The Experts below are selected from a list of 89292 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alessandra Zamagni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
progress in Sustainability science lessons learnt from current methodologies for Sustainability Assessment part 1
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013Co-Authors: Serenella Sala, Francesca Farioli, Alessandra ZamagniAbstract:Purpose Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting Sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definitionofa common scientificparadigminwhich integrationand interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to Sustainability Assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for Sustainability Assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive Sustainability Assessment. Methods The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those
-
Progress in Sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for Sustainability Assessment: Part 1
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013Co-Authors: Serenella Sala, Francesca Farioli, Alessandra ZamagniAbstract:Purpose Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting Sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definition of a common scientific paradigm in which integration and interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to Sustainability Assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for Sustainability Assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive Sustainability Assessment. Methods The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those life cycle based, supports the discussion on the main challenges for a comprehensive and robust approach to Sustainability Assessment. Starting from the results of the meta-review, we identified specific features of sustainable development-oriented methods: firstly, highlighting key issues towards robust methods for SS and, secondly, capitalising on the findings of each review’s paper. For each issue, a recommendation towards a robust Sustainability Assessment method is given. Existing limitations of sectorial academic inquiries and proposal for better integration and mainstreaming of SS are the key points under discussion. Discussion In the reviewed papers, LCT and its basic principles are acknowledged as relevant for Sustainability Assessment. Nevertheless, LCT is not considered as a reference approach in which other methods could also find a place. This aspect has to be further explored, addressing the lack of multi-disciplinary exchange and putting the mainstreaming of LCT as a priority on the agenda of both life cycle Assessment and Sustainability Assessment experts. Crucial issues for further developing Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods have been identified and can be summarised as follows: holistic and system wide approaches, shift from multi- towards trans-disciplinarity; multi-scale (temporal and geographical) perspectives; and better involvement and participation of stakeholders. Conclusions Those are also the main challenges posed to LCSA in terms of progress of ontology, epistemology and methodology in line with the progress of SS. The life cycle-based methodologies should be broadened from comparing alternatives and avoiding negative impacts, to also proactively enhancing positive impacts, and towards the achievement of Sustainability goals.
Jenny Pope - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reconceptualising Sustainability Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2017Co-Authors: Jenny Pope, Alan Bond, Jean Huge, Angus Morrison-saundersAbstract:Sustainability Assessment as an ex ante tool for directing decision-making towards Sustainability has emerged in a diverse range of forms across the world over the past decade or so. This broad practice of Sustainability Assessment embraces a wide and continually evolving range of processes, making the field potentially conceptually confusing and difficult to navigate. In recognition of this, there have been numerous attempts to develop conceptual frameworks to make sense of the diversity of practice. Through a process of literature review and reflection upon practice, this paper builds on earlier work, including our own, to develop a new descriptive conceptual framework for Sustainability Assessment. The conceptual framework distinguishes two dimensions of Sustainability Assessment, each with several sub-dimensions: Sustainability concept (with sub-dimensions of underpinning Sustainability discourse and representation of Sustainability) and decision-making context (with sub-dimensions of subject of Assessment, decision-question and responsible party). Drawing upon further literature, several examples of different approaches are then identified for each sub-dimension, demonstrating the range of approaches evident within current and emerging global practice. Within the ‘Sustainability concept’ dimension, the first sub-dimension calls for critical reflection upon what the normative goal of the Sustainability Assessment is, while the second refers to how the concept of Sustainability is represented in the decision-making process through the use of indicators. Although these two sub-dimensions are closely related their distinction is a key feature of the conceptual framework. The second dimension describes the practical context of a Sustainability Assessment. The proposed new conceptual framework enables a particular body of practice to be located within the broader field, as we demonstrate by categorising five examples of Sustainability Assessment according to the framework. We believe this framework has value to both researchers and practitioners, as a structure to guide Sustainability Assessment research and analysis and as the basis for comparing bodies of Sustainability Assessment practice within the range of possibilities defined by the contours of the framework. The framework encourages reflective practice, particularly in relation to how the concept of Sustainability is understood and embedded within the process, and what the practice might deliver. This new conceptual framework is presented as a relatively simple road map and guide as Sustainability Assessment theorising and practice enters its second decade.
