a systemic framework for environmental decision ... - World Scientific

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 1999) pp. 1–26 © Imperial College Press

A SYSTEMIC FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING

RITA VAN DER VORST, 1 ANNE GRAFÉ-BUCKENS and WILLIAM R SHEATE Centre for Environmental Technology (ICCET ) TH Huxley School of Environment, Earth Sciences and Engineering Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine University of London 48 Prince’s Gardens, London, SW7 2PE

The context of sustainable development poses new challenges for traditional environmental decision-making tools, such as environmental impact assessment, environmental management systems and life cycle assessment. Today these tools are expected to provide multidisciplinary information to aid sustainability decisions, not just to inform decisions about environmental effects. This paper brings together the different perspectives of authors from EIA, EMS and clean technology/LCA to examine critically the separate tools in the context of sustainable development, and their inter-relationships, and identifies a “tool-user’s dilemma”: whether to use a tool as intended, to adapt it or develop something new. The paper examines the similarities of these key tools and recognises both a paradigm shift and a congruence in the way in which they have developed: from being merely tools, through being techniques to approaches. The paper concludes by suggesting an integrated framework within which the tools can continue to operate effectively, and one that helps resolve the tool-user’s dilemma. Clean Technology is seen as providing a useful philosophical understanding for the operation of this outline framework. Keywords: environmental impact assessment, environmental management systems, environmental auditing, life cycle assessment, clean technology, sustainable development, environmental decision-making

1The authors are members of the Environmental Policy and Management Research Group at ICCET. This is a conceptual paper setting the scene for the first issue of JEAPM by raising issues at the heart of the objectives of the journal, and is intended to provide a springboard for further debate and research.

1

2

R. van der Vorst et al.

Background Sustainable development (WCED, 1987; UNCED, 1992a)2 now provides a new imperative to environmental decision-making, providing a rather different emphasis from the context in which most environmental decision-making tools evolved. Tools such as environmental impact assessment (EIA) were developed as a result of the politicisation of the environment and the need to “design with nature” (McHarg, 1969). This happened during a time (1960s and 1970s) when environmental concerns were often highly specific (e.g., pesticides and destruction of the oceans). Equally, similar tools for business were developed, after major accidents raised the question of liabilities for business (a subsidiary of Hoffman–Laroche in 1976 at Seveso; petrol companies in disasters such as the Amoco Cadiz in 1978 or the Exxon Valdez in 1989; Union Carbide in Bophal in 1984, etc.). Environmental auditing, and subsequently, environmental management systems (EMS) responded to the need for greater control of operations and better management. Today, environmental concerns go beyond merely focusing on individual projects or issues, or on environmental impacts within individual company boundaries. They, instead, highlight the systemic nature of the environment and the need to focus more on aspects of global sustainability and the need to provide new — often multi-disciplinary — information for decision-making. Often, we are now expecting our tools to perform beyond their original purposes, i.e. to inform us in making broad sustainability decisions rather than simply providing data on specific, individual environmental impacts. While EIA was the first of the suite of environmental decision-making tools to be formalised, others such as EMS and life cycle analysis (LCA) have evolved each with specific applications in mind. Together, they provide a framework for the assessment and management of environmental impacts and for the provision of information needed in response to increasing environmental awareness and needs. The question often posed is whether the tools we have are sufficient or whether there is a need for new tools or approaches specifically designed to address sustainability. This question is itself too simplistic since it implies mutual exclusivity, whereas in reality there is the need for both 2In this paper “sustainable development” is taken to mean a re-orientation of human activity with new

values to provide human benefit while valuing: – the environment and social equity alongside economic development (qualitative growth rather than quantitative) – future as well as current generations – the poor as well as the rich

A Systemic Framework for …

3

existing tools used in a new context and new tools per se (e.g., sustainability indicators). This paper argues that the new application of environmental tools is aimed at the generation of more and different types of information feeding into the decision-making process. It is written from the perspective of bringing together the three different disciplinary approaches of the individual authors — in EIA, EMS and clean technology/LCA — and a recognition by the authors of the high degree of congruity amongst the tools.3 While the paper critically examines the use of key existing tools, it also recognises their continued value in the context of sustainable development. It does, however, recognise that there is a need for a new approach to provide a more appropriate context and framework within which these tools can operate and inter-relate. While existing tools are designed to provide qualitative and quantitative data to solve specific problems, the examination of environmental issues and continuing environmental improvement processes within the context of sustainable development highlight a need for holistic and systemic approaches which cross disciplinary boundaries.4 The broad view of sustainable development demands that practitioners and stakeholders focus not only on their specific objectives, but that they also work in partnership for more global and remote objectives. This paper, therefore, presents an examination of the value of selected “tools” within the scope of “sustainability” and acknowledges that a paradigm shift has occurred. It outlines a possible framework for the use of these tools in their original, or adapted, context and essentially for their original purpose while facilitating their integration to cover (more) adequately the scope of sustainability. The proposed framework reflects an organisational approach to problem solving, going well beyond the assessment and management of technology against environmental criteria, and a new emphasis is given to participation and stakeholder involvement. The result is aimed at the more comprehensive assessment and management of a technological system, i.e. a systems approach addressing a range of changes, which might include technological (hard and soft) and organisational change. 3While others have looked at this issue (see, for example, Cowell et al., 1997), work has the tendency to be carried out by specialists within a discipline: “Beyond this, the Working Group was not able to proceed further towards the development of an overall environmental management framework, largely because of the predominantly LCA background of its members. Perspectives of practitioners of other concepts and tools are needed, and it may be that different frameworks are needed for different specific purposes” (SETAC, 1997, pp. 24 –25). Since the publication of this SETAC report, CHAINET has been formed (European Network on Chain Analysis for Environmental Decision Support; CHAINET, 1998); it remains to be seen how that develops. 4Different practitioners may use the terms interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary.

