Sustainability Assessment Circle - ScienceDirect.com

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 75 (2015) 2641 – 2648

The 7th International Conference on Applied Energy – ICAE2015

Sustainability assessment circle Schlör, H.a*, Hake, J.-Fr.a a

Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Energy and Climate Research - Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), D-52425 Jülich, Germany

Abstract

Since the nineteen seventies, science and society have been discussing the worldwide ecological, economic, and social problems caused by industrialization and globalization. Sustainable development is perceived as a strategy for coping with these problems. The Rio +20 conference in 2012 confirmed the sustainability concept and introduced the green economy and the life cycle sustainable assessment as its implementation and operationalization strategy and tool. In the following, we will demonstrate our model of how sustainability can be measured from both top-down with sustainability indicator systems and bottom-up with life cycle indicators in a reflexive governing process, and we will show which requirements are necessary for such a process. In our top-down measurement approach, we aggregate the indicators into one index, the sustainable development index (SD-I), and our sustainable development bottom-up measurement concept (I-LCA) enables us to analyse the sustainability of a specific product chain. In our two-perspective approach, the bottom-up life cycle sustainable assessment enables us to take a deeper look at the effects of top-down measures on the production and consumption patterns along the single product chain. Our assessment circle shows the methodological connection between the top-down and bottom-up sustainability measurement method in a reflexive governing process. These results deliver the data for the monitoring process and enable the government to readjust its decision-making process and reset its measures [1] in a reflexive governance process. © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). under responsibility ICAE Selection and/or Peer-review underpeer-review responsibility of Applied EnergyofInnovation Institute

Keywords: Sustainable development, LCSA, sustainable measurement, reflexive governing 1. Introduction Sustainable development was set up as a UN model for social and political processes to solve intra- and intergenerational problems and was confirmed in 2012 [2]. In 2012, the Rio +20 conference introduced the concept of the green economy as the implementation strategy for sustainable development [3]. The UNEP amended the UN green economy approach to the Life Cycle Sustainable Assessment and established a bottom-up analysis tool [4]. Hence in the following we will elucidate the UN top-down sustainable development approach and the UNEP LCSA bottom-up approach and describe how these two concepts could be combined to measure sustainable development in a bottom-up and top-down approach. 2. The German sustainability strategy In 2000, the United Nations defined eight international development goals, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and target 7A of goal 7 defines its sustainability goal [5]: “Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources.”* This is intended to encourage the societies of the world to achieve sustainable development. The German Federal Government took up the UN suggestion in 2001 and defined a quantitative sustainable development strategy for Germany in 2002 [6, 7]. The German strategy will be our model to explain our reflexive sustainability management approach.

*

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml

1876-6102 © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Applied Energy Innovation Institute doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.361

