Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law ISSN 1822-9530 print / ISSN 2029-574X online
2011, 6(1), 11–30
doi:10.5200/1822-9530.2011.01
Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
Juozas Ruževičius Professor, Habil. Dr. Management Department, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University Saulėtekio Ave. 9, II, Room 715, LT-10222 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail:
[email protected]; Tel.: +370 6 860 9710 Received 23 February 2011; accepted 21 March 2011
Abstract
The article presents the concept and methodology of ecological footprint as an indicator of global and national sustainable development and results of the international benchmarking of this indicator. A survey of 125 Lithuanian organizations and their departments has revealed insufficient awareness of ecological footprint as a quantitative indicator of sustainable development among the specialists of governmental institutions, heads and managers of business organizations. The rapid development of technologies over the recent decades, economic growth and excessive consumption have created a threat to regeneration of natural resources. The current level of human consumption already exceeds the Earth’s ecological potential, i.e., the ecological footprint of all the countries in the world exceeds natural resources’ capacity for regeneration by 1.4 times. The Baltic States of Latvia and Estonia have a positive ecological balance, meanwhile, the ecological footprint of Lithuania, Ukraine, Romania and Belarus exceeds the country’s biological potential. The global community is using natural resources too intensively. That is why both EU countries and economically developed countries around the world should prepare a new sustainable development strategy encompassing the marked development of renewable natural resource production and the effective implementation of various environmental protection measures. The article analyses systemic tools and individual measures for ecological footprint reduction. This research has revealed that the concept of ecological footprint is still perceived superficially among both business representatives and specialists of governmental institutions responsible for sustainable development policies of the country. Therefore, research studies on the issues of ecological footprint and its public awareness are of crucial importance. Keywords: ecological footprint, sustainable development, methodology, benchmarking, survey. 11
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
Ekologinis pėdsakas: įvertinimo metodologija ir tarptautinis sugretinimas Anotacija
Straipsnyje analizuojama ekologinio pėdsako, kaip globalios ir nacionalinės darnios plėtros vieno iš rodiklių, koncepcija ir metodologija bei pateikiami jo tarptautinio sugerinimo rezultatai. Pastarųjų dešimtmečių sparti technologijų plėtra, ekonomikos augimas ir didelis bei neadekvatus vartojimas sukėlė grėsmę gamtinių išteklių regeneracijai. Dabartinis žmonijos vartojimas jau viršija Žemės ekologinį potencialą – t. y. visų šalių ekologinis pėdsakas yra 1,4 karto didesnis už mūsų planetos gamtinių išteklių atsinaujinimo galimybes. 125 Lietuvos organizacijų tyrimas atskleidė,kad ekologinis pėdsakas, kaip darnios plėtros kiekybinio rodiklis, mūsų šalies valstybės valdymo institucijų specialistų ir verslo įmonių vadovų bei vadybininkų yra nepakankamai suvokiamas. . Lietuvos aplinkosaugos politiką formuojančioms valdžios institucijoms siūloma naudoti ekologinį pėdsaką kaip konkretų aplinkosaugos gerinimo efektyvumo rodiklį, stiprinti aplinkosauginio sertifikavimo infrastruktūrą, vykdyti realią „žaliųjų pirkimų“ plėtotę, skatinti mūsų šalies organizacijas kurti ir sertifikuoti EMAS aplinkosaugos sistemas. Vaikų ir jaunimo aplinkosauginis lavinimas – viena iš svarbių priemonių šalies ir pasaulinėms aplinkosaugos problemoms spręsti bei ekologinės pusiausvyros siekimo raidai. Veiksmingas ekologinis ugdymas turėtų apimti ir visų specialybių studentiją, verslo įmonių, viešojo sektoriaus bei valstybės administravimo institucijų darbuotojus. Reikšminiai žodžiai: ekologinis pėdsakas, darni plėtra, metodologija, sugretinimas, apklausa.