4


Current Tools in Environmental Decision-Making In the following, a range of categories of specialist environmental tools are introduced and their development and application briefly discussed. Special emphasis is given to EIA, EMS and LCA, around which many other tools have their place, e.g., substance flow analysis (SFA), gate-to-gate analysis, design for the environment (DfE), cleaner production (CP), industrial ecology (IE), cost benefit analysis (CBA), life cycle costing, hazard and risk assessment, environmental performance indicators, environmental benchmarking and environmental reporting. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) EIA can be considered to be the grandfather of environmental assessment and management tools. It has evolved significantly since its origins in the USA in 1969. EIA can be defined variously as “In essence, EIA is a process, a systematic process that examines the environmental consequences of development actions, in advance.” (Glasson et al., 1994: 3) and “EIA is a public process by which the likely significant effects of a proposal on the environment are identified, assessed and then taken into account by the consenting authority in the decision-making process. It provides the opportunity to take environmental considerations into account at the earliest opportunity before decisions are made about whether to proceed with a proposed development or action. EIA enables proposals to be modified in the light of potential impacts identified in order to eliminate or else mitigate them.” (Sheate, 1996: 25) It essentially conforms to four main principles. It is procedural: EIA establishes a systematic procedure for incorporating environmental considerations into decision making; informational: the procedures created by EIA enable the information about the environment to be provided to the decision-making authority and the


5

public in a clearly defined way; preventive: it should happen at the earliest opportunity in the decision-making process and before a consent decision is made; and iterative: the information it provides feeds back into the EIA process and the design process of the activity concerned (Sheate, 1994), for example, bringing about modifications to the design. The purpose of EIA is to assess the significant impacts of a proposal on the environment and to require certain information to be provided to the decision-maker and the public, e.g., description of the size, nature, and location of the proposed development, alternatives to the proposal, information on the magnitude and significance of predicted impacts and measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate them. The decision-maker then takes into account the information provided through the EIA (in the environmental [impact] statement: EIS or ES) and the comments from the public and other agencies. While EIA developed from a strongly scientific and quantitative base in its early days, it has since evolved to accommodate much more qualitative information and value judgements in the assessment of “significance” of environmental impacts. Improved levels of public awareness and participation have been critical in this development — another element integral to the concept of sustainable development (UNCED, 1992a). EIA has therefore evolved in response to changing pressures and needs. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is an extension of EIA to programmes (groups of projects in time or space), plans and policies, but essentially conforms to the same principles. It is often defined as “…the formalized, systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating the environmental impacts of a policy, plan or programme and its alternatives, including the preparation of a written report on the findings of that evaluation, and using the findings in publicly accountable decision-making.” (Therivel et al., 1992: 20) Since sustainable development demands strategic thinking, and in the absence of official or legislated SEA, EIA has often been stretched to take on a wider and wider scope so that individual EIAs of projects often end up examining issues which are more properly the concern of SEA at programme, plan or even policy level (Sheate, 1994). An example might be an EIA for a reservoir proposal (project) which ends up addressing water resources for a whole region (plan). In such a case, the “scope” of the EIA will have been expanded well beyond just alternative sites for the reservoir, to include quite different options, need, and demand management.

6


SEA is itself an evolution of EIA to respond to the need for the incorporation of the environment into strategic decisions levels, while remaining essentially true to EIA’s fundamental objectives: providing an explicit recognition of the environment in decision-making alongside more traditional economic and social inputs, and at the earliest opportunity. However, some authors (e.g., Mayda, 1996) suggest that traditional tools such as EIA and SEA are now redundant and that what is needed is “integrated planning and assessment (IPA)” which fully incorporates environmental, social and economic factors within the one assessment. A major concern here is the loss of the real essence of the tool — EIA — that of an explicit recognition of the environment in decision-making. The risk is that once all three factors are fully integrated, we shall have come full circle where the environment can once again be overlooked; in other words, business as usual, as many governments have been interpreting “sustainable development”. Sustainable development, post-Rio de Janeiro (UNCED, 1992a), clearly has an environmental and social imperative within which economic activity must take place. As EIA has evolved, it has increasingly addressed new aspects, for example, social impact assessment (SIA) has developed as a natural adjunct to EIA to address the social and community impact — especially through improved public participation (see, e.g., Vanclay & Bronstein, 1995). Biodiversity, as another political concept alongside sustainable development, is also required (as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992b) to be incorporated into decision-making, such as EIA. This necessitates the development of new methodologies to enable EIA to evolve from addressing traditional ecological impacts to accommodate biodiversity assessment, which necessitates taking a more holistic (ecosystem) view (CEQ, 1993; CEAA, 1996; Byron & Sheate, 1999). Improvements over recent and coming years to EIA in the social and environmental sphere provide a more adequate counter to traditional economic appraisals. EIA has not remained static. It has evolved effectively in response to new, often political, imperatives while remaining true to its essential principles, moving from merely a tool to become more of a technique, and in the context of sustainable development, an approach. Environmental management systems (EMS) Environmental management systems (EMS) designate a set of tools and techniques developed in the late 1980s–early 1990s to perform a management function in organisations by developing, implementing and reviewing environmental policies. Following a proliferation of national EMS standards, two EMS schemes have emerged, “absorbing” the others: EMAS (a European Community scheme allowing


7

voluntary participation by organisations in an eco-management and audit scheme) and ISO 14001, the EMS standard developed by the International Standards Organisation. Based on an initial environmental review (input and output inventories, as well as legal compliance and existing management practice review), EMS tools have been established to evaluate and continuously improve the organisation’s environmental performance, and in the case of EMAS, to provide relevant information to the public and other stakeholders. This whole process can be described as EMS-thinking, beyond the specific meaning given within EMAS and ISO 14001 to the environmental management system, i.e. “that part of the overall management system which includes the organisational structure, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for determining and implementing the environmental policy” (EMAS Draft, Article 2h, 1998). The distinction between EMS-thinking and its specific meaning reflects the difference between a tool and a technique to which the discussion will return. EMS-thinking belongs to the market-mechanisms that commit organisations to adopt a pro-active approach in the field of environmental protection, beyond compliance with all relevant regulatory requirements regarding the environment, and involving more actively the general public and social partners, as described in the Community Fifth Action Programme (EU Commission, 1992). At the beginning of the EMS development, the following principles were established. An EMS is systemic in providing the corporate management with stable system elements to increase the protection of the environment.5 It belongs to a management culture similar to that applied in the case of quality systems (ISO 9000). It is priority-driven, as the system and the objectives it implements are based on those aspects and impacts considered as significant. It is procedural in the systematic, objective and periodic evaluation of the performance of the environmental management system. It is iterative, or rather cyclical: the audit enables an evaluation of the achievements against objectives (based on significant impacts) and imposes corrective actions in a continuous improvement process. It is informational, both for internal (management decisions) and external decision-making (to a larger extent for EMAS, as it requires the publication of an environmental statement, while ISO 14001 restricts disclosure to the environmental policy). It is also third-party reliant as accredited independent 5The main elements are: environmental policy, review (planning in the case of ISO 14001), objectives

and targets, programme and EMS (or implementation and operation, checking and corrective actions in ISO 14001), audit (a separate standard in the case of ISO 14010), and environmental statement in the case of EMAS only.

