See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249060842

Backcasting - A framework for for strategic planning

Article  in  The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology · December 2000
DOI: 10.1080/13504500009470049

CITATIONS READS

290 9,116

2 authors:

John Holmberg Karl-Henrik Robèrt

Chalmers University of Technology Blekinge Institute of Technology
53 PUBLICATIONS   2,583 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   3,990 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WICKED PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION: Preparing Future Engineers to Work for Sustainability View project

TransBaltic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Karl-Henrik Robèrt on 21 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Backcasting from non-overlapping sustainability principles

— a framework for strategic planning

by

John Holmberga and Karl-Henrik Robèrta,b

aPhysical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University,

S-41296, Göteborg, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] (Corresponding author)

bThe Natural Step Foundation, Wallingatan 22, S-111 24 Stockholm, Sweden.

Abstract
Backcasting is a planning methodology that is particularly helpful when problems at hand are

complex and when present trends are part of the problems. When applied in planning towards

sustainability, backcasting can increase the likelihood of handling the ecologically complex

issues in a systematic and coordinated way, and also to foresee certain changes, even from a
self-beneficial point of view, of the market and increase the chances of a relatively strong

economic performance. To that end, backcasting should be performed from a set of non-
overlapping principles that are general enough to be helpful in the coordination of different

sectors of society and in business, as well as to cover relevant aspects of sustainability. Such
principles are helpful when developing reliable non-overlapping indicators for monitoring of

the development when coordinating various measures from different sectors of the society or
within individual firms with each other, and when handling trade-offs in a relevant way.

Furthermore, the transition can benefit from being undertaken in a strategic step-by-step
manner, by which such investments should be searched for that combine two qualities: (i)

technical flexibility to serve as platforms for future investments in line with non-overlapping

principles of sustainability, and (ii) good possibilities of giving relatively fast return on

1
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

investment. This framework for planning is developed together with the Natural Step, a non-

government organization, and in collaboration with a network of scientists and business.

Examples are given from firms applying the framework.

Key words: sustainability, socio-ecological principles, system conditions, strategic planning,

backcasting, the natural step

<heading level 1> 1. INTRODUCTION

Industrial society can be said to be a highly manipulated part of the natural ecosystem, but its

dependence on, and influence on, the natural ecosystems are determined by the same basic

laws of nature that are in operation in nature itself. Ever larger parts of nature are manipulated

to meet the demands of society, and ever-smaller parts can be said to be untouched by human

activities (Vitousek et al. 1997). In a world where soon 10 billion people will seek to meet

their needs, most people in business realize that, in some way, tomorrow's market place will

change. Many people also realize that we need to correct today's influence by the industrial

society on ecosystems. Industrial Ecology (IE) can be perceived as merging the aspects of

economy and ecology into one. From an intuitive level, it is close at hand to expect a strategic

step-by-step alignment of industrial activities with principles of sustainability to be good for

business. But, can we also find a logical rationale behind such a strategy? How can ecology

and economy be merged together into one strategy that makes sense in the short term as well

as in the long term, and from a business perspective as well as for the common good?

The need to identify business strategies for sustainable development, that are based on

systems thinking, is based on a number of observations:

_ Environmental problems have changed character towards a situation with: environmental

effects on larger scales, more diffuse emissions, longer time lags from cause to effect, and

with more actors involved. The environmental problems have thus expanded towards larger

2
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

complexity (Holmberg & Karlsson 1992). At the same time, Earth’s population is

increasing and is not expected to level off until around 10 billion people (United Nations

1992). Furthermore, the global per capita demand on energy increases (Lazarus 1993 and

Johansson et al. 1993), and the same is true for many other resources.

_ Many environmental problems are serious both in the sense that they are difficult to solve

and that they have potential for major adverse impacts. Marginal changes to deal with the

situation are not sufficient in many sectors of society.

_ The scientific uncertainty is huge for many environmental problems. As a consequence, the

debate in society often deals with one problem at a time in a fragmented fashion. The result

is often confusion and sub-optimized measures that are not integrated in a large enough

system perspective.

_ There is often a lack of logical rationales to deal with trade-offs. Most measures are such

that they lead to positive effects in certain aspects and negative in others. For instance, a

belt-way around a city that may decrease emissions in the city center, but decrease

ecologically fertile areas and increase the risks for an unwanted expansion of the number of

cars. Or, an investment in a process that will decrease emissions but that will use more

energy.