Introduction The Ecological Footprint (EF) is an indicator that accounts for human demand for global biological resources. According to the principle of sustainable development, a country’s economic and social development should be directed in such a manner that satisfaction of the present-day needs would not impinge on the possibilities of satisfying the needs of future generations (D’Sauza, 2004; Ruževičius et al., 2007; Čiegis et al., 2009a). The EF compares the level of consumption with the available size of bioproductive land and sea area. The ecological footprint concept includes also a product’s life cycle analysis. Originally developed as an indicator of the environmental impact of nations, individuals or populations, the EF is increasingly often used as an indicator of organizational and corporate environmental performance, or even as an indicator of the sustainability of products (Raven, 2010; Wiedmann et al., 2010). The needs of humanity are constantly growing. However, humanity is moving beyond its consumption limits and is living at the expense of future gen12
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
erations. We are consuming more than the Earth’s ecosystem can produce. Ecological deficit was formed in the 90’s and its portentous growth continues. The growing pressure on ecosystems creates disintegration and extinction of natural habitats, threatens the biological diversity and wellbeing of humanity. The Gro Brundtland Commission’s (the World Commission on Environment and Development) report Our Common Future (1987) highlights that the government, public organisations, and enterprises are not only able to, but must combine and direct their efforts towards solving environmental concerns, as they pose a risk to the existence of society itself. In order to measure the effectiveness of a national sustainable development strategy, use should be made of social and economic indicators, indicators of changes in environmental quality and pressures, etc. (Čiegis & Čiegis, 2008; Čiegis et al., 2009b). There are indicators for measuring ecological deficit. One of them is the ecological footprint of humanity. The ecological footprint determines the needs of the human biosphere: how much of biologically available soil and water resources is consumed and how much of our waste do they absorb (Calculation..., 2008). The topic of the ecological footprint is not new, however it is rapidly gaining importance. The EF is an integral indicator reflecting national and global sustainable development. It shows the effect which the inhabitants of a particular region or a country have on the environment they live in and on natural resources (Wackernagel et al., 1996; Wackernagel et al., 2004). The EF reflects humanity’s anthropogenic impact on global ecosystems. The mentioned issues are not revealed well enough in the economics and management research literature (Wackernagel, 2006; Ruževičius, 2009). The research object: the ecological footprint content and international benchmarking of this indicator. The aim of the article: to reveal the essence and content of the ecological footprint as an indicator reflecting sustainable development, to accomplish international benchmarking of this indicator, and to formulate guidelines on how the EF might be reduced. One of the subsidiary purposes of the research was to determine the understanding of the essence and context of the ecological footprint among heads and managers of business enterprises, as well as the specialists of governmental institutions responsible for the formation and implementation of the environment protection policies. Research methods: a systemic analysis of scientific, normative, and statistical literature, a logical analysis, benchmarking and summary of organisations’ environmental activities, the author’s research conducted with Lithuanian organisations and a questionnaire survey of enterprises.
13
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
1. The ecological footprint concept and methodology The ecological footprint concept was introduced at the beginning of the 90’s by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, University of British Columbia (Wackernagel et al., 1996; Wackernagel et al., 2004; Wackernagel, 2006). The Ecological Footprint is, in fact, one of the first comprehensive attempts to measure the human carrying capacity, not as a speculative assessment of what the planet might be able to support, but as a description of how many planets it would take in any given year to support the human demand for resources in that given year. The EF analysis sectors are: energy, water, waste matter, transport and built land. Starting from its introduction into the academic debate, the concept has achieved increasing interest in society, from the scientific world to the common people (Rees, 2010). The institutional ecological footprint (IEF) represents the ecological institutional profile of the urban ecosystem and will be used with the EF tool. It will indicate, for each sector measured by the EF, its institutional capacity profile. The IEF will focus on institutions, instruments, laws and programs or projects addressing the control of the given sector, as well as on the public or private participation process. For participation, evaluation would be of the level of public or private participation from none to effective participation in decision-making (Dakhia et al, 2010). The annual EF is calculated by the international organization Global Footprint Network, which presents an evaluation report of this indicator (Living…, 2010). The EF is the quantity of arable land together with the land used for agriculture and needed per person or by a group of people in the city who use energy, food, water, transport, waste disposal services as well as by people living in buildings with many other needs. This indicator determines the needs of the human biosphere: how much of the biologically available soil and water resources are consumed and how much of our waste they absorb. A concise definition of this indicator could be as follows: the ecological footprint is the aggregate territory of productive land and water needed for continued production of consumed resources and assimilation of the waste produced by the population in question. This unit of measurement permits evaluation of the relationship between people’s consumption needs and available natural resources. The ecological footprint concept also includes a product’s life cycle analysis th (LCA). The 6 European Union Environmental Action Plan turns its attention to the problems relating to the environmental impact of products and aims to promote policies and strategies focused on striking the right balance between 14
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