2642

H. Schlör and J.-Fr. Hake / Energy Procedia 75 (2015) 2641 – 2648

3. Sustainability measurement top-down and bottom-up In the following, we will demonstrate how sustainability can be measured from both top-down with sustainability indicator systems and bottom-up with life cycle assessment indicators. Measurement is also important in sustainability science, because as Niels Bohr said: “Nothing exists until it is measured.” Or as Hamilton and Atkinson put it: “[if] current […] indicators do not clearly signal that the economy [society] is on an unsustainable path, the policy errors will be made and perpetuated [8].” In the following, we explain the top-down UN sustainable development concept and its German implementation. 3.1. UN theme/sub-theme framework In 2001, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) abandoned its initial three-pillar system approach of sustainability (ecological, economic, social pillars), which had its origin in Agenda 21 and was taken up by the CSD for its first indicator set [9]. The CSD transferred its indicators to a theme-based sustainability approach [9]. It expressed the view that sustainability indicators can be politically better managed within this new system [9, 10]. The CSD has drawn attention to the fact that it not sufficient to define sustainability indicators. Countries should also determine sustainability goals, as the UN did with the MDG. These goals can be reviewed in a monitoring process. The monitoring process and the sustainability goals are, in the view of the Commission, a central component of countries’ sustainability strategy [10]. The German government took up the UN approach and developed its own theme-based sustainability strategy for monitoring the development of Germany. 3.2. The German Sustainability Strategy - a theme-based approach In 2002, the Federal Government presented its new sustainability strategy "Perspectives for Germany" [6]. The government defined its key political priorities for sustainable development on the basis of the following four key themes [6]: 1. 1. Intergenerational equity (IE), 9 themes 2. 2. Quality of life (QL), 6 themes 3. 3. Social cohesion (SC), 4 themes 4. 4. International responsibility (IR), 2 themes. The government developed 21 themes for its key issues with 36 indicators to measure the sustainability of German development. The government also developed quantitative goals for each indicator and thus defined a sustainable reference pathway. Germany defined a normatively defined sustainability order for German society to achieve sustainable development. The government thereby defined its sustainable preference order for Germany. This social preference order represented by the sustainability strategy cannot be unambiguous because of Arrow’s impossibility theorem [11]. The status of sustainable development can be derived by comparing the normative sustainability order with the implicit real sustainability order of society. Sustainability measurement means comparing the normative order with the real development of the implicit derived order of society. 3.3. The German Energiewende The German government developed not only a sustainability strategy for Germany but also with the German Energiewende a German concept for a sustainable energy system: A new order for the German energy sector. The OECD calls Germany a laboratory for green growth [12]. † The German government sees its current energy transition programme as an instrument that “boosts green innovations, creates jobs, and helps Germany position itself as exporter of green technologies [13, 14] ‡ .” The then German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology intended to invest in energy research “to support research and development into sustainable energy technologies [14].” The German government defined 12 indicators to measure the success of the German † ‡

http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/environmentgermanyalaboratoryforgreengrowth.htm http://energytransition.de/


Energiewende [15]: greenhouse gas emissions, the proportion of renewable energies in gross electricity consumption, proportion of renewable energies in gross final energy consumption, primary energy consumption, gross electricity consumption, proportion of electricity generation from combined heat and power plants, final energy productivity, primary energy requirements of buildings, heat requirements of buildings, rate of modernization of buildings, final transport energy consumption, number of electric vehicles [15]. We have defined the sustainability top-down approach and we will now turn to the bottom-up view. 3.4. UNEP Life Cycle Sustainable Assessment – product chain bottom-up approach: The publication "Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment" by UNEP and SETAC served as a preparation for the Rio+20 conference and as a contribution to the UNEP Green Economy Initiative [4]. The publication also serves to elucidate the method of life cycle sustainability assessment to decision makers, because life cycle thinking “offers a way of incorporating sustainable development in [bottom-up] decision-making processes [UNEP/SETAC, 2011].” LCSA enables us to consider ecological, economic and social issues in a multidimensional analysis and to identify potential trade-offs between the sustainability themes and life cycle phases [16]. LCSA can be defined by the Klöpffer equation: LCSA = (environmental) Life Cycle Analysis + Life Cycle Costing + Social LCA [17]. The combination of all three methods allows a comprehensive analysis of the products along their product chain on the basis of the ISO 14040 frameworks [18] “which provide the standardized procedural framework of assessment studies [4].” LCSA enables us to process complicated ecological (LCA), economic (LCC) and social information (S-LCA) and data sets in a structured form over the whole product chain and over the value added chain. LCSA makes clear the entrepreneurial responsibility over the whole product life cycle chain and helps to identify weaknesses and to achieve improvements. LCSA promotes life cycle thinking and “offers a way of incorporating sustainable development in decision-making process” [4] The following table provides examples of indicators which enable a bottom-up analysis along the product chains. Table 1:

Examplesofindicatorsoflifecyclesustainabilityassessment LCA LCC SͲLCA Fuelcosts Employees Energyconsumption Waterdisposalcosts Wages Naturalresources Electricitycosts Accidents Wateruse Childlabour CO2 Labourcosts NOx Revenues Forcedlabour Workinghours SO2 Rawmaterialcosts Source:UNEP,2011 Table 1 shows selected indicators for a life cycle sustainable assessment. The table shows that the bottom-up LCSA indicators of energy consumption, CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions, fuel costs and electricity costs are directly linked to the indicators of the Energiewende concept. Now we come to the monitoring process, which is based on bottom-up and top-down measurements.