8


certifiers or verifiers (EMAS) have to check that the system is valid and that the data generated are reliable. The EMS implementation and practice have evolved along with the fast developing agenda of sustainability. Key consequences for the development of EMS include: redefining the boundaries, linking the EMS efficiency to the organisation’s overall strategy, as well as to building synergy with other environmental management tools. Redefinition of boundaries The boundaries of EMS expand in terms of impact recognition. The need to relate to global impacts and the recognition of values associated with the environment, as crystallised at UNCED (1992), have highlighted the limits of the EMS technique per se: the aim of continual improvement cannot depend on one organisation on its own. A business setting up an EMS now has to address its impacts not only within its boundaries, but also beyond, for example, energy usage and associated CO2 emissions are to be controlled in the light of the global environmental impact rather than of its own targets-setting process for cost reduction and efficiency. Boundaries also expand in terms of pre- and post-process activities. This involves supply-chain considerations and consideration of the product’s end of life. It will also affect EMS objectives. Finally, boundaries expand through the increasing number of stakeholders interested in a company’s environmental performance, and the increasing demands they are addressing to the business community. This led to the integration of a much wider range of issues and practices into EMS thinking (not only the part of the management system dedicated to the environment but the whole management system — financial, environmental, personnel/social). A particular case which retains much attention of a growing expert and practitioner circle, is the interface between business and its financial partners on environmental grounds (EU Commission, 1997a & 1997b; ISAR/UNCTAD, 1997; Schalteger & Figge, 1998; Schmidheiny & Zorraquin, 1996; Skillius & Wennberg, 1998).6 6Examples of the increasing focus on the financial community are proliferating rapidly. As an illustration, Imperial College is involved both in the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative, launched by the Coalition of Responsible Economies) debate on how to incorporate the views of the financial stakeholders on environmental and sustainability issues into a framework for company reporting; and in the CESPIN (Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Performance Information Network) project, supported by the European Environmental Agency, aimed at industrial, environmental and sustainability benchmarking, with a strong focus on benchmarking by the financial community or its intermediaries (and creating the demand for such a benchmarking).


9

Strategic thinking The developing agenda also calls for the integration of the environmental aspects of the company into general strategic thinking, i.e. with an interface with financial or social management. Global issues impose strategic thinking, gradually moving the environmental agenda higher in the organisation’s hierarchy, while at the same time the communication lines of the organisation have to channel greening initiatives down at operational levels to generate greening responses. This engages the boardroom well beyond a mere technical, solution-oriented department. Applying strategic thinking to environmental issues in business coincides with entering the public, non-technical arena. EMS procedures and objectives need to be adapted to incorporate the wider and growing demands of civil society, business partners and government in a more democratic decision-making process (Kruth & Gleckman, 1998). Sustainability has become strongly associated with stakeholder involvement, and business has conceptually extended the EMS tools to match the new agenda and to acknowledge the need to manage for sustainability. This challenges an organisation’s existing culture and structures. As Dodge (Welford, 1997) argues, the firm’s structure (e.g., centralised), linked to the corporate culture, shapes the management and staff perceptions of environmental problems. He questions the traditional culture of centralised organisations demonstrating that “the best structure to handle environmental issues may conflict with the best organisational structure of the business”. Best practice EMS, therefore, calls for companies to integrate public participation and strategic environmental thinking into the corporate culture. Comprehensive choice At the same time, the growing environmental needs have led to a growing environmental management toolbox (Finkbeiner et al., 1998), including the tools reviewed in this paper and those with which they are associated. The company would wish to make a balanced decision between those, in order to establish a common approach to achieve sound environmental management. Management tools such as EMS are now stretched to improve their applicability to the present management demands. EMS is now almost automatically associated with other related environmental performance assessment (EPA) tools: environmental performance indicators, environmental reporting, environmental benchmarking (based on the improved comparability of environmental performance achievements, hence the need for indicators). Indicators, reporting and benchmarking belong to the group of interactive tools, which implies bringing other actors into the decision-making process.

10


A distinction must be made between EMAS and ISO 14001. EMAS tends to have a better capacity for an interface and inter-relationship with these other associated EPA tools than the ISO 14000 series (Finkbeiner et al., 1998) which deals separately, in separate sub-committees, with the various issues of environmental management. EMAS as a technique, can better avoid the fragmented approach to environmental management. Responding to the new demands, EMAS has now integrated the conditions for the use of environmental indicators, their comparability, and ultimately, their benchmarkability (EMAS Draft, 1998, Annex XXX): “An organisation must ensure that any performance indicators it selects: (a) Give an accurate appraisal of the organisations performance; (b) Are understandable and unambiguous; (c) Allow for year on year comparison of an organisation’s performance; (d) Allow for comparison with sector, national or regional benchmarks as appropriate; (e) Allow for comparison with regulatory requirements as appropriate.” EMAS also requires the publication of an environmental statement, as a means to meet the EMAS objective to promote continual improvements in the environmental performance of organisations via the provision of information on environmental performance to the public and other stakeholders. It remains silent on LCA. The ISO 14000 series addresses differently and separately those issues: for example, ISO 14031 (on environmental performance indicators or environmental performance evaluation) will soon be published, while ISO 14040 deals with LCA. A standard on environmental reporting still seems unrealistic within the ISO arena, but is currently being developed within GRI (GRI, 1998). The practice of EMS reflects the various levels of awareness of the evolving agenda, i.e. it varies largely from one organisation to another. EMS implementation ranges from tool or even technique-oriented practices to the more comprehensive, complex and demanding new approach developing along the sustainability agenda (see below). Halfway between those two poles (between the tool and the approach), most of the recent developments belong to the eco-efficiency paradigm (OECD, 1998; WBCSD, 1998; NRTTE, 1996). The correlation between environmental and economic performance is increasingly established. However, the decisionmaking process resulting from that correlation is bi-lateral, rather than a proper triangular relationship between the three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.