economic and competitive expediencies and improvements in environmental performance. By applying the principle of extended and shared responsibility among various parties, the European Union’s environmental policy has shown that dialogue, co-ordination and integration are the best way to pursue sustainability objectives. The principle of extended producer responsibility is a strategy aimed at reducing the environmental impact of a product by making the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the product, in particular for the recovery, recycling and final disposal. The LCA is quantitative approach that assesses a product’s impact on the environment throughout its life. The LCA attempts to quantify what comes in and what goes out of a product in a ‘cradle-to–grave’ manner, including the energy and material associated with materials extraction, product manufacture and assembly, distribution, use and disposal and the environmental emissions that result. LCA applications are governed by the ISO 14040 series of standards. The LCA and the EF evaluation concept are related with life cycle thinking and integrated product policy. Life cycle thinking aims to consider the environmental impact linked to the life of a product as a decisional variable, right from the designing of products, services and processes, that is, more generally, in the planning and definition of business strategies and environmental policies. The definition of the integrated product policy indicates a tendency towards life cycle thinking, promoting political strategies with the aim of developing a market for green products and the integration of environmental policies in order to make continual improvements in the environmental performance of products, within the context of the whole life cycle, through the involvement and co-operation of public authorities, interested parties and consumers. All these are, on the one hand, the beneficiaries of environmental policy and, on the other hand, partners in its implementation (Calabro, 2007). Over the recent decades, numerous assessment methods and tools for environmental and sustainability performance have been developed (Blasi et al., 2010; Calculation..., 2008; Dakhia et al., 2010; Hartmann et al., 2010; Rees, 2010; Wackernagel et al., 2004). They are grouped in Figure 1 according to the pyramid of needs adapted from Maslow. While the original pyramid of Maslow contains basic physiological neeis, such as food and breathing at the bottom, followed by safety needs, love and belonging, esteem until self-actualization at the very top, the adapted version starts with the basic approach of life cycle thinking, followed by such single-issue methods as carbon or water footprinting, life cycle assessment, resource or eco-efficiency assessment up
15
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
to life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) at the top of the pyramid (see Figure 1) (Finkbeiner et al., 2010). The EF is measured in global hectares (gha). As trade is global, an individual’s or a country’s footprint includes land or sea from all over the world. A global hectare is a measurement of the average biocapacity of the Earth based on resource manufacture and waste assimilation, that is, the Earth’s biologically productive area of land and marine zones expressed in hectares. The EF reflects humanity’s anthropogenic impact on global ecosystems. One global hectare is equal to the biologically productive hectare of average productivity. Due to differences in land productivity, global hectares aid in comparing land with different productivity. For instance, 1 hectare of grain is equal to 2.1 global hectares; 1 ha of pasture is 0.5 gha; 1 ha of forest is 1.4 gha; 1 ha of the fishing territory is 0.4 gha; 1 ha build-up territoty/areas is 2.2 gha, etc. (Calculation…, 2008). This means that 1 hectare of productive land is not equal to 1 hectare of a desert, and a country with more productive land will have more global hectares, in other words, it will be able to create more value from the land at its disposal. The EF consists of several elements: biologically productive land, sea, land for energy, built-up territory and biological diversity. All these elements are integral parts of the EF. The EF is a sum of ecological footprints of all these elements. First of all, the elements of the ecological footprints are calculated and their sum constitutes the total EF of the population at issue.
LCSA ECO- / ResourceEfficiency Life Cycle Assessment Carbon Footprinting Water Footprinting Life Cycle Thinking
Figure 1. Adaptation of Maslow’s pyramid of human needs to the ecological footprint and life-cycle based environmental and sustainability assessment approaches (source: Finkbeiner et al., 2010)
16
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
The calculation methodology of the ecological footprint is developed by the international organization Global Footprint Network. This organization redefines and corrects the EF calculation methodology annually. There is no one specific EF calculation methodology; however, the existing methodologies are similar (Wackernagel, 2006; Calculation, 2008). Generally, the EF is calculated using formulas 1 and 2 (Calculation…, 2008):
ai = ci / yi × F × Ef, (1), n
Fp = ∑ ai , i =1
(1) (2)
where ai – the ecological footprint of each element; ci – the annual consumption of the element; yi – land productivity or output of each element (kg/ha); F – yield factor; Ef – equivalence factor; Fp – total ecological footprint for the population. The first formula (1) is used for calculation of each component of the EF needed for calculation of the EF. In other words, the EF of each component (for instance, the field of grain) is calculated by dividing the annual consumption of the element by the productivity of land (component output kg/ha), and this ratio is multiplied by the yield factor F and the equivalence factor Ef. These factors are used in translation of land into global hectares. The second formula (2) is the sum of EFs of all calculated components, which shows the total EF. As mentioned above, the sum of EFs of all components constitutes the total ecological footprint of the population at issue. Generally speaking, the EF is a negative ecological indicator, while the other EF-related indicator, namely, biocapacity (BC), can be perceived as a positive ecological indicator. Biocapacity is the capacity of the land biosphere to produce renewable resources. Generally we can say that the EF represents the needed resources to meet the needs of humanity (their demand) and the biocapacity of land is the ability of this land to create resources (supply). Biocapacity of land or certain territory, just as the EF, is measured in global hectares (gha). Land’s biocapacity is calculates based on the following formula (Calculation, 2008): BC = S × F × Ef, (3) where: BC – biocapacity of land (territory); S – area; F – yield factor; Ef – equivalence factor.