4. Monitoring – measurement results In our top-down measurement approach, we aggregate the indicators of the German sustainability strategy into one index: the sustainable development index (SD-I). It determines whether society is on a sustainable pathway. 4.1. The sustainable development index (SD-I) – top-down approach

2643

2644


We developed the new SD-I index to combine weak and strong sustainability ideas in one index. The weak sustainability concept equates intergenerational justice with a non-declining stream of consumption goods, referring to the preservation of the entire capital stock and not necessarily to the preservation of its parts. The strong sustainability concept assumes that the entire capital stock of natural, human and man-made capital that can be handed over to the next generation must either remain constant or increase. The economic system has to work at the limits of the ecological reproduction capacity in order to maintain total welfare [19]. We take up the idea of the strong sustainability concept of the preservation of all capital goods by assuming that the indicators have to improve over time. If one indicator does not change at all, the whole development is not sustainable. The index has the restriction that if an indicator is 0, the whole indicator set is zero, and the development is not sustainable at all. This model has the advantage that it puts pressure on the administration to consider all the indicators and not neglect one indicator while concentrating on a more politically promising one.

I

n

The single indicators y of our index compare the derived sustainable order of society for a specific indicator with the normative sustainable order of the government. It compares the actual value of the indicator with the sustainability target of that indicator [20]. Whether sustainable development has been achieved can be determined with the SDI by an analysis of all quantifiable indicators of the sustainability strategy. § derived sustainable order · , y=year, n=indicator I y n ¨ ¸ © normative sustainable order ¹ base year 100 (1)

I y n

SD I

actual result of the indicator (n) in the analysed year (y) sustainability target of the indicator (n) at the target year (y)

(2)

N N

I n , n=1..,N

(3)

n 1

Every indicator documents an aspect which is, according to the sustainability strategy, important for the sustainable development of society. Our new sustainability index (SD-I) enables a top-down sustainability analysis based on quantifiable indicators and targets of the German sustainability strategy and of the German energy concept. In the following, we will demonstrate how we can measure sustainable development bottom-up. 4.2. LCSA indicators – bottom-up approach The normative sustainable order for the LCSA indicators is derived from the top-down sustainability order, which could be explained by the top-down target for the CO2 emissions of the German government. The government wanted to reduce CO2 emissions by 21% between 1990 and 2010. If we transfer this idea to the LCSA methodology, the global warming potential for an analysed product chain should also be reduced by 21%. Hence we can compare the actual results of the indicator of the derived sustainable order with the reference values of the derived normative order of the indicator. The derived sustainable order of the product represents current emissions along the product chain from cradle to grave.

I LCA( n ) y I LCA n y , j

§ derived sustainable order · , y = year, n =indicator ¨ ¸ © derived normative order ¹ base year=100 actual result (F) of the indicator (n) in the analysed year (y), product chain (j) derived normative sustainability strategy target (SD) of the indicator (n) at the target year (y), product chain (j)

Hence we can

summarize our measuring model by the following equation: i.e. SD-I is based on I-LCA(n) and I(n), as the following equation shows:

SD I I LCA n , I n The bottom-up indicators are a subset of the top-down indicators.

I LCA n I n

, This example shows the connection of the top-down and bottom-up sustainable measurement method.