11

In practice, the universally recognised aim of sustainability still lacks a clear basis on which achievements are assessed. Sustainability in business can translate into the following new conditions for environmental management: • Prevention (rather than end-of-pipe solutions) • Integrated managerial approach where strategy, management and organisation all incorporate the sustainability dimension (Spangenberg, 1997; Grafé-Buckens & Beloe, 1998). • Better internal/external information/consultation/participation processes (GraféBuckens & Hinton, 1998). • Focus on the process and products (for example, eco-audits and eco-labels gain mutual credibility if an EMS certified organisation is also granted the eco-label on its products) • Clarity about the indicators used, and a proper recognition of the level at which indicators are used by an organisation, enabling the application of the sustainability principle: “act locally and think globally”. Three categories of indicators can be distinguished within a business (MEPI, 1998; see also ISO 14031; Bennet & James, 1998): – Absolute and relative indicators (company specific) – Economic indicators (financial performance of the organisation) – Environmental impact indicators (global perspective) • Change of behaviour involving participation, organisational learning and improvements on economic-social-environmental terms. This evolution reflects new conditions in which EMS shifts from a technique to an approach (see below). Life cycle assessment (LCA) LCA or cradle-to-grave analysis is an analytical environmental management tool based on a scientific understanding of inputs and outputs of processes and their effects on the environment. Its application is focused on the assessment of the environmental impact of a product, process or human activity over its entire life cycle. Four steps form the assessment tool (SETAC, 1993; 1997): “goal definition and scoping”, “inventory analysis”, “impact assessment”, and “improvement assessment” or “interpretation” (Saur, 1997) as used when no improvement is anticipated, as a result of the study. LCA originated (in a variety of precursors) in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, motivated by the “limits to growth” report of the Club of

12


Rome (Meadows et al., 1972), aiming to raise public awareness on issues like population growth, resource depletion and waste management (VITO, 1995; Boustead, 1996). The term LCA was first used in the USA in 1990, changing the tool’s name from Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis (Karakoussis, 1998). LCA was developed to help organisations assess their environmental impact, through an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with their products. LCA in its original form is a linear environmental assessment tool following one by one the stages of the life cycle of a product, service or activity. The zero order (direct) processes considered might lead to higher order (indirect) processes which, depending on the scope of the study, may be considered as part of a given LCA. These processes as such are then represented through their own linear life cycles. LCA is designed to provide information about environmental impacts through life cycles. This information can feed either into company representations and descriptions or indeed be used to inform improvement activities. Thus, the LCA tool is differentiated from the technique of life cycle analysis. If used, for example, in an environmental management system or in a design for the environment process, LCA might be used in a cyclical or iterative way, with the purpose of assessing environmental improvement as a result of change. The purpose and anticipated application of the LCA is, therefore, reflected in the goal definition and scoping phase. The most important aspect of LCA is that it normally considers all stages of a product’s (or service’s or other activity’s) life cycle. Industries aiming to assess their environmental impact in relation to a particular product normally consider only one of the stages of a product’s life cycle (life cycle stage analysis or gate-to-gate analysis). As a result, valuable information about likely shifts of environmental burden, for example, towards systems outside the company boundary (i.e. towards a different life cycle stage) is not being considered. The goal definition and scoping phase thus plays an important part in determining the validity and transferability of an LCA. Divergent results as examined by Karakoussis (1998) for separate LCA studies on the waste management of paper, for example, are partly due to different starting conditions (see also Grahl & Schmincke, 1996), which include underlying intentions and values with regard to the natural system. The scoping phase as well as the criteria used in the assessment phase reflect subjective issues, including the purpose of the LCA study, the application, the values underlying the evaluation, etc. “Science must monitor the process, but cannot be responsible for the political function of setting priorities.” (Grahl & Schmincke, 1996) Often the tool is used to compare environmental performances of different products for which a functional unit (or value of the benefit to the consumer)


13

is used. The functional unit to be used is defined in the first phase of the study. Using functional units, LCA delivers an environmental assessment of a function, which is useful in the context of clean technology as introduced below. Problems occur with multi-functional products, and the allocation of impacts or percentages to the separate functions. Phase two comprises the inventory analysis which results in an inventory of all inputs and outputs of the separate stages of the product’s life cycle. The inventory, ideally, should consider all processes which deal directly (zero order processes) or indirectly (higher order processes) with the product (service or activity) under investigation. However, to keep the inventory a manageable size, impacts related to higher order processes are often neglected. The argument is that the additional impacts from these processes will be insignificant in relation to the overall impact and to the errors in the data. Phases three and four see the translation of the inventory data into environmental impacts and provide some overall interpretation of the life cycle impacts and possible aspects for improvement. Assessment criteria and valuation approaches are selected to respond to the goals of the study as identified in phase one. The quality of data is a concern to many practitioners aiming to achieve environmental improvement. Usually, inventory data are averages from across industrial sectors. Differences in efficiency through newer technological systems or better management in individual companies or even the company under investigation are not normally represented. Other shortcomings of the tool in comparison to other environmental assessment and management tools include “… a limited spatial and temporal resolution of the analysis.” (Klöpffer, 1998) Recent developments around LCA and its integration into the decision-making process include: LCANET, an international network of LCA experts, as well as CHAINET, a European network on chain analysis for environmental decision support (CHAINET, 1998), which are engaged in examining the role of LCA as part of the available “toolbox” of environmental assessment instruments (Finkbeiner et al., 1998) and its role in decision making. Apparent differences between LCA as an environmental assessment tool and LCA as part of an environmental improvement initiative (be it site specific or dealing with overall life cycle impacts) are found in the last phase of the LCA. Improvement assessment is aimed at highlighting potential areas for improvement, and through comparison with similar products, great environmental improvements can be achieved. Unfortunately, the final purpose of the LCA technique aimed at improvement (as opposed to the LCA tool aimed at assessment) is often reflected through

