inde-
pendent of the geographical location. Thus, the safe operating space
can be seen as a global common resource. This approach can be
used for AESAs and for assessing the absolute sustainability of
different activities, still we acknowledge that in practice, such
global common is challenged by geopolitical concerns. Hence,
research on further spatial specification of the local and regional
safe operating spaces and how to deal with these in AESAs to avoid
treating regional resources as a global common is ongoing, but for
the moment we suggest, for operationalization of AESAs, as a
default to treat the safe operating space as a global common.
The temporal scope in theory of distributive justice is the ques-
tion of what span of time it is that ought to include a certain dis-
tribution (pattern) of something (currency) to obtain between
someone (target). Choice about temporal scope includes difficult
questions of what one generation owes to the next, including all
matters of discounting the future (and the past) (Lippert-
Rasmussen, 2015). Utilitarianism, for instance, has an unlimited
time-span. We ought to maximize the sum of welfare in all time.
For practical reasons of course we need to set a limit. In egalitari-
anism the matter is subject of disagreement. Whereas, for persons
living today, it might be unjust that one person is better off than
another person in the currency that should be equalized. However,
it might not be unjust if a person living today is better off than a
person living 1000 years ago. Indeed, such very broad temporal
time-span would imply, all else being equal, that the latter is unjust
10 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287

(Lippert-Rasmussen, 2015). When downscaling the PBs to the in-

Two examples on how to document the sharing principle used for downscaling from global scale to the scale of study. The overall sharing principle is divided into specific downscaling steps. For each downscaling step, the seven

industry sector and

Calculation applied

Itotal is total impact

number of persons
dividual person level, this time dimension becomes apparent. If we

where SOS is safe

downscaling step

Pop is population
operating space,

Where Iindustry is

Where PS is the
from all sectors
follow our recommendations of equal per capita sharing of the safe

SOS  Popnation

impact of the

fully served
operating space, then we need to determine the temporal scope of

Popworld
for specific

PScompany
PSindustry
that equal per capita distribution. This is a complex question, but no

Popworld

Iindustry
SOS

Itotal
matter the answer, it is worth little if we have no data to support
answering it. The PBs are based on various models and estimated
over a specific future time. Thus, for operationalization in AESA, we

Constraints & Clauses

recommend that the temporal scope is based on the temporal scope
of the models and estimates used for defining the safe operating

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified
space used in AESAs. This is the temporal scope that sets the global
boundary, which must then be shared among people. For instance,
if the boundary is defined as an emission budget from e.g. year
2000 to year 2100, as sometimes seen for climate change (e.g.
Rogelj et al., 2018), then temporal scope should also be defined as

dimensions pertaining to a distributional justice theory are specified. The actual calculation and data input needed for the downscaling step is presented in the last column.

based on population
year 2000 to year 2100. When downscaling to the individual level,

Annual distribution

Annual distribution

Annual distribution

Annual distribution
current conditions
based on current

based on current
the safe operating space of climate change, should, accordingly, be

Temporal Scope

in given year
determined in one of two ways. Either we divide the available

conditions

conditions
emission budget equally among all individuals that are expected to

based on
live between 2000 and 2100, or we first distribute the emission
budget across the years from 2000 to 2100, and then divide by the
number of individuals living in each of those years. Finally, with

Geographical
regards to the clauses and constraints dimensions, these are not

European

European
specific for use in AESAs and will depend on the chosen pattern of

Global

Global
Scope
distribution. Thus, we recommend following the clauses and con-
straints that are specific to the particular distributive justice theory.

Individuals

Companies
5.5. Recommendations for selection and documentation of sharing

Industry
principles in AESAs Nations
Target

sector
Fig. 3 provide an overview of the recommendations for selection
of the seven dimensions required for comprehensively specifying

biosphere integrity

company’s market
Equal assignment

Equal assignment

Assigned share is

Assigned share is
of safe operating

of safe operating
and communicating a sharing principle. These recommendations for

total impact on
proportional to

proportional to
contribution to
sharing of the safe operating space in AESAs are meant as a first step
space among

space among
individuals

individuals
towards ensuring transparency around sharing principle choices
Pattern