-
conceptualising Sustainability Assessment
Pope J. Annandale D. and Morrison-Saunders A. (2016) Conceptualising sustainability assessment. In: Fischer T.B. (ed.) Environmental Assessment: Criti, 2016Co-Authors: Jenny Pope, David Annandale, Angus MorrisonsaundersAbstract:Sustainability Assessment is being increasingly viewed as an important tool to aid in the shift towards Sustainability. However, this is a new and evolving concept and there remain very few examples of effective Sustainability Assessment processes implemented anywhere in the world. Sustainability Assessment is often described as a process by which the implications of an initiative on Sustainability are evaluated, where the initiative can be a proposed or existing policy, plan, programme, project, piece of legislation, or a current practice or activity. However, this generic definition covers a broad range of different processes, many of which have been described in the literature as 'Sustainability Assessment'. This article seeks to provide some clarification by reflecting on the different approaches described in the literature as being forms of Sustainability Assessment, and evaluating them in terms of their potential contributions to Sustainability. Many of these are actually examples of 'integrated Assessment', derived from environmental impact Assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental Assessment (SEA), but which have been extended to incorporate social and economic considerations as well as environmental ones, reflecting a 'triple bottom line' (TBL) approach to Sustainability. These integrated Assessment processes typically either seek to minimise 'unSustainability', or to achieve TBL objectives. Both aims may, or may not, result in sustainable practice. We present an alternative conception of Sustainability Assessment, with the more ambitious aim of seeking to determine whether or not an initiative is actually sustainable. We term such processes 'Assessment for Sustainability'. 'Assessment for Sustainability' firstly requires that the concept of Sustainability be well-defined. The article compares TBL approaches and principles-based approaches to developing such Sustainability criteria, concluding that the latter are more appropriate, since they avoid many of the inherent limitations of the triple-bottom-line as a conception of Sustainability.
-
Handbook of Sustainability Assessment
2015Co-Authors: Angus Morrison-saunders, Jenny Pope, Alan BondAbstract:The Handbook of Sustainability Assessment introduces the theory and practice of Sustainability Assessment and showcases the state-of-the-art research. The aim is to provide inspiration and guidance to students, academics and practitioners alike and to contribute to the enhancement of Sustainability Assessment practice worldwide. It emphasises how traditional impact Assessment practices can be enhanced to contribute to sustainable outcomes. Featuring original contributions from leading Sustainability Assessment researchers and practitioners, it forms part of the Research Handbooks on Impact Assessment series.
-
Towards Sustainability Assessment follow-up
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2014Co-Authors: Angus Morrison-saunders, Jenny Pope, Alan Bond, Francois RetiefAbstract:This paper conceptualises what Sustainability Assessment follow-up might entail for three models of Sustainability Assessment: EIA-driven integrated Assessment, objectives-led integrated Assessment and the contribution to Sustainability model. The first two are characterised by proponent monitoring and evaluation of individual impacts and indicators while the latter takes a holistic view based around focused Sustainability criteria relevant to the context. The implications of three Sustainability challenges on follow-up are also examined: contested time horizons and value changes, trade-offs, and interdisciplinarity. We conclude that in order to meet these challenges some form of adaptive follow-up is necessary and that the contribution to Sustainability approach is the best approach.