14


bias in the goal definition and scoping phase. The otherwise scientifically based tool, becomes open to value-based judgements as early as in the outlining of the system to be studied. LCA applied in the decision-making context can inform a design for the environment process of products, processes, systems and services, aimed at decreasing their environmental impact. Other related tools or techniques are cleaner production and industrial ecology (IE). While cleaner production is based on a life cycle stage analysis as mentioned above, IE is based on the consideration and assessment of a wider range of processes and organisations. The aim of IE is to improve a system’s overall efficiency. Nowadays, these systems are focused on the production of products, but IE could be extended to address life cycle efficiencies, and thus, would refer to an array of LCAs for specific services (or products or activities).

Clean Technology: A New Paradigm In today’s “post-Rio” setting, EIA, EMS–EPA and LCA provide us with examples of what we can call the “tool-user’s dilemma”: to use it as intended, to adapt it, to apply it in different (or non-traditional) contexts, to dispense with it altogether and develop something new? This is by no means a trivial issue, since the choice of the wrong tool or the misapplication of a tool may result in the provision of inappropriate information to the decision-maker. One of the more recent developments in environmental engineering provides us with a new paradigm within which we can begin to address the tool-user’s dilemma — that of “clean technology”.7 Industrial environmental action has often been attributed to one of two guiding philosophies, namely the “clean-up technology” paradigm or the clean technology paradigm (these philosophies, or frames of mind, have been called paradigms with reference to Kuhn’s work (1970) on scientific paradigms). For the technical application, “paradigm” has been defined as a cultural pattern consisting of a cognitive, a perceptual and a behavioural framework (van der Vorst, 1997). Thus, a change of paradigm implies a change of values guiding the translation of cognition into perception and of perception into behaviour. The clean technology (CT) paradigm focuses on prevention through technological and managerial changes, with an emphasis on participation and enabling through education and training. Schott (1992, quoted in van der Vorst, 1997) describes clean-up technology:

7Technology

is taken to mean not only machines and equipment, but the skills, abilities, knowledge, systems and processes necessary to make things happen.


15

“The essence of the end-of-pipe technology approach is to treat the residuals the production generates, but to leave the production process itself unchanged.” Key characteristics of and differences between the two paradigms are found in • the approach to environmental problem solving (CT has been described as pro-active, preventative and holistic) • the kind of activities carried out (CT incorporates life cycle design, strategic and managerial development and organisational development) • the participation in environmental improvement activities (CT encourages participation across the organisation and involves all employees and even all stakeholders in the process) • the focus of these activities (CT focuses on the provision of a service (function) instead of on a product) • the breadth of these activities (CT considers global issues, tries to act locally using a cross disciplinary approach, addressing social and environmental issues) • their outcome (CT encourages participation and organisation learning, and results in the improvement of the global environmental — and social — performance with a reduction in (life cycle) costs, and continuing improvement) A detailed comparison of the CT paradigm with the clean-up technology and the “dilute and disperse” paradigms is provided in Table 1.8 CT has been defined as “a means of providing a human benefit which overall, uses less resources and causes less environmental damage than alternative means with which it is economically competitive.” (Clift, 1995a) and “Concentrating on the human benefit rather than products per se distinguishes clean technology from cleaner production which is about making products more efficiently, rather than asking whether a product is necessary anyway.” (EPSRC, 1996, p. 1) 8Others

have recognised the change of paradigm: in an attempt to integrate EMS thinking within the context of sustainability, vectors of transition have been proposed within the SMAS project and workbook (EPE, 1996). Similarly, in EIA/SEA, Mayda (1996) has recognised a paradigm shift in the context of sustainable development.

16


Table 1. The three paradigms of industrial environmental action (after van der Vorst, 1997, p. 54). Paradigm

Dilute and Disperse

Criterion

Clean-up Technology (End-of-Pipe Engineering)

Clean Technology (Preventive Engineering)

“Leitbild”

linear thinking linear processes

linear thinking linear processes

holistic, ecological thinking cyclical activities

Motivation for action

no motivation for environmental protection

extrinsic motivation for defensive and reactive actions

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for environmental protection, opportunity seeking

Kind of activity

none

purely technical

managerial, strategic, technical

Participants in activity

no activity

specialists

participation across the organisation and stakeholders

Organisational development

no development

some specialist learning, development of environmental specialists

high level of organisational learning throughout the enterprise and beyond (e.g., stakeholders)

Production

continuous growth

continuous growth

minimised production with focus on quality

Production process design

unchanged processes

unchanged process, technology centred solutions leading mainly to add-on technology

changed process, cyclical, closed-loop or cascaded production process

Product design

no concern for environmental impacts

no design changes, recycling of products

design for the environment, design for minimisation of life cycle impacts

Material consumption

unrestrained

unrestrained (possibly increased due to additional processes)

minimised over the (product) life cycle

Pollution

unrestrained, “dilute and disperse”

restrained through additional process, “concentrate and contain”

minimised over the (product) life cycle, if possible “rendered harmless”

Global environmental impact

not accounted for

aim to reduce. Is it successful?

minimised through proactive activities


17

Table 1. (Continued) Paradigm

Dilute and Disperse

Clean-up Technology (End-of-Pipe Engineering)

Clean Technology (Preventive Engineering)

Industrial output

product to be owned by user

product to be owned by user

provision of services, product on lease, servicing and recycling by producer

Financial cost for environmental protection

no investment

additional cost for addon technology

Profit

largely based on nonaccounting of environmental resources (free commodities)

partly achieved through avoiding legal penalties, also through saving of secondary treatment costs

investment into process change, saving of running and treatment costs largely achieved through innovation, savings for minimised material consumption, and pollution control and treatment

Criterion

Thus the Clean Technology paradigm asks: “Where does ‘it’ come from? Where does ‘it’ go to? Do I need to use ‘it’ at all? Do I need to make ‘it’ at all?” (Clift, 1995b) CT provides a useful context for this discussion of integrating environmental tools and methodologies. Tools used within the CT context often become techniques and approaches, and thus, become interconnected in their functions and processes. CT can be seen as the philosophy guiding the development and employment of technology in providing human benefit with a view to sustainability. Most environmental assessment and management tools used to inform a decision-making process, and indeed, techniques (i.e. cleaner production and industrial ecology) can be used both in the CT and in the clean-up technology paradigm. However, as suggested in the above, different intentions and the guiding paradigms of the actors will result in different outcomes.