and comparability among AESA studies. They should be seen as a

share
first step towards a consensus buildings process and as a starting
point for future discussions on the approaches used for sharing.
space for biosphere

space for biosphere

space for biosphere

To comprehensively describe a sharing principle in relation to
space as a finite

distributive justice theories, all seven dimensions in Table 1 must

Safe operating

Safe operating

Safe operating

Safe operating
be defined, i.e. target, currency, pattern, geographical scope, temporal
Currency

scope, clauses, and constraints. To ensure transparency about the

integrity

integrity

integrity
resource

choice of sharing principle, it is recommended that AESAs docu-

ment this by specifying all seven dimensions pertaining to the
sharing principle. A sharing principle in AESA may be based on
Acquired rights

Acquired rights

more than one distributive justice theory. In this case the AESA
justice theory
Distributive

Egalitarian

Egalitarian

practitioner must describe all distributive justice theories that are

related to the defined sharing principle. Examples on how such
documentation can be done in a consistent manner are shown for
two actual studies (Table 4). The first study (Nykvist et al., 2013)
uses one downscaling step as part of the sharing principle to scale
From scale to scale

from global to national scale. The second study (Wolff et al., 2017)
industry sector

uses three downscaling steps to scale from global to company scale.

Individual to
individual

For each downscaling step, the seven dimensions pertaining to a

company
Global to

Global to

sector to
industry
national

distributional justice theory should be specified and finally the

actual equation and data used for the downscaling step should be
presented. This allows for consistently documenting the sharing
#1: Nykvist et al. (2013)

principle used for downscaling from global scale to the scale of

#2: Wolff et al. (2017)

study and it is possible to identify the different steps used to scale

from e.g. global scale to national, individual, company or industry
sector scale. Indeed, the use of such table for documenting the
choice of sharing principle and the underlying distributive justice
theory is not likely to require extensive additional work form the
Study
Table 4