_ The costs for certain proactive investments are relatively simple to estimate, but the costs

for maintaining business as usual (for instance costs from deprivation of future ecological

values, or consequences of the polluter pays principle) is an even more complex issue. The

imbalance of reliability in estimates of marginal costs and marginal profits for proactivity

favors business as usual on the account of proactivity.

All the problems described above, adding to the complexity of problems linked to the fast

evolving field of Industrial Ecology, highlight the lack of a generally accepted framework for

discussing such problems and their solutions. This is also in line with the concluding

statements from the 1996 Norwegian Academy of Technological Science -seminar: “Industrial

Ecology and Sustainable Product Design” (Brattebø 1996). The importance of system thinking

has been pointed out by Bucciarelli (1998), who means that the design processes within the

3
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

field of IE is full of uncertainty and it is therefore a need to see the system as a whole to

consider the big picture. The designer must learn to strip away all that is irrelevant.

The connection between the field of IE and the concept of sustainable development has been

discussed by several authors (Frosch & Gallopoulos 1989; Ehrenfeld 1992; Socolow et al.

1994; Graedel & Allenby et al. 1995; Ayres & Ayres 1996; Allenby 1998). Bras (1996) writes

that the system focus of IE is on a meso level under sustainable development and over many

different tools and methodologies. This does not mean that one level is more important than

any other level. It means that the IE level also is very important and it is strongly related to the

discussion on sustainable development. Thus, IE is system analysis of the societal industrial

metabolism from a sustainability perspective. The analysis aims at identification of

characteristics in different energy and material flows as well as identification of restrictions

and possibilities for the adaptation of the societal metabolism to sustainability

The framework presented in this paper is not an alternative to other existing decision

supporting tools for reduced environmental impact, e.g., Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA),

streamlined LCA, Design for Environment (DfE), ecological footprint, factor x,

environmental space, or the environmental management systems ISO 14001, EMAS and

BS7750 (Vellinga et al. (1997) give a good overview of different tools). Instead, the

framework, which is based on a description of conditions for sustainability in the whole

ecosphere, highlights the need for those more specific tools, and can be helpful in

coordinating those to the benefit of the whole. Hence, the conditions for sustainability

presented in this paper can be used to guide specific tools for sustainable development.

Thus, this paper is one contribution to the important task of identifying frameworks which

focuses on the interface between sustainability and IE and, hence, can be helpful in guiding

many different planning processes and tools. Such a framework implies an important task

because when humans become aware of problems, and perceive them from a shared systems

perspective, we often have an ability to turn them into challenges and to find possibilities and

4
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

creative solutions. The role of a shared systems perspective to facilitate communication is

often underestimated. The importance of communication in IE has been pointed out by

Weijnen (1998), who says that in real IE projects it is seldom the technology, but rather the

communication, that is the stumbling block. This is also the experience from many proactive

firms and organizations (Nattrass & Altomare 1999).

There exists an extensive literature which discuss the societal interaction with the natural

environment (Boulding 1966; Ayres and Kneese 1969; Hart and Socolow 1971; Odum 1971;

Ehrlich and Holdren 1972; Meadows et al.1972; Geogescu-Roegen 1977; Prigogine and

Stengers 1984; Cleveland 1987; Martinez-Alier 1987; Costanza 1991; Daly 1992; Meadows
et al. 1992; Ayres and Simmonis 1995; Wackernagel and Rees 1996 to name a few) some

authors have tried to structure this information into operational principles for sustainability

(Daly 1990; Jacobs 1991; Goodland et al. 1992; Holdren et al 1992; Schmidheiny 1992). The

principles (system conditions) which are essential parts of the framework presented in this

paper have been presented before and compared with work of others (Holmberg 1995;

Holmberg et al. 1996; Holmberg & Robèrt 1997; Robèrt et al. 1997). In this paper we discuss

the rationale for — and prerequisites for — backcasting in planning for sustainable business,

and relate the principles to that purpose. Backcasting is a methodology for planning under

uncertain circumstances. In the context of sustainable development, it means to start planning

from a description of the requirements that have to be met when society has successfully

become sustainable, then the planning process proceeds by linking today with tomorrow in a

strategic way: what shall we do today to get there? What are the economically most effective

investments to make the society ecologically and socially attractive? In this paper we discuss

how backcasting differs from the more commonly referred to methodology of forecasting: and

deal with the following questions:

_ Is there a rationale from a business point of view for backcasting in planning for

sustainability?