-
Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in Sustainability Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2013Co-Authors: Angus Morrison-saunders, Jenny PopeAbstract:One of the defining characteristics of Sustainability Assessment as a form of impact Assessment is that it provides a forum for the explicit consideration of the trade-offs that are inherent in complex decision-making processes. Few Sustainability Assessments have achieved this goal though, and none has considered trade-offs in a holistic fashion throughout the process. Recent contributions such as the Gibson trade-off rules have significantly progressed thinking in this area by suggesting appropriate acceptability criteria for evaluating substantive trade-offs arising from proposed development, as well as process rules for how evaluations of acceptability should occur. However, there has been negligible uptake of these rules in practice. Overall, we argue that there is inadequate consideration of trade-offs, both process and substantive, throughout the Sustainability Assessment process, and insufficient considerations of how process decisions and compromises influence substantive outcomes. This paper presents a framework for understanding and managing both process and substantive trade-offs within each step of a typical Sustainability Assessment process. The framework draws together previously published literature and offers case studies that illustrate aspects of the practical application of the framework. The framing and design of Sustainability Assessment are vitally important, as process compromises or trade-offs can have substantive consequences in terms of Sustainability outcomes delivered, with the choice of alternatives considered being a particularly significant determinant of substantive outcomes. The demarcation of acceptable from unacceptable impacts is a key aspect of managing trade-offs. Offsets can be considered as a form of trade-off within a category of Sustainability that are utilised to enhance preferred alternatives once conditions of impact acceptability have been met. In this way they may enable net gains to be delivered; another imperative for progress to Sustainability. Understanding the nature and implications of trade-offs within Sustainability Assessment is essential to improving practice.
Angus Morrison-saunders - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reconceptualising Sustainability Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2017Co-Authors: Jenny Pope, Alan Bond, Jean Huge, Angus Morrison-saundersAbstract:Sustainability Assessment as an ex ante tool for directing decision-making towards Sustainability has emerged in a diverse range of forms across the world over the past decade or so. This broad practice of Sustainability Assessment embraces a wide and continually evolving range of processes, making the field potentially conceptually confusing and difficult to navigate. In recognition of this, there have been numerous attempts to develop conceptual frameworks to make sense of the diversity of practice. Through a process of literature review and reflection upon practice, this paper builds on earlier work, including our own, to develop a new descriptive conceptual framework for Sustainability Assessment. The conceptual framework distinguishes two dimensions of Sustainability Assessment, each with several sub-dimensions: Sustainability concept (with sub-dimensions of underpinning Sustainability discourse and representation of Sustainability) and decision-making context (with sub-dimensions of subject of Assessment, decision-question and responsible party). Drawing upon further literature, several examples of different approaches are then identified for each sub-dimension, demonstrating the range of approaches evident within current and emerging global practice. Within the ‘Sustainability concept’ dimension, the first sub-dimension calls for critical reflection upon what the normative goal of the Sustainability Assessment is, while the second refers to how the concept of Sustainability is represented in the decision-making process through the use of indicators. Although these two sub-dimensions are closely related their distinction is a key feature of the conceptual framework. The second dimension describes the practical context of a Sustainability Assessment. The proposed new conceptual framework enables a particular body of practice to be located within the broader field, as we demonstrate by categorising five examples of Sustainability Assessment according to the framework. We believe this framework has value to both researchers and practitioners, as a structure to guide Sustainability Assessment research and analysis and as the basis for comparing bodies of Sustainability Assessment practice within the range of possibilities defined by the contours of the framework. The framework encourages reflective practice, particularly in relation to how the concept of Sustainability is understood and embedded within the process, and what the practice might deliver. This new conceptual framework is presented as a relatively simple road map and guide as Sustainability Assessment theorising and practice enters its second decade.
-
Handbook of Sustainability Assessment
2015Co-Authors: Angus Morrison-saunders, Jenny Pope, Alan BondAbstract:The Handbook of Sustainability Assessment introduces the theory and practice of Sustainability Assessment and showcases the state-of-the-art research. The aim is to provide inspiration and guidance to students, academics and practitioners alike and to contribute to the enhancement of Sustainability Assessment practice worldwide. It emphasises how traditional impact Assessment practices can be enhanced to contribute to sustainable outcomes. Featuring original contributions from leading Sustainability Assessment researchers and practitioners, it forms part of the Research Handbooks on Impact Assessment series.