17
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
As seen from the third formula (3), the biocapacity of land is calculated by multiplying a certain land area by the yield factor F and the equivalent factor Ef. This is how a certain land area can be expressed in global hectares. This expression shows the quantity of the renewable resources which this land area is capable of creating. Separate indicators of the EF and biocapacity can not present a country’s or a certain region’s thorough evaluation in an ecological sense, since separately they reflect only a one-sided perspective. These indicators should be evaluated in a complex manner by comparing them. This opens up possibilities for evaluating whether the country is an ‘ecological lender’ or an ‘ecological borrower’ (this confirms the comparison of the EF and BC in different countries and regions as provided in the next section of this article). The ecological footprint illustrates how much and who uses natural resources according to a geographical and social position. The ecological footprint also shows the dominant areas of humans and wild life. The EF explains the correct use of natural resources, which helps decision makers to formulate the political norms and aims in respect of social and environmental protection more precisely. The main strengths of the ecological footprint – as confirmed by an expert survey conducted by Wiedmann and Barrett (2010) – are its ability to condense the extent of human pressure on different types of bioproductivity into a single number, the possibility to provide some sense of over-consumption, and the opportunity to communicate results to a broad audience. In the opinionof Wackernagel (2006), the ecological footprint is an integral indicator reflecting national and global sustainable development. However, the EF is in fact the only environmental protection index. It does not integrate social and economical indicators that are important while estimating the sustainable development of a country, region or city (Čiegis et al., 2009a, 2009b; Ruževičius, 2009). In the opinion of this article’s author, this is the main shortcoming of the EF indicator. Consequently, the ecological footprint can only partially be considered as an integral indicator of sustainable development. The experts believe that time has come to be clearer about the ecological footprint and recognize it as a powerful tool for communicating over-consumption of humanity whilst being aware of its limitations in other areas. It can act as a strong argument in reports to identify and communicate potential sources of unsustainability to the general public and to political and corporate decision-makers. This is a clear statement of over-consumption that has still not been accepted by governments or thought about widely by the general public. However, the ecological footprint, as it stands now, cannot provide the information according to which a thorough policy assessment could be con18
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
ducted. In the quest to derive an indicator that can challenge GDP, statements have been made about the ecological footprint that are not always in line with its scientific rigor or application potential (Wiedmann et al., 2010). It is necessary to highlight that the ecological footprint is also influenced by domestic animals. A dog’s EF is often higher than the EF of a family car (Ravilious, 2009). 2. Global benchmarking of the ecological footprint Until the middle of the twentieth century, there were no countries as ecological borrowers, most of the countries had plentiful capacity of land and biocapacity. The most threatening fact is that the number of the ecological borrower countries’ is continuously increasing at an increasing pace. The international organization World Footprint Network has proved that there is a direct dependence between the ecological footprint and the development level of a country (Living…, 2010). This means that developed countries have larger ecological footprints and their damaging power to the environment is greater. The third-world countries have the smallest ecological footprint. These countries often have considerable land biocapacity and a comparatively low density of the population, which helps in protecting nature. Also the inhabitants of undeveloped countries have lower demands when compared to for instance an average American, satisfied minimal needs are enough for the citizens of these countries. Figure 2 and Table 1 present the global benchmarking of the ecological footprint. It should be noted that the current level of human consumption already exceeds the Earth’s ecological potential, i.e., the ecological footprint of all the countries in the world exceeds nature’s capacity for regeneration. In 2007, the EF of the entire population of the world equalled about 18 billion gha (on average 2.7 gha per person), while the Earth’s total productive land and marine area (or biological potential) was only about 13 billion gha (1.8 gha per person). In 2007, the ecological footprint to biocapacity ratio was 1.51, in 1975 this indicator amounted to just 0.97 (Europe…, 2008; Ecological…, 2008; Ecological…, 2009; Living…, 2010). In other words, according to the current rate of global consumption, humanity needs 1.5 Earths. The greatest ecological footprint per capita is in North America, Europe and Australia. As seen from Table 1, the largest ecological footprint is in United Arab Emirates (10.7 gha per capita), Qatar (10.5), Denmark (8.3), Belgium (8.0), USA (8.0), Estonia (7.9), Canada (7.0) and Australia (6.8). Hence, an 19
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
iniciative of the UAE aiming at EF reduction should be welcomed. In September 2007, the UAE’s Al Basama Al Beeiya (ecological footprint) initiative embarked on an ambitious and innovative three-year journey to evaluate data, advance research, and subsequently formulate sustainable development policies to reduce the environmental impact of the UAE’s society (Hartmann et al., 2010).
Figure 2. Ecological footprint and biocapacity of countries and regions (source: Designed by the author using Ecological…, 2010; Living…,2010)
Finland and Sweden have the biggest ecological reserve, and Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece and the United Kingdom have the largest ecological deficit among the EU countries. It should be noted that so far, the Baltic States of Latvia and Estonia have had a positive ecological balance, meanwhile, the ecological footprint of Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus and Romania exceeds the country’s biological potential respectively by 0.3, 1.1, 0.5 and 0.7 gha. The biggest ecological reserves in the world are at the disposal of Gabon (27.9 gha per capita), Bolivia (16.2), Mongolia (9.6), Paraguay (8.0), Australia (7.9), Canada (7.9), and Brasil (6.1) (see Table 1).
