Bridging barriers in sustainability research: Α review from sustainability science to life cycle sustainability assessment

Abstract

Sustainability science (SS) has emerged to foster inter-and transdisciplinary research practices and the creation of new, robust, actionable knowledge for navigating sustainability transitions. However, whether the research paradigm of the emerging transdisciplinary SS has permeated the relevant research body to integrate with the subfield of sustainability assessment (SA) is an open question. Aiming to investigate and enhance interdisciplinary communication in SS theory and practice, we comparatively study three literature bodies: SS, SA and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). By combining conceptual analysis, bibliometric and social network analysis, and systematic content review, we explore how these research fields are and can be further interrelated. Our analysis indicates that the research paradigm of SS has hardly been embraced by SA scholars. There are however few SAs that have attempted to put SS concepts into practice and perform SAs that are both scientifically-and socially-robust. Extensive applications are needed to address current limitations and understand the feasibility and the outcomes of SSinspired SA. Reflecting on the few empirical studies, we conclude that LCSA as currently applied cannot be a holistic and transdisciplinary framework for sustainability. An integration of life cycle-and other methods into robust, transparent and socially-embedded SA frameworks is needed, which will be enabled through communication and collaboration among SS and LCSA/SA scholars. Our paper gives insights towards this direction.

Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint—Part 1: Handprint and Life Cycle Thinking and Approaches

“…(1) Sustainability science has not been taken into account in sustainability assessment studies (particularly not in LCSA studies) and is not addressed in LCSA studies, (2) the current form of application cannot be a holistic and transdisciplinary framework for sustainability, and (3) the limitations of life cycle methods indicate the need for complementary application of multiple approaches [24].…”

“…Integration of ( Previous studies have recognized many LCSA development focus areas that have implications for the assessment of social sustainability handprints, including (1) the definition of sustainable development (as defined by the WCED 1987) in the context of LCSA and the way to capture impacts on social and natural capital and on surroundings of product life cycles (e.g., income gains for the poor) [64]; (2) the inclusion of culture through participatory research approaches (e.g., gathering of community-based information) and better understanding of life cycle effects on cultural aspirations [90]; (3) development of life cycle methods towards the proactive enhancement of positive impacts (broader focus than negative impacts) in a way that contributes to sustainable development, the development of positive solutions, and social learning and adaptation [125]; (4) sustainability-oriented holistic approaches and assessment perspectives [54,55]; (5) system-wide approaches and multi-scale (geographical and temporal) perspectives [54]; and (6) socially-embedded and transparent assessment frameworks, including the integration of life cycle and other methods [24]. In addition, previous studies have recognized the following relevant development focus areas:…”

“…(1) Development of life-cycle-based approaches to promote the achievement of sustainability goals and (2) proactive enhancement of positive impacts (beyond comparison of alternatives and avoidance of negative impacts) [54] Integration of (1) life-cycle-based approaches, (2) the achievement of social sustainability goals, and (3) proactive enhancement of positive social sustainability impacts into assessment, development of indicators, and collection of information Sustainability assessments need to be (1) systemic (e.g., scope, scales, and environmental, social, and economic interrelations/impacts), (2) normative (e.g., incorporation of sustainability principles and dimensions and context-specific perceptions), (3) strategic (e.g., purpose, decision, and action support; broader context; and consideration of alternatives), and ( 4) transdisciplinary (e.g., knowledge, actors, and stakeholder engagement) [24].…”

“…Assessment of the social sustainability of technology and engineering projects encompasses focusing on stakeholder participation (information provision and stakeholder influence), external population (community, human, and productive capital), macrosocial performance (socio-environmental and socio-economic performance), and internal human resources (employment stability/practices, capacity development, and health/safety) [20]. • Sustainability science has not been taken into account in sustainability assessment studies [24].…”

“…Life cycle methods that are embedded in normative, systemic, strategic, and transdisciplinary research frameworks (transparently include multiple approaches, com-petencies, and perspectives from diverse actors) and complementary application of multiple approaches [24]; • S-LCA development, including social assessment (e.g., stakeholder perspectives), development of guidelines to promote the applicability of social indicators, and new agreement and consensus on unclear social goals and targets in the international or regional context [128]; • Wider integrated assessment goals, including (1) proactive enhancement of positive impacts that contribute to sustainable development, (2) incorporation of sustainability goals, (3) moving towards much broader solution-oriented approach and scope, (4) tailoring the assessment for local and specific impacts (environmental, social, or economic), and (5) interaction among stakeholders (e.g., scientific community, business associations, and policymakers covering many levels, values, visions, and data provision) [55]; • Development of S-LCA approaches, including (1) positive promotion of sustainability through the development of more positive assessment criteria (benefits) and indicators (areas of promotion), (2) the definition of what is good or bad in certain indicators, (3) the incorporation of social and environmental consequences of processes, and (5) the presence of both benefits and impacts [128].…”