5
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

_ If such a rationale can be found, how would a strategy for harvesting the potential self-

benefit be formulated?

_ What are the demands for making such a strategy effective? We discuss a set of non-

overlapping principles for sustainability and the rationale for them in this context.

This framework for planning, presented in this paper, is developed together with the Natural

Step, a non-government organization, and in collaboration with a network of scientists and

business. At the end of the paper we give examples from firms applying the framework.

<heading level 1> 2. BACKCASTING IN PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY

The future is often viewed through the mirror of the past. This can be risky, if past trends are

allowed to influence or even determine what is considered a realistic strategy. This is

particularly true if such factors are part, or even the main drivers, of the present problems. If

we look at the problem of non-sustainability, such factors could be today's use of fossil fuels,

today's accounting systems for economic performance (GNP), today’s traffic systems, and

today’s public knowledge about environmental issues. If those factors are allowed to be the

main determinants of what is taken to be relevant and realistic in the planning process, the

strategy is likely to transfer the problems that are due to these factors into the future

Backcasting stands out as an alternative to traditional forecast (Robinson 1990). It is a method

in which the future desired conditions are envisioned and steps are then defined to attain those

conditions, rather than to take steps that are merely a continuum of present methods

extrapolated into the future. Backcasting is particularly useful when (Dreborg 1996):

• The problem to be studied is complex.

• There is a need for major change.

• Dominant trends are part of the problem.

• The problem to a great extent is a matter of externalities.

6
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

• The scope is wide enough and the time horizon long enough to leave considerable room

for deliberate choice.

In order to illustrate the backcasting methodology, we can see what it will imply for Life

Cycle Assessments (LCA): Most of the LCA done today are calculated with data from today's

situation, e.g., calculations are based on today’s use of fossil fuels in electricity production

and for transportation. From a backcasting perspective these LCA should be complemented

with assessments that instead assume that the product or process exists in a sustainable

society. What parameters will change when the whole society has a sustainable metabolism?

The reason for doing this must not solely be to inspire altruism. It is rather a method to get

early warning signals for when long-term investments based on today's structure can lead to

dead ends and when marginal changes are not enough, i.e., when technological leaps are

required. Marginal changes can be counter productive, even if they are reducing today’s

impact on nature. Marginal changes of an old system can lock up resources that could be used

in a strategically smarter way.

<heading level 2> 2.1 Business rational for backcasting in sustainable development

Firstly, backcasting allows for a departure from present unsustainable extrapolations to attain

new goals and define new conditions. The ability of backcasting to deal with the kind of
complexity that is caused by conflicts between short term and long term is an advantage in

itself once the decision for proactivity is made.

Secondly, backcasting can be applied to foresee certain changes in legislation or on the

market, thereby being helpful in finding business opportunities and avoiding risks. When the

consequences of non-sustainability are considered, it is often seen from an altruistic point of

view, putting mainly ethical demands on business. Here, backcasting can be helpful in

expanding the perspective. If the individual firm is considered from a backcasting perspective,

7
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

this can be done either from a sustainable future or from a future where we continue to

decrease the prerequisites for future generations.

Let us start from the less favorable alternative. In this case, degradation of the environment

goes on due to insufficient proactivity in business and, or, politics. The room for maneuver

will decrease more and more the longer it takes for the society to become sustainable. The

prices for resources (especially renewable resources) are then likely to increase, and so will

the costs for management of growing amounts of waste. Avoiding being a relatively large

contributor to this problem, i.e., using less resources and producing less waste per added

value, is a way of avoiding growing economical risks. Further, it is reasonable to assume that

the risks are especially high if such economical dependence is based on investments with long

pay-off times. Examples of other risks, where the same type of reasoning can be applied as on

costs for resources and management of waste, are: increased costs and prices for insurance,

taxes, and loans on activities with relatively large impacts on the environment. Finally, there

will probably be disadvantages with regard to sudden losses in credibility in a number of

important areas, such as finance institutes, the market and amongst employees. This is often

forgotten when proactive measures are discussed only in economic terms. One of the most

common arguments for a passive attitude is that the market is not prepared to pay for the

needed development costs. But making good business is not only to get paid, but also to avoid

unnecessary costs today and in the future. Of course we cannot foresee exactly how large the

costs for a certain non-sustainable activity will be, exactly when it will happen, and if the

polluter in each given situation will be forced to pay or not. But it is obvious that the chances

for the individual polluter to avoid his or her individual economical responsibility will decline

over time, as long as the decline in resources and assimilation capacity leaves less room for

maneuver.