Discussion In the background above, a number of terms have been used which require a closer definition before further discussion, i.e. “tool”, “technique”, “approach”.

18


Simple dictionary definitions suffice (Oxford Concise Dictionary, 1985) from which the terms can then be defined more clearly in the context of this discussion. While many people often use these and other similar terms interchangeably, a clearer definition in this paper might help ensure better communications between the practitioners. Tool = “thing used in performing an action” Technique = “means of achieving one’s purpose” Approach = “act or means of setting about (task)” Figure 1 summarises the relationship between tool, technique and approach, and defines “approach” as being a technique operating within a philosophy or with an intention. The development and application of EIA illustrates the stages in Fig. 1, and this is paralleled by EMS and LCA. The element of EIA which makes it a tool is essentially the identification and assessment of impacts — the core of the EIA study. Strictly speaking, EIA has always been a technique since it has always been a process with a purpose, i.e. to provide information to the decisionmaker. This has been reinforced by the continual development of SEA. EIA has become an approach within the context and an overarching philosophy of sustainable development, which has facilitated the further evolution of EIA to include SEA in a tiered system — SEA at the highest (policy) level feeding into the plan and programme of SEA and to EIA at the project level, and vice versa. This is particularly manifested in the “purest” form of SEA where policy development is “objectives-led”, i.e. incorporates sustainable development principles as integral to the policy objectives. In transport, for example, options for integrated transport policy must relate to sustainability objectives, such as reducing the

Fig. 1. Defining tool, technique and approach.


19

need to travel, or reducing atmospheric emissions, before alternative scenarios are assessed for their environmental impact (Sheate, 1992). In a similar way, the EMS tool is actually the audit and the EMS technique is the whole process towards continual improvement. In LCA, the assessment is the tool, while the technique is derived from putting the LCA tool into the wider context of environmental phase improvement. This is manifested in the fourth step of improvement assessment, replacing the less complex step of interpretation. The key evolution has been that from tools, EIA, EMS and LCA have become approaches, which meet in their underlying philosophy, their purpose (scientific and political) and their functions. As tools they are differentiated, both in terms of their role and in terms of the people who use them. As approaches they demand integration — they increasingly overlap, interface and feed into each other as they strive towards sustainable development. For example, best-practice EIA demands post-project monitoring and auditing, but historically, this has often failed to be required as part of EIA legislation (Wood, 1995; Leggett, 1998); traditionally, developers have no longer had an interest once they had secured consent for their project. EMS provides both a mechanism and a reason to carry this out, enabling a cyclical assessment of an existing project or organisation towards continual environmental improvement. LCA as an assessment tool stands somewhat separate from EIA and EMS. However, the LCA technique or even life cycle thinking can feed, for example, into an EMS and help to identify priority target areas for improvement. LCA thinking can also be relevant as part of SEA, particularly in considering options and alternatives. Similarities between EIA and LCA can be seen, for example, in the importance of the scoping phase — determining the boundaries and parameters of the assessment, and the key issues and objectives of the study. In EMS, scoping involves defining the boundaries of the organisation considered. Also, LCA can be used to compare the environmental performance of different (alternative) though generalised products, while EIA can be used to compare more specific alternative options or development locations. EIA, EMS and LCA as techniques are all about informing decision-making, though the type of decision-making may be different. In EIA, the decision is usually made by an external body determining whether a project can proceed. SEA can inform a decision-making process external to the organisation, or internal. The EIA/SEA approach within the sustainable development context brings increasing overlaps with EMS focused around strategic business decision-making. This can be seen, for example, within the water and electricity sectors, where companies may be carrying out some form of SEA as a means of identifying priority investment decisions, e.g., in a major sewage treatment programme to meet EU legislative

20


requirements, or in the electricity sector, a company-wide SEA looking at the best way of using the National Grid (Byron & Sheate, 1997). The issue of “significance” is common to all three tools. Central to EIA is the identification and assessment of significant effects. Significance is a logical but often poorly defined step in EMS, although the new EMAS has now recognised the need to establish the significance of impacts. In LCA, significance is determined at the scoping stage (higher order and indirect effects) and at the assessment stage. In all these tools/techniques magnitude and significance are important distinctions between the size or scale of an impact (magnitude) and its relative importance or significance in the context of the decision process. Public and stakeholder participation, going beyond mere consultation, is increasingly an integral element of EIA and EMS (see also Table 1; UNEP/ SustainAbility, 1996; Grafé-Buckens, 1997; Sheate & Atkinson, 1995), all the more so as they have developed into sustainable development approaches. This is partly at least in response to the requirements of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 for decision-making to be more inclusive, involving all communities, citizens and those who have a stake in decisions. It is also, increasingly, the result of the companies’ experience that participation can be helpful and can bring about better and more sustainable (publicly acceptable) decisions. A company with a commitment to continual environmental improvement, and used to engaging stakeholders in its environmental management process, is likely to be more willing to engage the public more effectively in EIA, and vice versa. LCA is still more of an “expert tool” while efforts are being made to develop evaluation methods which involve stakeholders (Wilson, 1998, pers.comm).