2645


5. Reflexive sustainable government Our two measuring methods now deliver the data for the process of monitoring the implemented policy, which enables the government to readjust its decision-making process and reset its measures [1] in a reflexive governance process [21]. “Reflexive governance refers to the problem of shaping societal development in the light of the reflexivity of steering strategies - the phenomenon that thinking and acting with respect to an object of steering also affects the subject and its ability to steer [22].” As an example of such a reflexive process, Voß and Kemp mention public research policies which can bring forth new ideas and new methods that could shift policy objectives and behaviour [22]. The monitoring delivers the data for such a policy shift. In our two-perspective approach, the bottom-up life cycle sustainability assessment enables a deeper look at the effects of top-down measures on the production and consumption patterns along the single product chain. This procedure improves the quality of the monitoring process [1], as the following sustainability assessment time circle shows (graphic 1).

Graphic 1: Sustainability assessment time circle N

In time step 1 (t1), the government develops its sustainability strategy

¦ I n

and thereby defines its

n 1

normative sustainability order – the institutional pressure on society. In t2, in a top-down approach we can measure the current development based on the indicators of the sustainability strategy I n and determine whether the current development is sustainable. In the third time step, the relevant product chains I LCA n can be identified for selected indicators and we can analyse whether these products support sustainable development or whether they prevent it. The information from time steps 2 and 3 represents the data input for the monitoring report for the government I SD , which can be redefined in the reflexive government process and the measures for enabling sustainable development can thus be readjusted. The measurement data are the basis for the reflexive government process about new measures to convey the implementation of the sustainability strategy in society. The bottom-up data deliver information on how the topdown goals and measures affect single production chains. New developments in society can lead the government to revise the indicators and its targets, so that the process starts again with step 1.

2646


This procedure enables a dynamic reflexive sustainable governing circle to identify the challenges of sustainable development, which avoids the impression that sustainable development is just an agenda of good intentions. Our idea of governing sustainability in a reflexive way is based on the definition of sustainable development by Dennis Meadows: “Sustainable development is not the place where you are going. It is how you make the journey [23].” And the government plays a central role in shaping this journey, because in a public discourse the government defines the goals for Meadows’ journey, as the German Energiewende shows. 6. The German Sustainability Assessment Time Circle In the following we will present a comprehensive description of the sustainability circle for the German Energiewende (graphic 2).

Graphic 2: Sustainability assessment time circle The German government defined its sustainability strategy in 2002 and renewed its sustainability goals in 2014 [24]. With its energy concept, the government laid the foundation for the German Energiewende [15, 25, 26] and defined indicators and goals for a successful energy transition [15]. In the second step, we can measure both the development of the sustainability indicators and of the indicators of the Energiewende [15, 24]. In the third step, we can obtain bottom-up LCSA results based on an analysis of wind turbines and batteries [27, 28] and we can thereby identify bottom-up barriers and supporters of the Energiewende. Hence the government can bring these data together to conduct a unified monitoring report of the Energiewende and of the sustainability strategy and can readjust its goals and its measures if this is necessary thereby closing the assessment circle in a reflexive governing process.

7. Summary In the dynamic reflexive sustainable governing circle, the government defines goals for its sustainability and Energiewende indicators and defines the explicit sustainability order of society, which will be compared with the real sustainable order of society. The monitoring report based on the index of sustainable development is the foundation enabling the government to readjust the goals to the new conditions. Hence, in the reflexive government process the government is “part of the dynamics which are governed [29].”