If we go on and back-cast from a presumptive sustainable future, the result is similar. Costs

and other problems are likely to increase for the same non-sustainable activities, even if the

mechanisms may then be different. Green taxes and legislation, and, or, more and more

8
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

socially and ecologically concerned competitors in a more and more responsible market, will

create the same consequences for a relatively non-proactive business.

So, from an overall point of view, the conditions for business on the future market are likely

to change in such a way that firms that can satisfy the needs of their customers with less and

less impact on the ecosystems will have greater chance of being economically successful. We

still need to handle the problem of balancing marginal costs for investments that reduce the

risks for not being proactive, with the marginal profits. But the potential self-benefit is there,

and the rest is a matter of timing, strategic planning and economic risk assessments. There are

economic risks with most investments, and particularly when the investment is part of

transition into something new and unknown. On the other hand, since change in this case is

necessary, there is also a risk in doing nothing. For decision-making, these risks should be

balanced. The intellectual demands on the rationales for business as usual should not be

weaker than on the rationales for proactivity. In practical terms, this means that the risk in

making progress too fast must be balanced with the risk of being too late. In conclusion, this

reasoning creates a logically motivated potential for self-benefit in proactive planning – partly

by the possibility of being rewarded by the market, partly by avoiding risks that will increase

relatively more amongst non-proactive competitors. This will be further discussed in section

4.

<heading level 2> 2.2. A strategy to harness the potential self-benefit of backcasting from
future sustainable business.

Once a firm has decided to go for a certain vision where its impact on ecosystems are minimal
in relation to its efficiency in providing services to the market, the overall strategy to link

short term with long term follows from plain logic. Two qualities of all investments should be
combined, particularly when large resources are bound:

(i) Investments should be technically and ecologically as flexible as possible platforms for

further investments in line with the vision of sustainability, and

9
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

(ii) amongst the various flexible alternatives, the low hanging fruits should be picked first,

i.e., measures that give early return on investment. It relates to the need of aligning the

long-term goal with the short-term economic reality.

The rationale lies in the combining of the two qualities, i.e., in the same time as each measure

is designed to fit a path towards sustainability, the measures must also pay off soon enough. In

this way, chances of optimizing future progress get fueled by a relatively stronger economy in

a positive spiral. If the qualities are not combined, the actor might run out of money, find their

competitive position diminished (Esty and Porter 1998), or pick low hanging fruits in a sub-

optimized way (Lovins, Lovins & Weizsäcker 1997).

In practical terms, the strategy is followed by posing questions of the following kind:

_ Will this measure bring us closer to sustainability and is our perspective broad enough

socially and ecologically to determine this? For instance, will it reduce our dependence on

emitting such compounds that are today accumulating in the ecosphere? Is our focus local,

or do we have a global perspective? Is our focus on human services, or on traditional

commodities to provide those services? There are numerous companies that have already

emerged from the danger of traditional thinking, companies that sell preservation of food at

home rather than refrigerators, fast and nutritious food at a low price rather than

hamburgers, and light and indoor climate rather than kilowatt-hours. This is to get rid of

such restrictions to creativity that are due to traditional thinking, and to open up avenues

for creative measures and strategies in a market that gets more and more globalized.

_ Is this measure taken a platform for the next? Will it be possible to go from there to the

next step, and reduce our impact on nature even more? For instance, applying this more

efficient technology on renewable resources? There are car-companies that are planning to

introduce cars with an efficient fuel cell that can utilize the existing structure of petrol

stations because petrol can be reformed into hydrogen aboard the vehicle. In this way, the

market for hydrogen, or hydrogen-rich renewable fuels, can be created.

10
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

_ Is the measure a low hanging fruit? Can it save resources and money? Will it give early

return on investment? Can today’s structure - infrastructure or other examples of technical

design - be utilized? Does the demand already exist somewhere in the market?

<heading level 2> 2.3. Non-linear evolution on the market further emphasizes the need for
backcasting.

If, for instance, incompetence and lobbying would successfully keep the market and

politicians complacent, this will create a growing gap between what is going on and what

should be going on. In this gap the damage to nature will increase, and policy and market

reactions can occur more and more abruptly due to various threshold effects. Such threshold

effects exist in ecosystems, and they exist in society when the spread of knowledge is

eventually leading to changes on the market. This means that the difference in future stakes

between proactive and reactive companies will probably be larger - not smaller - the slower

the market and politicians reacts. And the reverse is also true: the faster and more powerfully

the market and politicians put demands on sustainable development, the smaller the difference

will probably be between proactive companies and the companies that only react to signals or

stimuli on the market.