A Non-linear Integrated Framework The evolution from a tool to an approach has been discussed above. It appears from practice, and the emerging new dimensions brought by the sustainability paradigm, that the three environmental management and assessment tools reviewed in this paper have followed a similar evolution: the change from tool to approach has been the common denominator, without removing the specificity of each tool in their function and objectives. It is suggested that CT, understood as a philosophy, provides us with an understanding of the new framework for the approaches outlined, even if the various tools under consideration do not necessarily need to be applied in the CT context. The three key conditions — participation and dialogue, education and training, and organisational development — that enable the change of paradigm are represented in the box at the centre of Fig. 2. Participation and dialogue is about involving the stakeholders in the decision-making process (O’Riordan &


21

Voisey, 1998; UNEP/SustainAbility, 1996, 1997; UK Roundtable on Sustainable Development, 1998; OECD, 1998; Hooper et al., 1998), and therefore, establishing better relevance and adequacy between solutions proposed and demanded (GRI, 1998; CESPIN, 1998). Within such a process, environmental performance should become more assessable and comparable, as well as ultimately benchmarkable. Organisational development is the second key component to enable the paradigm shift, as it requires a change from specialist teams to broad-based knowledge teams (Welford, 1997). This process depends highly on the education and training of all stakeholders. As indicated in Fig. 2, the initial paradigm is solution-driven, producing technological or technical fixes. It identifies specific adverse impacts of an activity on the environment and their “fixing” in a segmented way, for example, at first, environmental audits were specifically applied to segments of the organisation, such as waste, water, or energy. The environmental assessment and management tools created (LCA, EIA, EMS) were meant to provide a direct solution to the identified adverse impact. The activity, products and services to which the solution would apply have not been under question, but rather the efficiency of their generation. In such a paradigm — which corresponds to an economy justified by a necessity for growth to provide satisfaction for individuals — activities, products and services are central to linear growth. As indicated previously, there is a striking similarity between the tools and techniques under review in terms of functions performed (e.g., scoping/boundaries

Fig. 2. Non-linear integrated framework for environmental assessment and management tools.

22


definition, baseline data, inventories or inputs and outcomes, impact identification and assessment, objectives and targets, implementation and corrective actions, etc.).9 But that similarity remains hardly visible unless the tools are considered in a more global approach in which they all contribute to a set of environmental management components within a common framework and sustainability objectives. As outlined above, sustainability implies a change in attitudes. It is the application of the principles of precaution and prevention that advocates a global picture where a global and strategic view needs to be taken. The products and services should undergo a “needs” test (SustainAbility/Dow, 1995), which may result in them no longer being required, as the change of attitude under the paradigm shift may no longer justify their existence. By using this framework for environmental assessment and management tools, it is argued that the collection of data becomes more meaningful. The collection of data in the linear growth paradigm gives a fragmented picture of environmental reality. Fragments correspond to the specific foci chosen and the specific tools used. The data developed through the framework provide the organisation with a multi-dimensional picture allowing checks of consistency between the various tools used. By establishing consistency between assessment and management tools, it is suggested that unnecessary duplication of activities can be avoided, and better results achieved. True to the guiding philosophy, better results include benefit to the environment. The gains from this non-linear integrated framework include • Tools/techniques learn and benefit from each other (e.g., the establishment of significance in EIA could help the establishment of significance in the field of EMS and further feed the development of environmental indicators in a consistent way) • Tools/techniques’ usefulness, relevance and complementarity are better established, as the framework redefines their specific identity in an integrated way • Opportunities to embark further on the journey towards sustainability and to better meet sustainability objectives

Conclusions The observed convergence of tools previously operating in parallel is encouraging, and confirms that the philosophy of clean technology provides an appropriate 9Referred

to as “elements” by other authors (Cowell et al., 1997).


23

perspective for the non-linear integrated framework suggested. This is particularly well illustrated, for example, with regard to the question of “need”, which is a fundamental requirement of CT. In EIA, the proper consideration of need is really only seen at the SEA level and in the context of sustainable development (as part of an SEA approach). The question of need has always been problematic in EIA since many options have often been foreclosed by the time an EIA is carried out for an individual proposed development. EIA has struggled, in the absence of SEA, to address this issue effectively. In SEA, the question of need is central to sustainable development objectives. So does the framework provide a solution to the “tool-user’s dilemma”? It would appear so, since not only does it enable existing tools to be used more effectively and efficiently, it also actually indicates that there need no longer be a dilemma. In short, it is acceptable to use existing tools, apply them to different situations as well as to develop new tools, so long as they are used within the context of the framework. The framework, therefore, encourages increased awareness of the functions of tools used and an understanding of gaps between them. It is aimed at a better exploitation of the value of individual tools.

References Boustead, I. (1996) LCA — How it came about, the beginning in the UK, International Journal of LCA, 1, 147–150 Bennet & James (1998) Environment under the spotlight: Current practice and future trends in environment-related performance measurement for business, ACCA research report 55 Byron, H. & Sheate, W.R. (1997) Strategic environmental assessment: Current status in the water and electricity sectors in England and Wales. Environmental Policy and Practice, 6(4), 155–165 Byron, H. & Sheate, W.R. (1999) Treatment of biodiversity issues in roads’ environmental impact assessments. Proceedings of the Linnean Society Joint Symposium with RSPB and WWF–UK. London: Imperial College Press, London (in press) CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) (1995) A Guide to Biodiversity and Environmental Assessment, Ministry of Supply and Services, Canada CESPIN (Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Performance Information Network) (1998) A European Environmental Agency supported project, lead by Lund University (IIIEE) in Sweden, Imperial College (Business and the Environment) in the UK, and Escuela de organisation medio-ambiental in Spain, http:/ /www.eea.dk CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) (1993) Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations into Environmental Impact Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act, US CEQ