-
Towards Sustainability Assessment follow-up
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2014Co-Authors: Angus Morrison-saunders, Jenny Pope, Alan Bond, Francois RetiefAbstract:This paper conceptualises what Sustainability Assessment follow-up might entail for three models of Sustainability Assessment: EIA-driven integrated Assessment, objectives-led integrated Assessment and the contribution to Sustainability model. The first two are characterised by proponent monitoring and evaluation of individual impacts and indicators while the latter takes a holistic view based around focused Sustainability criteria relevant to the context. The implications of three Sustainability challenges on follow-up are also examined: contested time horizons and value changes, trade-offs, and interdisciplinarity. We conclude that in order to meet these challenges some form of adaptive follow-up is necessary and that the contribution to Sustainability approach is the best approach.
-
Designing an effective Sustainability Assessment process
2013Co-Authors: Alan Bond, Angus Morrison-saunders, Gernot StoeglehnerAbstract:At this stage of the book it should be clear that Sustainability Assessment is very complex and Sustainability Assessment needs careful design if it is to help to achieve sustainable development. Chapters 3 and 8 have set the scene for considering what matters in Sustainability Assessment, while chapters 9-12 provided examples of some existing practice which is summarised in this chapter in order to highlight the critical areas which need to be addressed if practice is to be considered effective (judged by our own evaluation framework). Chapters 13 and 14 dealt specifically with the issues of pluralism and knowledge and learning and we recognise that these are critical to effective Sustainability Assessment, and have provided some insights on the best ways forward. This chapter aims to help future practitioners navigate through the Sustainability Assessment design process. We argue that it is not (necessarily) appropriate to pick an off-the-shelf process, but that it is necessary to gain an understanding of the ways in which Sustainability Assessment will influence outcomes, values and perceptions so that it is designed to be fit-for-purpose. Indeed, the practice chapters have made it clear that in some countries, whilst the approaches taken have a Sustainability remit, this in no way relies on formal or legal process requirements. In designing Sustainability Assessment, our argument is that an effective Assessment process seeks to achieve the six imperatives of Sustainability (as set out in Chapter 1 by Gibson), which must always be considered as criteria against which the process will be tested, through achieving effectiveness in all aspects of the evaluation framework. If efforts are not made to achieve effectiveness in all aspects, there will be a gap between the aspiration of the Assessment process and the goals which are achieved.
-
Framework for comparing and evaluating Sustainability Assessment practice
2013Co-Authors: Alan Bond, Angus Morrison-saunders, Richard HowittAbstract:The aim of this chapter is to develop a framework to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment practice in different jurisdictions. To do this, it is important to clarify what is meant by effectiveness. Chapter 3 set out a typology of effectiveness criteria derived from the academic literature and identified that effective Sustainability Assessment involves procedural, substantive, transactive and normative elements. The key message from Chapter 3 is that effectiveness is difficult to measure in absolute terms because of the diverse and even divergent reference points against which effectiveness might be judged. Consequently, in comparing and evaluating Sustainability Assessment in different places, the way that the ecological, social, political and cultural pluralism that provides the context in which the work of Sustainability Assessment is done must be recognised and accommodated as a central point of any comparative discussion. The framework outlined in this chapter considers how this emerging field of practice integrates learning and knowledge into continuous improvement (Boothroyd et al., 1995; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009). Figure 8.1 depicts the four categories of effectiveness introduced in chapter 3, and incorporates the critical influences of pluralism, and knowledge and learning, into a typology that provides a coherent framework for comparative evaluation of Sustainability Assessment across different jurisdictions, times and approaches in terms of methods and data availability. We recognise that Sustainability Assessment is a relatively new practice, and that like any field of professional practice, it needs constant review, development and improvement within the community of practice. Therefore it is inappropriate to attempt to create here a single hard-and-fast set of criteria to compare and evaluate effectiveness. Rather, this section explores how both the formally prescribed operation of Sustainability Assessment (equivalent to external Sustainability Assessment as defined in chapter 7), and the less formal cultures of professional practice (equivalent to internal Sustainability Assessment as defined in chapter 7) are evolving in different places, and what that experience brings to the task of improving future Sustainability Assessments.