It is true that proactive companies can move ahead only at a relatively slower pace if the

market is lethargic (Esty and Porter 1998). But the point is that they can prepare themselves

and avoid sudden and perhaps overwhelming demands for solutions – for instance by

developing pilot projects and identifying proactive market niches. When backcasting is used

in planning, realism should only be allowed to determine the pace by which transition can

occur, not the direction.

<heading level 2> 2.4. A frame given by principles – a prerequisite for rational backcasting

Backcasting takes its starting point from a future situation. In order to find flexible strategies

for the transition, it is important not to try to view the future situation in detail, but rather to

11
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

find guiding principles, which can act as a frame for many possible futures. How can such

principles be defined regarding sustainability?

Experience tells us that individuals are generally very clever in discovering guiding principles

even in complex problems, and then in aligning the details of the planning with the principles.

Let’s say that a family is going to move from Chicago into a new house in Miami, because the

family members have got new jobs there. The house-moving-project is in fact a complex

project, with many details that must be aligned with a set of guiding principles of this project:

(i) the house must be located in a way that makes it possible for the family members to make

it in time to their jobs and back, (ii) they must be able to afford the new living, (iii) it must

meet certain individual minimal requirements of the family (e.g., number of bedrooms) and

(iv) it must meet certain overall demands on the house itself (decent enough indoor climate).

Those principles are functionally different and cover aspects that are relevant. This means that

the planning proceeds from a backcasting perspective, where all these principles are met.

What shall we do today, to make all details in the planning coherent with those principles?

For instance, the first principle can be met either with public transport (which often creates

restrictions as regards possible areas to live in), or with one or more cars (which expands the

possible area, but negatively influence the second condition, which in turn may influence the

options as regards details to meet the third and fourth principles). If the family was not aware

of the principles of the project, and clever enough to organize the details in a dynamic way so

that they fit all principles, they might end up in a castle in New Jersey they couldn’t afford,

trying to figure out what went wrong. This generally doesn’t happen when individuals are

planning their own lives, because individuals are clever in systems-planning, the

consequences of failure are often very direct, and there is no one else to blame.

The challenge is to make a group of individuals, like a business corporation, municipality, or

country, operate with a shared mental framework based on principles so that they can function

as teams. What are the principles for a successful planning, and who is responsible for that

those are taken into account? This is an important challenge, because when the project

12
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

boundaries are even larger than in the house moving example, like in the project ‘moving into

a sustainable company’, the need for principles to coordinate it all are at least as large. How

does the company align its tools for this purpose (e.g., LCA, ISO 14000, and indicators for

environmental auditing) with a future perspective in which the principles for sustainability are

met?

To harvest as much as possible of the potential economic and ecological benefit of

backcasting, it should be performed from a framework set by principles for sustainability of

the whole ecosphere. The future cannot be foreseen, but its principles can. Without such a

framework, the strategically desirable flexibility of investments can be difficult to achieve,

and much of the potential of backcasting in line with the above, can be lost. Such principles

can be helpful when developing reliable non-overlapping indicators for monitoring

development, when coordinating various measures from different sectors of the society, or

within individual firms with each other, and when handling trade-offs in an optimized way.

To fit the methodology of backcasting, they should be principles of the outcome

(sustainability), not the transition (sustainable development). Further, in order to be general

enough to cover relevant aspects of sustainability, allow coordination on various levels, and

still avoid overlapping, they should be first-order principles. This is exemplified by the

‘house-moving’ example above. Thus, by first-order principles of a system, we mean the core
principles that provide the overall description of the system. Parts of the system and other

principles of the system can be related to the first-order principles. Soccer or chess, for
instance, are defined by the first-order principles of these games — the objectives and the

rules of the games — not by various exercises, strategies, and skills to become a good player.