24


CHAINET (1998) CHAINET definition document. Eds. N. Wrisberg & T. Gameson, CML, Leiden University, Netherlands Clift, R. (1995a) Inaugural Lecture. University of Surrey, Guildford Clift, R (1995b) The New Engineer, Living Through Paradigm Shifts, presentation as part of the EngD clean technology module, University of Surrey, Guildford Cowell, S.J., Hogan, S. & Clift, R. (1997) Positioning and applications of LCA. LCANET Theme Report, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford Dodge J. (1997) Reassessing culture and strategy: Environmental improvement, structure, leadership and control. In Corporate Environmental Management 2: Culture and Organisations, ed. R. Welford. p. 114, London: Earthcan Publications EMAS (1998) Draft proposal for a council regulation allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a community eco-management and audit scheme, revised internal draft EPE (1996) From EMAS to SMAS: Charting the course from environmental management and auditing to sustainability management, ed. A. Spencer-Cooke. European Partners for the Environment, Brussels EPSRC (1996) A long clean road. In CleanLine 7, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EU (1992) Towards sustainability: Community fifth action programme for the environment, updated in 1997, DGXI, Brussels EU Commission (1997a) FEEMAS report, European Commission DGXI EU Commission (1997b) The Role of Financial Institutions in Achieving Sustainable Development, prepared for the EU Commission DGXI by Delphi International Ltd in association with Ecologic GMBH, Brussels Finkbeiner, M., Wiedeman, M. & Saur, K. (1998) A comprehensive approach towards product and organisation related environmental management tools. In International Journal of LCA, 3, 169–178 Grafé-Buckens, A. (1997) La Déclaration Environnementale du SMEA, bonne pratique européenne. Etude comparative des 60 premières Déclarations Environnementales enregistrées au niveau communautaire, Ministère de l“Environnement français, Paris Grafé-Buckens, A. & Hinton, A.F. (1998a) Engaging the stakeholders: Corporate views and current trends. In Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(3), 124–133. London: Wiley Grafé-Buckens, A. & Beloe, S. (1998b) Auditing and communicating business Sustainability. In Eco-Management and Auditing, 5(3), 102–111. London: Wiley Grahl, B. & Schmincke, E. (1996) Evaluation and decision-making processes in life cycle assessment, International Journal of LCA, 1, 32–35 Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A. (1994) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. London: UCL Press GRI (1998) Corporate Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global reporting initiative, led by CERES (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies), Boston


25

Hooper, P., Lever, M. & Stubbs, M. (1998) Corporate Environmental Reporting: Is the Definition of Sustainable Development Out There? In conference proceedings, the 1998 Business Strategy and the Environment Conference, Leeds ISAR-UNCTAD (1997) An environmental reporting framework for the annual report. Proposed in Linking Environmental and Financial Performance: A Survey of Best Practice Techniques, prepared by ACCA for ISAR-UNCTAD. An update of the 1994, Conclusions on Accounting and Reporting by Transnational Corporations, Geneva ISO (1997) Environmental Management “Environmental Performance Evaluation Guideline”, International Standards Organisation, draft ISO/WD 14031.5 Karakoussis, V. (1998) Environmental Assessment and its Role in Decision Making. MSc dissertation, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, London Klöpffer, W. ed. (1998) Is LCA unique? International Journal of LCA, 3, 241–242 Kruth, R. & Gleckman, H. (1998) ISO 14001, a missed opportunity. London: Earthscan Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Leggett, H. (1998) Implementing Post-Project Analysis in EIA Practice in the United Kingdom. Unpublished MSc Thesis, Imperial College Centre for Environmental Technology, University of London Mayda, J. (1996) Reforming impact assessment: Issues, premises and elements. Impact Assessment, 14(1), 87–96 McHarg, I. (1969) Design With Nature. New York: Natural History Press Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens, W.W. (1972) The Limits to Growth. A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the Predicament of Mankind. London: Earth Island Limited MEPI (1998) Measuring Environmental Performance of Industry. Research project with EU funding, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/environment/project/current/mepi/index.html NRTTE (1996) Measuring Eco-efficiency in Business. National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, Canada O’Riordan, T. & Voisey, H. eds. (1998) The political economy of the sustainability transition. In Transition to Sustainability, the Politics of Agenda 21, Chapter 1. London: Earthscan OECD (1998) Eco-efficiency, organisation for economic co-operation and development, Paris Schalteger, S. & Figge, F. (1998) Environmental Shareholder Value. WWZ/Sarasin Basic Report Schmidheiny, S. et al. (1996) Financing Change. London: MIT Press/WBCSD SETAC (1993) Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice, Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry SETAC (1997) Life Cycle Assessment and Conceptually Related Programmes. Report of the SETAC–Europe Working Group

26


Sheate, W.R. (1992) Strategic environmental assessment in the transport sector. Project Appraisal, 7(3), 170–174 Sheate, W.R. (1994) Making an Impact: A Guide to EIA Law and Policy, 260pp. London: Cameron May Sheate, W.R. (1996) Environmental Impact Assessment: Law and Policy — Making an Impact II, 2nd edn. 300pp. London: Cameron May Sheate, W.R. & Atkinson, N.R. (1995) Public participation in environmental decisionmaking: the European dimension. Environmental Policy and Practice, 5(3), 119–129 Skillius, A. & Wennberg, U. (1998) Continuity, Credibility and Comparability. IIIEE at Lund University, on behalf of the European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen Spangenberg, J. & Bonniot, O. (1997) Performance Assessment — How to Recognise a Sustainable Firm, Wuppertal Institute, Wuppertal SustainAbility/Dow (1995) Who Needs It? Market Implications of Sustainable Lifestyles, A SustainAbility Business Guide, London Therivel, R. et al. (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan UK Roundtable on Sustainable Development (1998) A Stakeholder Approach to Sustainable Business, London UNEP/SustainAbility (1996–1997) Engaging Stakeholders. Vol.1, The Benchmark Survey, Vol.2 The case studies, 1996. Updated in 1997: The 1997 Benchmark Survey UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) (1992a) Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) (1992b) The UN Convention on Biological Diversity Vanclay, F. & Bronstein, D.A. eds. (1995) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Chichester, England: Wiley van der Vorst, R. (1997) Clean Technology and Its Impact on Engineering Education. PhD thesis, Brunel University, Uxbridge VITO (Viaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek) (1995). Life Cycle Assessment, Business and the Environment, Practitioner Series WBCSD (1998) How Companies Measure and Report Their Eco-Efficiency: A Survey of Corporate Reports. State-of-play report based on a survey analysis of 32 corporate environmental reports based on 1996 calendar or fiscal year, in the following sectors: oil & gas, electricity generation, electronics/electrical appliances, life sciences, automotive, pulp & paper, and financial services. As part of on-going work at WBCSD on eco-efficiency Welford (1997) Corporate Environmental Management 2, Culture and Organisations. London: Earthscan Wilson, R. (1998) pers.comm, PhD student (part-time), Imperial College Centre for Environmental Technology Wood, C. (1995) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Harlow, England: Longman WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press