Serenella Sala - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
progress in Sustainability science lessons learnt from current methodologies for Sustainability Assessment part 1
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013Co-Authors: Serenella Sala, Francesca Farioli, Alessandra ZamagniAbstract:Purpose Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting Sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definitionofa common scientificparadigminwhich integrationand interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to Sustainability Assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for Sustainability Assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive Sustainability Assessment. Methods The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those
-
Progress in Sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for Sustainability Assessment: Part 1
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013Co-Authors: Serenella Sala, Francesca Farioli, Alessandra ZamagniAbstract:Purpose Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting Sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definition of a common scientific paradigm in which integration and interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to Sustainability Assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for Sustainability Assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive Sustainability Assessment. Methods The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those life cycle based, supports the discussion on the main challenges for a comprehensive and robust approach to Sustainability Assessment. Starting from the results of the meta-review, we identified specific features of sustainable development-oriented methods: firstly, highlighting key issues towards robust methods for SS and, secondly, capitalising on the findings of each review’s paper. For each issue, a recommendation towards a robust Sustainability Assessment method is given. Existing limitations of sectorial academic inquiries and proposal for better integration and mainstreaming of SS are the key points under discussion. Discussion In the reviewed papers, LCT and its basic principles are acknowledged as relevant for Sustainability Assessment. Nevertheless, LCT is not considered as a reference approach in which other methods could also find a place. This aspect has to be further explored, addressing the lack of multi-disciplinary exchange and putting the mainstreaming of LCT as a priority on the agenda of both life cycle Assessment and Sustainability Assessment experts. Crucial issues for further developing Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods have been identified and can be summarised as follows: holistic and system wide approaches, shift from multi- towards trans-disciplinarity; multi-scale (temporal and geographical) perspectives; and better involvement and participation of stakeholders. Conclusions Those are also the main challenges posed to LCSA in terms of progress of ontology, epistemology and methodology in line with the progress of SS. The life cycle-based methodologies should be broadened from comparing alternatives and avoiding negative impacts, to also proactively enhancing positive impacts, and towards the achievement of Sustainability goals.
Francesca Farioli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
progress in Sustainability science lessons learnt from current methodologies for Sustainability Assessment part 1
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013Co-Authors: Serenella Sala, Francesca Farioli, Alessandra ZamagniAbstract:Purpose Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting Sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definitionofa common scientificparadigminwhich integrationand interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to Sustainability Assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for Sustainability Assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive Sustainability Assessment. Methods The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those
-
Progress in Sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for Sustainability Assessment: Part 1
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013Co-Authors: Serenella Sala, Francesca Farioli, Alessandra ZamagniAbstract:Purpose Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting Sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definition of a common scientific paradigm in which integration and interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to Sustainability Assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for Sustainability Assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive Sustainability Assessment. Methods The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those life cycle based, supports the discussion on the main challenges for a comprehensive and robust approach to Sustainability Assessment. Starting from the results of the meta-review, we identified specific features of sustainable development-oriented methods: firstly, highlighting key issues towards robust methods for SS and, secondly, capitalising on the findings of each review’s paper. For each issue, a recommendation towards a robust Sustainability Assessment method is given. Existing limitations of sectorial academic inquiries and proposal for better integration and mainstreaming of SS are the key points under discussion. Discussion In the reviewed papers, LCT and its basic principles are acknowledged as relevant for Sustainability Assessment. Nevertheless, LCT is not considered as a reference approach in which other methods could also find a place. This aspect has to be further explored, addressing the lack of multi-disciplinary exchange and putting the mainstreaming of LCT as a priority on the agenda of both life cycle Assessment and Sustainability Assessment experts. Crucial issues for further developing Sustainability Assessment methodologies and methods have been identified and can be summarised as follows: holistic and system wide approaches, shift from multi- towards trans-disciplinarity; multi-scale (temporal and geographical) perspectives; and better involvement and participation of stakeholders. Conclusions Those are also the main challenges posed to LCSA in terms of progress of ontology, epistemology and methodology in line with the progress of SS. The life cycle-based methodologies should be broadened from comparing alternatives and avoiding negative impacts, to also proactively enhancing positive impacts, and towards the achievement of Sustainability goals.