But, in order to become a good player, the starting point is to learn about the objectives and

rules. This is the easy part. After that, the more advanced and demanding training to become a

good player begins. The strategies and skills are then elaborated in line with the first-order

principles. Hence, by first-order we do not mean more important than anything else. It is

rather the opposite way around. Out of respect for the important knowledge that is needed to

deal with the complexity in a system it is often helpful to try to identify first-order principles

13
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

for the system. The system conditions presented in the next section are aimed to be first-order

principles of sustainability. It is easy to understand that they must be complemented with

much knowledge about the complex interaction between society and nature. There are so

many complex questions that need to be addressed in sustainable development that the first-

order principles themselves cannot answer. But, the experience from several firms,

municipalities, and organizations is that they can make more sense of and coordinate the

complex information and questions. We have developed the system conditions to be used in

backcasting and the aim is that these first-order principles shall support the following aspects:

_ simplicity without reduction — they aim at making it simpler to deal with complexity, yet

don’t simplify in the sense of disregarding any of the complexity (Broman et al. 1998).

_ valid at various scales — this makes it easier to coordinate various parts and details to meet

the first-order principles.

_ shared mental framework — it is easier to make teams or groups of people share the first-

order principles of a vision, than to make them share detailed pictures of the vision.

_ non-prescriptive — creativity is supported if experts in various fields share the framework

for planning on a principle level, but are allowed to be free to handle the concrete details

within that framework.

_ thinking upstream in causal chains — upstream causes of any problem can often more

easily be properly understood and addressed than the complexity downstream. Analyses of

detailed downstream problems can then flow more logically.

_ they can make more sense of tools like ISO 14000 and LCA — such tools do not in

themselves contain a framework for successful planning, or a vision.

As was mentioned in the introduction, there have been several attempts to develop principles

for sustainability, which are intended to be supportive when the broad concept of

sustainability is discussed (Daly 1990; Jacobs 1991; Goodland et al. 1992; Holdren et al 1992;

Schmidheiny 1992; Holmberg et al. 1996). The suggested principles are in most cases not

meant to be prescriptive, but rather to help different actors to structure there views of

14
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

sustainability and hence guide them when they ask themselves relevant questions. The system

conditions have been further elaborated and compared with principles suggested by others in

previous publications (Holmberg 1995; Holmberg et al. 1996; Holmberg & Robèrt 1997;

Robèrt et al. 1997). Here we discuss the rationale for applying them for the presented purpose.

<heading level 1> 3. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE SYSTEM CONDITIONS

Since there is probably no limit to the number of possible designs of sustainable societies, the

definition must be searched for on the principle level – any sustainable society would meet

such principles. Since sustainability was a non-relevant expression until non-sustainability

started to exist due to human activities, it is logical to design the system conditions as

restrictions, i.e., principles that determine what human activities must not do. In what

principle ways could we destroy the ecosphere's ability to sustain us?

Humans can destroy the functions and biodiversity of the ecosphere1 by:

1. A systematic increase in concentration of matter that is net-introduced into the ecosphere

from outside.
2. A systematic increase in concentration of matter that is produced within the ecosphere.

3. A systematic physical deterioration (harvesting and manipulation) of the ecosphere’s ability

to utilize waste as building blocks for primary production, and to provide other essential

functions.

The system conditions are phrased as not allowing the destruction of the ecosphere, by adding
a negation to these principles for destruction:

In order for a society to be sustainable, nature's functions and diversity are not systematically2:

I. ... subject to increasing concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;

II. ... subject to increasing concentrations of substances produced by society;

15
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

III. … impoverished3 by over-harvesting or other forms of ecosystem manipulation

Together, the three first system conditions give a framework for ecological sustainability. It

implies a set of restrictions within which the sustainable societal activities must be

incorporated. Based on that reasoning, a first-order principle for the society's internal turnover

of resources is formulated – the fourth principle:

IV. ...resources are used fairly and efficiently in order to meet basic human needs world wide.

<heading level 2> 3.1. Clarification of the system conditions

I. The societal influence on the ecosphere due to accumulation of lithospheric material is

covered by the first principle. The balance of flows between the ecosphere and the

lithosphere must be such that concentrations of substances from the lithosphere do not

systematically increase in the whole ecosphere, or in parts of it. Besides the upstream

influence on this balance through the amounts of mining and choices of mined minerals,

the balance can be influenced by the quality of final deposits, and the societal

competence to technically safeguard the flows through recycling and other measures.