20
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
Table 1. Ecological footprint and biocapacity of countries and regions (source: Designed by the author, using Ecological…, 2010; Living…,2010)
Global hectares per capita Country, region
Biocapacity
Ecological footprint
Ecological deficit (−) or reserve (+)
Worldwide average High-income countries Medium-income countries Low-income countries USA Canada United Arab Emirates Qatar Kuwait European average European Union average Denmark Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium France Germany Italy Greece Spain Finland Sweden Bulgaria Romania Lithuania Latvia Estonia Switzerland Kazakhstan Mongolia Azerbaijan Russia Belarus Ukraine Israel Gabon China
1.8 3.1 1.7 1.1 3.9 14.9 0.8 2.5 0.4 2.9 2.2 4.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 3.0 1.9 1.1 1.6 1.6 12.0 9.7 2.1 2.0 4.4 7.1 9.0 1.2 4.0 15.1 0.8 5.7 3.3 1.8 0.3 29.3 1.0
2.7 6.1 2.0 1.2 8.0 7.0 10.7 10.5 6.3 4.7 4.8 8.3 6.2 4.9 8.0 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.4 6.2 5.9 4.1 2.7 4.7 5.6 7.9 5.0 4.5 5.5 1.9 4.4 3.8 2.9 4.8 1.4 2.2
− 0.9 − 3.0 − 0.3 − 0.1 − 4.1 + 7.9 − 9.8 − 8.0 − 5.9 − 1.8 − 2.6 − 3.4 − 5.2 − 3.6 − 6.7 − 2.0 − 3.2 − 3.9 − 3.8 − 3.8 + 6.3 + 3.9 - 1.9 - 0.7 - 0.3 + 1.4 + 1.1 − 3.8 − 0.5 + 9.6 − 1.1 + 1.3 − 0.5 − 1.1 − 4.5 + 27.9 − 1.2 21
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
The end of Table 1 Global hectares per capita Country, region Singapore Australia New Zealand Bolivia Paraguay Brazil Argentina
Biocapacity
Ecological footprint
Ecological deficit (−) or reserve (+)
− 14.7 10.8 18.8 11.2 9.0 7.5
5.3 6.8 4.9 2.6 3.2 2.9 2.6
− 5.3 + 7.9 + 5.9 + 16.2 + 8.0 + 6.1 + 4.9
7% of the world’s population live in the territory of the European Union, yet they use 17 % of the world’s natural resources. The EF of EU citizens exceeds the biological ecosystem potential by 2.2 times. From 1961 until 2005, the ecological footprint of the EU grew by 70% (Europe…, 2008). If people all over the world followed the same model of consumption as US citizens, we would need 4.5 Earths, and if everyone consumed the same as citizens of the developed EU countries, at least 3 Earths would be needed. The negative ecological balance of China (1,2 gha per capita) is especially worrying, since the number of citizens in this country has reached 1.337 billion and makes up about 20% of the total population of the world. The global ecological footprint (EF) has doubled since the last century’s sixth decade. The degradation of our planet is fostered by globalization processes, as well as the unstoppably growing volume of international trade. International commodity and service trade in 1961 accounted only for 8% of the total EF of the world, whereas in 2005 this indicator reached 40% (Europe…, 2008; Living…, 2010). Furthermore, developed countries are encouraged, by the growing international trade, to ‘move’ their EF to other regions of the world, often without considering the ecological, social and economic consequences to the origin country of imported commodities, as well as the sustainable development of the entire world. This case raises the question and demands the calculations of how much energy, other natural recourses or dangerous chemical substances were used in the production of a certain product, how did this influence the environment and the health of the population in the production area and how did this influenced the ecological balance of the entire planet. The considerable damage to the global ecosystem done by additional resources used for transportation of products should be also calculated and evaluated. 22
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
If there are no cardinal environmental and sustainable development measures applied in the near future on a global scale, then by 2040, the maintenance of the current irresponsible level of consumption and lifestyle will demand two planet Earths (Ecological…, 2008; Living…, 2010). This is why, both the EU and all other economically-developed countries throughout the world should prepare a new sustainable development strategy that involves both the marked development of the production of renewable natural resources, and the implementation of various environmental measures (the typology and features of which will be discussed later in this article). Sustainable development can encourage a wider application of the sustainable trade and fair trade principles and standards on a worldwide scale. Compliance with these standards is validated by a suitable certification and labeling system which encompasses the use of natural resources and energy, formation of hazardous waste, and social responsibility and justice. The aim of the EF is to prove that the current way and rhythm of living is not sustainable. Therefore, it is important to take concrete action to inform society about the importance of the ecological footprint. Nature can renew its resourses, however only at a certain pace. People constantly consume more renewable resources than nature is able to regenerate. The main global aim is to unite humanity to save the planet. As long as the representatives of governments and conglomerates are unfamiliar with the level of natural resources used and how these resources correspond to the present stock of resources, the over-usage can stay unnoticed, which will cause the ecological deficit to grow and possibilities to satisfy social needs will decrease. Figure 3 presents two possible scenarios of our planet’s ecological development. Without global radical measures to decrease the ecological footprint, the consumption level in 2040-2050 will require twice as much resources as there are currently on the planet Earth (see line I, Figure 3). Therefore, we would be living at the expense of future generations of humans and the irreversible point of no longer regenerating the consequences of ecological, economical and social degradation would be reached. Global environmental agreements, development of the management systems and tools preserving the environment, environmental education of society and individual reach to decrease the personal ecological footprint can redirect the development of our planet towards sustainable development of ecological health (see Figure 3, line II). Environmental degradation of our planet and ecological footprint can be reduced by implementing different governmental and public administration measures. This can be illustrated with the example of the EU’s environmental 23