AESA practitioner, but it will greatly improve the transparency of

the sharing principle selection. This method for comprehensively
 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287
documenting the basis for the sharing principles is important
because it allows future users of the AESA study to evaluate the
selection of sharing principles in AESA and if the used sharing
principles align with their own values and, thus, if the AESA results
can be applied in the context in which they want to use them. If this
is not the case, it is recommended to either redo the results using
different sharing principles based on a different distributive justice
theories, which fully align with their own values.
6. Conclusion
A review of AESA studies that have assigned a SoSOS to human
activities was used to provide an overview the use of sharing princi-
ples in AESAs and drawing on 18 studies with, in total, application of
34 sharing principles. The 34 sharing principles were categorized
according to distributive justice theories used in political philosophy.
This was used for getting an understanding of the underlying theories
of distributive justice that the selection of the 34 sharing principles
was based on. It was found that, three types of sharing principle
categories are generally applied in AESA, i.e. egalitarian, utilitarian,
and acquired rights principles. Other distributive justice theories are
seldom used as a basis for defining sharing principles in AESAs. Based
on the review and analysis of the sharing principles and their un-
derlying distributive justice theories, a set of recommendations for
future practice in the field were developed. This entails the selection
of sharing principles and the subsequent documentation of sharing
principles in AESAs. Conclusively, this study provides the first
comprehensive framework for determining and transparently
communicating the distributive ethics that underlie the choice of
sharing principle as expressed by the distributive justice theories. The
proposed framework and the recommendations for choice and
documentation of sharing principles are intended to guide AESA
practitioners when assigning a SoSOS and persons using the results of
the AESA. It helps ensuring that selection of sharing principles is
deliberate and done in accordance with the values of the AESA study
commissioner and practitioner and it allows users of AESA studies to
evaluate if they agree with the distributive justice theories underlying
the selection of sharing principles in AESA.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal
relationships which may be considered as potential competing
interests:
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Anjila Hjalsted for
providing relevant comments on the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123287.
References
Algunaibet, I.M., Pozo Ferna ndez, C., Gal  Huijbregts, M.A.J., Mac
an-Martín, A.,
n-Gos
Dowell, N., Guille albez, G., 2019. Powering sustainable development
within planetary boundaries. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 1890e1900. https://
doi.org/10.1039/C8EE03423K.
Andersen, M.M., 2014. What does society owe me if I am responsible for being
worse off? J. Appl. Philos. 31, 271e286. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12054.
11
Banuri, T., Goran-Maler, K., Grubb, M., Jacobson, H.K., Yamin, F., 1996. Equity and
social considerations. In: Bruce, J.P., Lee, H., Haites, E.F. (Eds.), Climate Change
1995. Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, p. 339.
Biermann, F., 2012. Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: exploring
the links. Ecol. Econ. 81, 4e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.016.
Bjørn, A., Chandrakumar, C., Boulay, A.-M., Doka, G., Fang, K., Gondran, N.,
Hauschild, M.Z., Kerkhof, A., King, H., Margni, M., McLaren, S., Mueller, C.,
Owsianiak, M., Peters, G., Roos, S., Sala, S., Sandin, G., Sim, S., Vargas-
Gonzalez, M., Ryberg, M., 2020. Review of life-cycle based methods for absolute
environmental sustainability assessment and their applications. Environ. Res.
Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab89d7.
Bjørn, A., Diamond, M., Owsianiak, M., Verzat, B., Hauschild, M.Z., 2015. Strength-
ening the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sus-
tainability to support development within planetary boundaries. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 49, 6370e6371. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02106.
Bjørn, A., Margni, M., Roy, P.O., Bulle, C., Hauschild, M.Z., 2016. A proposal to
measure absolute environmental sustainability in life cycle assessment. Ecol.
Indicat. 63, 1e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.046.
Bjørn, A., Richardson, K., Hauschild, M.Z., 2019. A framework for development and
communication of absolute environmental sustainability assessment methods.
J. Ind. Ecol. 23, 838e854. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12820.
Brejnrod, K.N., Kalbar, P., Petersen, S., Birkved, M., 2017. The absolute environmental
performance of buildings. Build. Environ. 119, 87e98. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2017.04.003.
Caney, S., 2009. Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions. J. Global
Ethics 5, 125e146. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449620903110300.
Caney, S., 2012. Just Emissions. Phil. Public Affairs 40 (4), 255e300. https://doi.org/
10.1111/papa.12005.
Chandrakumar, C., McLaren, S.J., Jayamaha, N.P., Ramilan, T., 2019. Absolute
sustainability-based life cycle assessment (ASLCA): a benchmarking approach
to operate agri-food systems within the 2 C global carbon budget. J. Ind. Ecol.
23, 906e917. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12830.
Clift, R., Sim, S., King, H., Chenoweth, J., Christie, I., Clavreul, J., Mueller, C.,
Posthuma, L., Boulay, A.-M., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Chatterton, J., DeClerck, F.,