What concentration can be accepted in the long run depends on properties such as

ecotoxicity, here taken in a broad sense to include effects on the geophysical systems,

and bioaccumulation. Due to the complexity and delay mechanisms in the ecosphere, it

is often very difficult to foresee what concentration will lead to unacceptable

consequences. A general rule is not to allow societal-caused deviations from the natural

state that are large in comparison to natural fluctuations. In particular, such deviations

should not be allowed to increase systematically. Therefore, what must at least be

achieved is a stop to systematic increases in concentration. Depending on the

characteristics of the substance and the recipient, the critical concentrations differ. In

some recipients an increasing concentration of some substances can have a positive

effect before a further increase in concentration will be problematic. In other cases the

acceptable concentration has already been exceeded.

16
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

II. The societal influence on the ecosphere due to accumulation of substances produced in

society is covered by the second principle. It implies that the flows of societally

produced molecules and nuclides to the ecosphere must not be so large that they can

neither be integrated into the natural cycles within the ecosphere nor be deposited into

the lithosphere. The balance of flows must be such that concentrations of substances

produced in the society do not systematically increase in the whole ecosphere or in parts

of it. Besides the upstream influence on this balance through production volumes and

characteristics of what is produced, such as degradability of the produced substances, the

balance can be influenced by the quality of final deposits, and the societal competence to

technically safeguard the flows through measures such as recycling and incineration.

III. The societal influence on the ecosphere due to manipulation and harvesting of funds and

flows within the ecosphere is covered by the third principle. It implies that the resource

basis for: (i) productivity in the ecosphere such as fertile areas, thickness and quality of

soils, availability of fresh water, and (ii) biodiversity is not systematically deteriorated by

over-harvesting, mismanagement or displacement.

IV. The internal societal metabolism and the production of services to the humans are

covered by the fourth principle. It implies that if the societal ambition is to meet human

needs (at least basic human needs) everywhere today and in the future, while conforming

to the restrictions with regard to available resources given by the first three principles,
then the use of resources must be efficient in meeting these needs. If we are more

efficient, technically, in organization and socially, more services with the possibility of

meeting more human needs can be provided for a given level of impact in nature.

Efficiency in that context, if the perspective is large enough, implies not only reduced

resource flows per utility, but also improved means of dealing with social issues like

equity, fairness, and population growth.

<heading level 2> 3.2. Three levels of complexity

17
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, of phosphorous in lakes, of heavy

metals in soils and in our bodies, and increasing amounts of DDT and PCB in biota and

radioactive gases in the atmosphere are examples of accumulation covered by the system

conditions one and two. Deforestation, erosion, extinction of species, and ground water

depletion are examples of physical deterioration of nature (system condition three) that

decreases its resilience and capacity to assimilate waste4.

Deleterious effects in the ecosphere occur when accumulation has resulted in increases in

concentration of substances beyond a certain level which is often difficult to foresee (due to

the complexity and delay mechanisms in the ecosphere). We can identify three levels of

complexity in the risk assessment following accumulation of waste:

I. Accumulation of waste occurs when emissions are higher than the assimilation capacity of

the recipient.

II. Effects in the ecosystems are linked (often non-linearly linked) to concentrations. Moving

the focus upstream, the potential magnitude of these concentrations can be estimated already

before the compounds have reached nature. This enables priorities in society’s preventative
measures to be adopted well before the mechanisms for destruction in nature are explicitly

known or identified. Our first three system conditions deal with this level. In Holmberg et al.
(1996) we give examples on two types of such indicators: (i) the antropogenic flow of

different elements from the lithosphere to the ecosphere (mining and flows associated with
fossil fuels) compared with the natural flows from the lithosphere to the ecosphere

(weathering and volcanic activities); (ii) the accumulated mining of different elements
compared with the amount in the top soil layer. Both of these indicators show that the

antropogenic flows are large compared to the natural flows for many metals, e.g., the societal
flow of copper exceeds the natural flow by a factor of 20. These two indicators focus on the

intake of substances to society. They, therefore, give a very rough indication of potential

increase of concentration. More such indicators are given by Azar et al. (1995). The actual

18
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

leakage to nature depends on how the metals are used in society. Bergbäck (1992) has

estimated the actual leakage of some heavy metals from the production and the consumption

sector of the Swedish economy. He has also compared these flows with a rough estimate of

the natural flows in Sweden. Tyler (1993) has taken a further step in the causal chain and

compared the actual heavy metal load with the natural baseline concentration in Swedish

forest soils. He has found that the critical concentrations (lowest concentrations for

measurable adverse effects) are three to five times the current baseline values for Cd, Cu, Pb,

Zn, Hg, and Ni.