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
Figure 3. Possible scenarios of our planet’s ecological development
(source: Designed by the author using Ecological…, 2008; Ecological…, 2010; Living…, 2010)
policies. The 6th Environment Action Programme of the European Community 2002-2012 (The sixth…, 2002) has introduced the concept of integrated product policy that promotes orientation of strategies towards integration of environmental policy in implementation of continuous improvement of environmental performance of products during their life cycle and the development of a green market through the cooperation of public authorities, stakeholders and consumers. In this and the ecological footprint context, an important role is played by green public procurement forcing institutions of public administration to include ecological criteria in their specifications thus contributing to increase of the ‘green’ demand. The involvement of the institutions of public administration in ‘green’ choices is a simple and effective way of increasing ‘green’ demand and, consequently, of creating market opening for the selling of green products (Calabro, 2007). Thus, the government institutions responsible for formulating Lithuania’s environmental policies should improve the environmental certification infrastructure, carry out a realistic development of ‘green purchases’, encourage Lithuanian organizations to create and certify EMAS environmental management systems, and involve schools in the globally acknowledged and effective Kids’ ISO 14000 program. The implementation of such a program in our country is very important and should be funded by the Government as well as the organizations declaring their social responsibility status. The environmental education of children is among the most important measures of solving environmental problems in our country and worldwide and helps to strive towards achieving an ecological balance. 24
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
Effective environmental awareness should also involve tertiary students of all disciplines, business enterprises, as well as public sector and government administration institutions (Ruževičius, 2009). The ecological footprint can be reduced with the help of such tools as environmental management systems (ISO 14001 and EMAS), environmental certification and labeling of products, environmental certification of accommodation and recreation services, FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) or PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Council) certification of forests and the timber supply chain, energy certification of buildings, ecological and ergonomic (TCO) certification of computer equipment, mobile phones, and office furniture, ecological certification of automobiles, mandatory labeling of the efficiency and other characteristics of household appliances, etc. 3. Survey of the level of ecological footprint awareness and environmental quality ideas communication insights In November 2010, a survey of 125 Lithuanian organizations and their departments was performed, in order to determine the awareness level of ecological footprint, as an indicator of environmentalism and sustainable development, among the specialists of governmental institutions, heads and managers of business organizations. The research encompassed questionnaires distributed to heads and managers in the main departments of four ministries responsible for sustainable development, formation and implementation of the environmental policies of the country. Researchers received questionnaire answers from 65 governmental institutions and theirs departments and 60 – from business organizations. The research aimed to achieve a confidence level of 95%, while applying 50% degree of variability and 5% confidence interval. A representative sample of 110 respondents was assessed by statistical methods, integrating the parameters defined above. 125 responses were actually obtained. Differences between the responses of both groups in question were not statistically significant, therefore general research data are provided. The research revealed a low understanding among respondents about the ecological footprint as an indicator of sustainable development. Two thirds of the respondents were familiar with the definition of the ecological footprint, however only one third (33%) of the respondents were able to reveal the specific meaning of this indicator. Only 8% of the respondents were able to identify today’s ecological footprint indicator of Lithuania. Nevertheless, all the respondents of this 25
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
research are ‘regular’ consumers. Therefore, the focus of the research was identification of their personal (their family’s) input in reduction of the ecological footprint. The research revealed that around 25% of respondents (or the family members living with them) used certain systematic tools in reducing pollution or preserving industrial resources in their daily life. 95% of the respondents perceived implementation of systemic environmental educational progammes adapted to children, businessmen, employees of governmental institutions and society to be the Government’s task. Benchmarking of the data obtained by the 2009 and 2010 surveys of the ecological footprint concept perception by Lithuanian respondents shows a positive tendency in this fielf. The purport and significance of the EF indicators are becoming clearer for the population, business representatives and economic policy makers through dissemination of ideas of sustainability and the EF in research and popular journals, educational programs, etc. This research reveals that the concept of the ecological footprint