Druckman, A., France, C., Franco, A., Gerten, D., Goedkoop, M., Hauschild, M.,
Huijbregts, M., Koellner, T., Lambin, E., Lee, J., Mair, S., Marshall, S.,
McLachlan, M., Mila  i Canals, L., Mitchell, C., Price, E., Rockstro
€ m, J., Suckling, J.,
Murphy, R., 2017. The challenges of applying planetary boundaries as a basis for
strategic decision-making in companies with global supply chains. Sustain-
ability 9, 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020279.
Cohen, G.A., 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99, 906e944.
https://doi.org/10.1086/293126.
Crisp, R., 2014. Routledge philosophy GuideBook to mill on utilitarianism, routledge
philosophy GuideBook to mill on utilitarianism. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203410615.
Dao, H., Peduzzi, P., Chatenoux, B., De Bono, A., Schwarzer, S., Friot, D., 2015.
Environmental Limits and Swiss Footprints Based on Planetary Boundaries.
UNEP/GRID-Geneva & University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dao, H., Peduzzi, P., Friot, D., 2018. National environmental limits and footprints
based on the Planetary Boundaries framework : the case of Switzerland. Global
Environ. Change 52, 49e57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.06.005.
Diener, E., 2000. Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for
a national index. Am. Psychol. 55, 34e43. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-
066X.55.1.34.
Dworkin, R., 1981a. What is equality? Part 1: equality of welfare. Philos. Publ. Aff. 10,
185e246.
Dworkin, R., 1981b. What is equality? Part 2: equality of resources. Philos. Publ. Aff.
10, 283e345.
Easterlin, R.A., McVey, L.A., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., Zweig, J.S., 2010. The
happiness-income paradox revisited. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 107,
22463e22468. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015962107.
Fang, K., Heijungs, R., De Snoo, G.R., 2015a. Understanding the complementary
linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a
footprinteboundary environmental sustainability assessment framework. Ecol.
Econ. 114, 218e226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.008.
Fang, K., Heijungs, R., Duan, Z., De Snoo, G.R., 2015b. The environmental sustainability of
nations: benchmarking the carbon, water and land footprints against allocated
planetary boundaries 11285e11305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70811285.
Fanning, A.L., O’Neill, D.W., 2016. Tracking resource use relative to planetary
boundaries in a steady-state framework : a case study of Canada and Spain.
Ecol. Indicat. 69, 836e849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.034.
Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Folke, C., Nilsson, M., Olsson, P., 2012. Global environmental
governance and planetary boundaries: an introduction. Ecol. Econ. 81, 1e3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.023.
Gosseries, A., 2008. On future generations’ future rights*. J. Polit. Philos. 16,
446e474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00323.x.
Hauschild, M.Z., 2015. Better e but is it Good Enough ? On the Need to Consider
Both Eco-efficiency and Eco- effectiveness to Gauge Industrial Sustainability
Better e but is it good enough ? On the need to consider both eco-efficiency and
eco-effectiveness to gauge industrial s. Procedia CIRP 29, 1e7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.126.
Hausman, D.M., 2018. Philosophy of Economics [WWW Document]. Stanford
Encycl. Philos. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/economics/.
12 M.W. Ryberg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 276 (2020) 123287
(Accessed 4 August 2020).
Ha€yha€, T., Lucas, P.L., van Vuuren, D.P., Cornell, S.E., Hoff, H., 2016. From Planetary
Boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space d how can
the scales be bridged? Global Environ. Change 40, 60e72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.008.
Hirose, I., 2014. Egalitarianism, first ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315772004.
Hoff, H., Ha €yha
€, T., Cornell, S., Lucas, P., 2017. Bringing EU Policy into Line with the
Planetary Boundaries. SEI, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
and Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Hoff, H., Nykvist, B., Carson, M., 2014. “Living Well, within the Limits of Our Planet”?
Measuring Europe’s Growing External Footprint. Stockholm Environment
Institute. SEI Working Paper No. 2014-05, Stockholm.
Holtug, N., 2017. Prioritarianism. Oxford Res. Encycl. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1093/
acrefore/9780190228637.013.232.
Holtug, N., 1998. Egalitarianism and the levelling down objection. Analysis 58,
166e174. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.2.166.
ISO, 2006. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental ManagementdLife Cycle Asses-
smentdRequirements and Guidelines. International Organization for
Standardization.
Jebb, A.T., Tay, L., Diener, E., Oishi, S., 2018. Happiness, income satiation and turning
points around the world. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 33e38. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41562-017-0277-0.
Kahiluoto, H., Kuisma, M., Kuokkanen, A., Mikkil€ a, M., Linnanen, L., 2015. Local and
social facets of planetary boundaries: right to nutrients. Environ. Res. Lett. 10,
104013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/104013.
Laurent, A., Hauschild, M.Z., 2015. Normalization. In: Hauschild, M., Huijbregts, M.
(Eds.), Life Cycle Impact Assessment, LCA CompendiumdThe Complete World
of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer-ScienceþBusiness Media, BV, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9744-3_14.
Layard, R., Nickell, S., Mayraz, G., 2008. The marginal utility of income. J. Publ. Econ.
92, 1846e1857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.007.
Li, M., Wiedmann, T., Hadjikakou, M., 2019. Towards meaningful consumption-
