Clarifying environmental responsibility for consistent absolute environmental sustainability assessment: A global sector-level analysis
Abstract
Absolute Environmental Sustainability Assessment (AESA) aims to determine whether a system operates within its allocated share of Carrying Capacities (CCs). Initial guidelines have been proposed to establish a methodological framework. This paper proposes methodological recommendations to address three key requirements for a consistent implementation of AESA, i.e., i) additivity in the CCs downscaling, ii) no double-counting issues in environmental assessment, and iii) consistency of system boundaries between environmental assessment and downscaling steps. Proposals are based on the concept of environmental responsibility. Three environmental accounting approaches, which consider different types of actors responsible for a system's environmental impacts, are employed. These are the production-based approach (PBA), the consumption-based approach (CBA) and the income-based approach (IBA). Furthermore, identifying the responsible actor makes the CCs allocation step more transparent. The adapted AESA method is implemented across country-level economic sectors using Exiobase, an input-output database. Results obtained using the three accounting approaches and two theories of distributive justice are then compared. Similar to the choice of theory of distributive justice, AESA results are sensitive to the chosen accounting approach. Both are normative choices. Based on these preliminary findings, recommendations and further research perspectives are proposed for the AESA community. Finally, a focus on a single sector makes it possible to explore in further detail the relevance of the proposed recommendations for decision-making.
Related
- Carbon footprint of biomass-derived activated carbon: life cycle assessment, environmental sustainability, and carbon-negative potential.
- Food sustainability and sovereignty in tension: An integrated assessment of nutritional, environmental, and self-sufficiency dimensions in the French food supply
- Ecological responsibility, wellbeing, and transformative reach: a three-dimensional framework for assessing ecovillages as social innovations toward sustainability
- Supporting stakeholders in a Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility initiative within an organization
- Social and environmental responsibility of research through the lens of history
BibTeX
@article{guillemaud2026clarifying,
title = {{Clarifying environmental responsibility for consistent absolute environmental sustainability assessment: A global sector-level analysis}},
author = {Gabin Guillemaud and Anthony Benoist and Éléonore Loiseau},
journal = {Environmental Impact Assessment Review},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.eiar.2026.108782},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05820669v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clarifying environmental responsibility for consistent absolute environmental sustainability assessment: A global sector-level analysis
AU - Gabin Guillemaud
AU - Anthony Benoist
AU - Éléonore Loiseau
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/19
JO - Environmental Impact Assessment Review
DO - 10.1016/j.eiar.2026.108782
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05820669v1
AB - Absolute Environmental Sustainability Assessment (AESA) aims to determine whether a system operates within its allocated share of Carrying Capacities (CCs). Initial guidelines have been proposed to establish a methodological framework. This paper proposes methodological recommendations to address three key requirements for a consistent implementation of AESA, i.e., i) additivity in the CCs downscaling, ii) no double-counting issues in environmental assessment, and iii) consistency of system boundaries between environmental assessment and downscaling steps. Proposals are based on the concept of environmental responsibility. Three environmental accounting approaches, which consider different types of actors responsible for a system's environmental impacts, are employed. These are the production-based approach (PBA), the consumption-based approach (CBA) and the income-based approach (IBA). Furthermore, identifying the responsible actor makes the CCs allocation step more transparent. The adapted AESA method is implemented across country-level economic sectors using Exiobase, an input-output database. Results obtained using the three accounting approaches and two theories of distributive justice are then compared. Similar to the choice of theory of distributive justice, AESA results are sensitive to the chosen accounting approach. Both are normative choices. Based on these preliminary findings, recommendations and further research perspectives are proposed for the AESA community. Finally, a focus on a single sector makes it possible to explore in further detail the relevance of the proposed recommendations for decision-making.
SN - 0195-9255
ER -