is still perceived superficially among both business representatives and specialists of governmental institutions responsible for sustainable development policies of the country. Therefore, research studies on issues of the ecological footprint and its public awareness are highly important. Environmental quality is an integral component of human life. The vitality of the new quality ideas as well as the effectiveness of the tools of quality strongly depends on two major factors – the way of communication to both public and business sector institutions and the level of awareness of organizations’ executives, managers and society members in general. High quality performance needs supreme quality people. Higher education institutions play an important role here as well. Nowadays, the main mission of universities is to educate world-class quality citizens. These are people with strong individual excellence, sensitive to others’ needs, having positive attitude to service and vigorous society focus. The oldest universities of the world at all times have been treated as cradles of innovations, new ideas and values. It is important to highlight that the values and activities of contemporary higher education institutions, affected by the present-day environmental conditions related to modern economy, globalization and internalization of science and studies, should cover quality management, environment protection, social responsibility and other spheres of sustainability and excellence. That is why it is advisable for universities and colleges to develop social responsibility and sustainability development strategies, including different resources sparing and frugal culture, development of an institutional quality management model, en26
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
vironmental protection, ecological footprint and sustainability management systems. Using the ecological footprint indicator in the framework of ecological education is an effective tool of evaluating personal impact on the environment and planning one’s behavior. These practices have been adopted by several universities in Germany, Russia and in Scandinavian countries (Grigoryeva, 2010; Ruževičius et al., 2010). To be a pioneer in this sphere is an affair of honour for every university as well as one of their present-day missions. The application of quality, sustainability and excellence policy could raise students’ awareness of management, sustainable development, social responsibility not only from theoretical manuals, but also from practical university activities, if the range of higher institutions’ functions could be broadened by the mentioned innovative areas. Therefore, after graduation from universities or colleges, the gained experience and knowledge could be disseminated on a wider scale. The spread of one’s own positive experiences and best practices is not only a principle of total quality management, but also one of the most important objectives of a higher institution’s mission. Such practices would benefit university or college not only materially, educationally, or culturally, but would also improve the image of European higher education institutions among representatives of the global academic community, business professionals and society. Higher education institutions are charged with the task of molding the minds of the future. Universities are springboards for transforming the mindset of upcoming generations to a greener and cleaner outlook. It is essential that higher education institutions integrate the principles of sustainability and excellence into their curricula. Conclusions The ecological footprint (EF) is an indicator that accounts for human demand for global biological resources. The EF compares the level of consumption with the size of the available bioproductive land and sea area. The ecological footprint concept includes also a product’s life cycle analysis. Originally developed as an indicator of the environmental impact of nations, individuals or global populations, the EF is increasingly often used as an indicator of organizational and corporate environmental performance, or even as an indicator of the sustainability of products.
27
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
The greatest ecological footprint per capita is in North America, Europe and Australia. The largest ecological footprint is in United Arab Emirates (10.7 gha per capita), Qatar (10.5), Denmark (8.3), Belgium (8.0), USA (8.0), Estonia (7.9), Canada (7.0) and Australia (6.8). Finland and Sweden have the biggest ecological reserve, and Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece and the United Kingdom have the biggest ecological deficit among the EU countries. It should be noted that so far, the Baltic States of Latvia and Estonia have a positive ecological balance, meanwhile, the ecological footprint of Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus and Romania exceeds the country’s biological potential. The negative ecological balance of China (1,2 gha per capita) is especially worrying, since the number of the population in this country reached 1.337 billion and makes up about 20% of the total population of the world. The global community is using natural resources too intensively. That is why both EU countries and economically developed countries throughout the world should prepare a new sustainable development strategy encompassing the marked development of renewable resource production, as well as the effective implementation of various environmental protection measures. The survey of Lithuanian institutions has revealed that the concept of the ecological footprint is still perceived superficially among both business representatives and specialists of governmental institutions responsible for sustainable development policies of the country. Therefore, research studies on the issues of the ecological footprint and rising of its public awareness are highly important. It is advisable for universities and colleges to develop social responsibility and sustainability development strategies, including development of an institutional quality, environmental protection, ecological footprint and sustainability management system. Higher education institutions are charged with the task of molding the minds of the future. Universities are springboards for transforming the mindset of upcoming generations to a greener and cleaner outlook. It is essential that the higher education institutions integrate sustainability and excellence principles into their curricula. Implementation of systemic environmental education progammes adapted to children, businessmen, employees of governmental institutions and society should be the Government’s task. References Blasi, E.; Pasveri, N.; Franco, S.; Pancino, B.; Cicatiello, C. (2010). Ecological footprint definition. In Academic Conference: The State of the Art in Ecological Footprint Theory and Applications. 9-10 June 2010 (pp. 17-18). Colle Val d’Elsa: Global Footprint Forum. 28