The idea of our two indices is to enhance the reflexivity of steering strategies and to “[…] interrupt the automatism of executing problem-solving routines [22]”. The anticipated advantages from a repeated application [22, 29] of the index during a certain period of time are the ability to highlight the systemic interdependences between the elements which constitute the sustainable order and to adjust the sustainability goals if necessary. Our new model thus proposes a dynamic reflexive governance circle whereas the two indices monitor progress on the way to sustainable development. Hence the monitoring report contributes to discussions on readjusting the goals to the new conditions. Such a reflexive approach based on measurable parameters can contribute to the implementation of sustainable development. 8. References [1] A. von Raggamby, J. Turnpenny, M. Nillson, W. De Ridder, A framework for tool selection and use in integrated assessment for sustainable development, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 09 (2007) 423-441. [2] United Nations, Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, UN, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012. [3] United Nations, The Future We Want: Outcome document adopted at Rio+20, in, UN, Rio de Janeiro, 2012. [4] UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Nairobi, 2011. [5] United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, in, UN, New York, 2010. [6] German Federal Government, Perspectives for Germany - our strategy for sustainable development, in, German Federal Government, Berlin (Germany), 2002. [7] German Federal Government, Perspectives for Germany - Our strategy for Sustainable Development Summary, in, German Federal Government, Berlin (Germany), 2002, pp. 39. [8] K. Hamilton, G. Atkinson, Wealth, welfare and sustainability, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2006. [9] United Nations, Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies, in: UN CSD (Ed.), UN, New York, 2001. [10] United Nations, Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies, in: The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (Ed.), United Nations, New York, 2007. [11] K.J. Arrow, Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare, The Journal of Political Economy, 58 (1950) 328346. [12] OECD, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Germany 2012, OECD, Paris, 2012. [13] The Heinrich Böll Foundation, The German Energy Transition, Berlin, 2012. [14] German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi), Germany's new energy policy, BMWI, Berlin, 2012. [15] Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Second Monitoring Report "Energy of the future" Summary, in, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy,, Berlin, 2014. [16] W. Klöpffer, A. Ciroth, Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment?, Int J Life Cycle Assess, 16 (2011) 99101. [17] W. Kloepffer, Life cycle sustainability assessment of products, Int J Life Cycle Assess, 13 (2008) 89-95. [18] UNEP/SETAC, Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, in, 2011. [19] H. Schlör, W. Fischer, J.-F. Hake, The system boundaries of sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production. [20] H. Schlör, W. Fischer, J.-F. Hake, Methods of measuring sustainable development of the German energy sector, Applied Energy, 101 (2013) 172-181. [21] U. Beck, Die Erfindung des Politischen. Zu einer Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1993. [22] J.-P. Voß, R. Kemp, Sustainability and reflexive governance: introduction, in: Jan-Peter Voß, Dierk Bauknecht, Rene Kemp (Eds.) Reflexive governance for sustainable development, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2006, pp. 3-30. [23] D. Meadows, Social and Technical Innovations for Sustainable Development, in: International Sustainability Conference, Basel, Switzerland, 2008. [24] German Federal Statistical Office, Nationale Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie – Fortschrittsbericht 2014, in, Statistisches Bundesamt,, Wiesbaden, 2014. [25] E. Gawel, P. Lehmann, K. Korte, S. Strunz, J. Bovet, W. Kock, P. Massier, A. Loschel, D. Schober, D. Ohlhorst, K. Tews, M. Schreurs, M. Reeg, S. Wassermann, The future of the energy transition in Germany, Energy, Sustainability and Society, 4 (2014) 15.

2647

2648


[26] J.-F. Hake, W. Fischer, C. Weckenbrock, Panikmache oder berechtigte Kritik? Befürchtungen und Herausforderungen im Kontext der Energiewende, ENERGIEWIRTSCHAFTLICHE TAGESFRAGEN 64. Jg. (2014) Heft 11, 64 (2014) 34-38. [27] H. Schlör, Zapp, P., Marx, J., Schreiber, A., Hake, J.-F. , Non-Renewable Resources for the Energiewende – A Social Life Cycle Analysis in: 7th International Conference on Applied Energy - ICAE2015, March 28 - 31, 2015, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2015. [28] J.C. Koj, Schreiber, Andrea, Zapp, Petra, Marcuello, Pablo, Life Cycle Assessment of improved high pressure alkaline electrolysis, STE-Preprint, 2014 (2014). [29] J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, R. Kemp, Reflexive governance for sustainable development, in, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2006, pp. 439.

Biography Holger Schlör studied economics at the University of Heidelberg and went on to complete his PhD in Economics in Berlin. He has conducted research at several scientific institutions and the German Parliament. He is currently working at Forschungszentrum Jülich in the Institute of Energy and Climate Research – Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE). His research here focuses on the fields of sustainable development, economics and energy systems analysis.