based planetary boundary indicators: the phosphorus exceedance footprint.
Global Environ. Change 54, 227e238. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2018.12.005.
Lippert-Rasmussen, K., 2015. Luck Egalitarianism, first ed. Bloomsbury Academic.
Lucas, P., Wilting, H., 2018. Using Planetary Boundaries to Support National
Implementation of Environment-Related Sustainable Development Goals. PBL
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Lucas, P.L., Wilting, H.C., Hof, A.F., van Vuuren, D.P., 2020. Allocating planetary
boundaries to large economies: distributional consequences of alternative
perspectives on distributive fairness. Global Environ. Change 60, 102017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102017.
Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370e396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346.
Meyer, L.H., Roser, D., 2006. Distributive justice and climate change: the allocation
of emission rights. Anal. Krit. 28, 223e249. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2006-
0207.
Nielsen, L., 2017. Shielding sufficientarianism from the shift. Law. Ethics Philos 5,
142e153.
Nozick, R., 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Nykvist, B., Persson, Å., Moberg, F., Persson, L., Cornell, S., Rockstro €m, J., 2013. Na-
tional Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries. Swedish Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.
O’Neill, D.W., Fanning, A.L., Lamb, W.F., Steinberger, J.K., Neill, D.W.O., Fanning, A.L.,
Lamb, W.F., Steinberger, J.K., 2018. A good life for all within planetary bound-
aries. Nat. Sustain. 1, 88e95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4.
Rawls, J., 1999. A Theory of Justice -Revised Edition. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rockstro €m, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Stuart III Chapin, F., Lambin, E.F.,
Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A.,
Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., So € rlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R.,
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J.,
Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. Planetary
boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14, 32.
Roemer, J.E., 1998. Theories of Distributive Justice. Harvard University Press,
London.
Rogelj, J., Popp, A., Calvin, K.V., Luderer, G., Emmerling, J., Gernaat, D., Fujimori, S.,
Strefler, J., Hasegawa, T., Marangoni, G., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., van
Vuuren, D.P., Doelman, J., Drouet, L., Edmonds, J., Fricko, O., Harmsen, M.,
Havlík, P., Humpeno €der, F., Stehfest, E., Tavoni, M., 2018. Scenarios towards
limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5  C. Nat. Clim. Change 8,
325e332. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3.
Roos, S., Zamani, B., Sandin, G., Peters, G.M., Svanstro €m, M., 2016. An LCA-based
approach to guiding an industry sector towards sustainability: the case of the
Swedish apparel sector. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 691e700. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.05.146.
Ryberg, M.W., Owsianiak, M., Clavreul, J., Mueller, C., Sim, S., King, H.,
Hauschild, M.Z., 2018. How to bring absolute sustainability into decision-
making: an industry case study using a Planetary Boundary-based methodol-
ogy. Sci. Total Environ. 634, 1406e1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2018.04.075.
Ryberg, M.W., Owsianiak, M., Richardson, K., Hauschild, M.Z., 2016. Challenges in
implementing a planetary boundaries based life-cycle impact assessment
methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 450e459. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.08.074.
Sabag Mun ~ oz, O., Gladek, E., 2017. One Planet Approaches. Methodology Mapping
and Pathways Forward. Metabolic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sandin, G., Peters, G.M., Svanstro €m, M., 2015. Using the planetary boundaries
framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 20, 1684e1700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0984-6.
Scheffler, S., 1988. Consequentialism and its Critics. Oxford Readings in Philosophy.
Sen, A., 1979. Equality of what? the Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570742.
Sim, S., King, H., Price, E., 2016. The role of science in shaping sustainable Business :
unilever case study. In: Clift, R., Druckman, A. (Eds.), Taking Stock of Industrial
Ecology. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht,
London, pp. 291e302. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_15.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstro €m, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M.,
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D.,
Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sorlin, S., 2015.
Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet.
Science (80-. ) 347, 1217. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.
Temkin, L.S., 2003. Egalitarianism defended. Ethics 114, 764e782. https://doi.org/
10.1086/373955.
Vanderheiden, S., 2009. Allocating ecological space. J. Soc. Philos. 40, 257e275.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01450.x.
WBCSD, 2010. Vision 2050: the New Agenda for Business. World Business Council
for Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00117.x.
WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and
Development. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., Perego, P., 2013. Planetary boundaries: ecological foun-
dations for corporate sustainability. J. Manag. Stud. 50, 307e336. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x.
Wolff, A., Gondran, N., Brodhag, C., 2017. Detecting unsustainable pressures exerted
on biodiversity by a company. Application to the food portfolio of a retailer.
J. Clean. Prod. 166, 784e797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.057.