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law, 2011, 6(1), 11–30
Calabro, G. (2007). The EU-policy of promoting green purchases: the role of ecological labelling. Forum Ware International, 1, 1-7. Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts (2008). Gland: WWF International. Čiegis, R.; Čiegis, R. (2008). Laws of thermodynamics and sustainability of the economy. Engineering Economics, 2, 15-22. Čiegis, R.; Ramanauskienė, J.; Martinkus, B. (2009a). The concept of sustainable development. Engineering Economics, 2, 28-37. Čiegis, R.; Ramanauskienė, J.; Startienė, G. (2009b). Theoretical reasoning of the use of indicators and indices for sustainable development assessment. Engineering Economics, 3, 33-40. Dakhia, K.; Berezowska-Azzag, E. (2010). Urban institutional and ecological footprint. A new urban metabolism assessment tool for planning sustainable urban ecosystems. Management of Environmental Quality, 21(1), 78-89. doi:10.1108/14777831011010874 D’Sauza, C. (2004). Ecolabel programmes: a stakeholder (consumer) perspective. Corporate Communications, 9(3), 179-188. doi:10.1108/13563280410551105 Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity (2008). Gland: WWF International. Ecological Wealth of Nations. (2010). Oakland: Global Footprint Network. Europe 2007. Gross Domestic Product and Ecological Footprint. (2008). Brussels: WWF European Policy Office. Finkbeiner, M.; Schau, E. M.; Lehmann, A.; Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2, 3309-3322. doi:10.3390/su2103309 Grigoryeva, V. (2010). Research of parameters of a personal ecological footprint as an effective tool of education for sustainable development. In Academic Conference: The State of the Art in Ecological Footprint Theory and Applications. 9th-10th June 2010 (pp. 51-52). Colle Val d’Elsa: Global Footprint Forum. Hartmann, S.; Reed, A.; Galli, A. (2010). Reflections on the fishing ground Footprint Methodology: the UAE as a case study. In Academical Conference: The State of the Art in Ecological Footprint Theory and Applications. 9-10 June 2010 (pp. 53-54). Colle Val d’Elsa: Global Footprint Forum. Living Planet Report (2010). Biodiversity, biocapacity and development. Gland: WWF International. Our Common Future (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raven, J. (2010). Giving effect to footprint information. In Academic Conference: The State of the Art in Ecological Footprint Theory and Applications. 9-10 June 2010 (pp. 129-130). Colle Val d’Elsa: Global Footprint Forum. Ravilious, K. (2009). How green is your pet? New Scientist, 23 October, 4-5. Rees, W. E. (2010). Globalization, eco-footprints and the increasingly unsustainable entanglement of nations. In Academic Conference: The State of the Art in Ecological Footprint Theory and Applications. 9-10 June 2010 (pp. 1-2). Colle Val d’Elsa: Global Footprint Forum.
29
J. Ruževičius Ecological footprint: evaluation methodology and international benchmarking
Ruževičius, J.; Waginger, E. (2007). Eco-labelling in Austria and Lithuania: a comparative study. Engineering Economics, 4, 96-102. Ruževičius, J. (2009). Environmental management systems and tools analysis. Engineering Economics, 4, 49-59. Ruževičius, J.; Juškys, A. (2010). Motivation and benefits of environmental management systems’ implementation: the study of German universities’ experience. Current Issues of Business and Law, 5, 52-69. doi:10.5200/1822-9530.2010.02 The 6th Environment Action Programme of the European Community 2002-2012. (2002). Bruxelles: European Commission. Wackernagel, M.; Rees, W. E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Society. Wackernagel, M.; White, K.; Moran, D. (2004). Using ecological footprint accounts: from analysis to applications. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(4), 293-315. doi:10.1504/IJESD.2004.005077 Wackernagel, M. (2006). Empreinte écologique [Ecological footprint]. Idées pour le débat [The ideas for the disputes], 11, 1-6. (In French) Wiedmann, T.; Barrett, J. (2010). A review of the ecological footprint indicator – perceptions and methods. Sustainability, 2, 1645-1693. doi:10.3390/su2061645
Information about the author Juozas Ruževičius – Professor at the Department of Management at Vilnius University, Head of the Quality Management Master Programme at Vilnius University. Business consultant. The author of over 400 research articles published in Lithuanian, English, German, Russian, Romanian, Kazakh, and 9 books on management. Academician and Member of the Scientific Board of the European Academy of Quality Sciences, Member of the International Guild of Quality Professionals, Member of the Executive Board of the International Society of Commodity Science and Technology (Vienna). Member of the editorial boards of seven international scientific journals of the USA, Germany, Austria, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania and Kazakhstan. Research interests: total quality management, effectiveness of management systems, quality of education, quality of life, corporate social responsibility, quality in public sector, sustainable development, innovations. Frequently invited speaker at professional and academic conferences and corporate meetings.
30