III. For the same relative increases in concentration, the magnitudes of deleterious effects vary

with different substances, the chemical form of the substance, the physical characteristics of

the recipient (e.g., temperature, pH), the biological characteristics (e.g., the uptake, other kind

of stress) The correlation to concentration is therefore often non-linear and environmental

effects are characterized by threshold effects. Furthermore, the natural baseline concentrations

also vary in different sites and over time. All these complex problems are layered on top of

level II.

Problems inherent in the assessment of the effects on level III, do not justify negligence to

assess levels I and II. In fact, any problem concerning the difficulties to assess complexity – or

trusting data – on levels I and II is often severely magnified on level III. Furthermore,

considerations on levels I and II make it possible to avoid future damage that is hitherto

unknown. Consequently, measures should be performed on all levels. In spite of this, reality

often shows us that most work is performed on levels III instead of levels I and II. One

explanation for this can be that the focus has traditionally been on occupational health (often

acute effects) rather than long term ecotoxity.

<heading level 2> 3.4. Principles as minimum requirements

19
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

For some substances the system conditions have been violated for so long that the system

conditions have turned into minimum requirements. Certain compounds have already reached

such concentrations in nature that they are causing harm. There are numerous examples, for

instance CFC:s, nitrogen compounds and some heavy metals. In those cases we are facing two

problems: first the concentration must be decreased to an acceptable level, and then we must

meet the principles.

<heading level 2> 3.5. Complementary principles

Intensive farming may effect all system conditions – the problems that are associated with the

accumulation in the soil of cadmium and other heavy metals contaminating the phosphate

fertilizers (system condition 1), accumulation of pesticides in soils and emissions of nitrogen

compounds into bodies of water (system condition 2), manipulation causing erosion and

depletion of soil minerals and loss of biodiversity (system condition 3) and various examples

of inefficiency in the use of resources, functioning as drivers of the problems above (system

condition 4). However, the fact that many conditions can be effected at the same time in a

certain process does not mean that the conditions are functionally overlapping. An analogy

could be when the gearbox and the engine go to pieces at the same time in a car; they are
functionally separate technical systems even if they are combined in the same overall

technical system. It should be noted that system condition 4, which focus on the internal
societal resource turnover, of course influences the possibility to deal with the other three

system conditions. Still they do not overlap functionally as mechanisms.

<heading level 2> 3.6. Distinction between principles for sustainability, principles for

sustainable development, and means to meet such principles

When applying the methodology of planning suggested in this paper, it is essential to

distinguish principles of sustainability (the system conditions), from principles of sustainable

20
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

development (e.g., precautionary principle and flexible platforms that are low hanging fruits)

and from means of sustainable development (e.g., renewable energy and recycling).

The first three system conditions constitute a definition of the goal of ecological sustainability.

This distinguishes them from the kind of principles that are formulated as means for reaching

sustainability. This point can be exemplified by the following: sometimes renewable energy is

claimed to be a principle of sustainability. However, transformation into renewable energy is a

measure to meet the four system conditions. The rationale for renewable energy is that:

_ Compounds from the Earth’s crust such as fossil carbon forming carbon dioxide and

radioactive elements must not accumulate in the ecosphere (system condition 1).

_ Compounds that are produced in the energy conversion such as nitrogen oxides or

plutonium should not accumulate in the ecosphere (system condition 2).

_ The exploitation of energy sources must not destabilize the conditions which support the

life processes of Earth such as degradation of ecosystems in the sea due to drilling for, and

transportation of, oil, or degradation of ecosystems on land due to mining for uranium

(system condition 3).

_ We must not waste resources and eventually run out of our potential to meet human needs

further ahead (system condition 4).

Thus the system conditions underlie the idea of renewable energy. If this distinction is

forgotten we can end up with too many principles and numerous risks for misjudgments. One

example would be if we would meet the principle renewable energy through extensive

bioenergy plantation in tropical rain forests, leading to soil erosion and losses of biodiversity

(violation of S.C. 3). And, besides the risk of jumping from one problem to another, an

erroneous set of principles may also lead to unnecessary restrictions. It might be acceptable to

use non-renewable energy in a sustainable society even if it is used until the resource is

depleted – so long as the system conditions can be met. There is, for instance, an ongoing

discussion and experiments, on the possibility of sequestering of carbon dioxide from fossil

fuels in old natural gas wells or aquifers (Williams 1996).

21
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

<heading level 1> 4. MAKING THE SYSTEM CONDITIONS OPERATIONAL

To make the system conditions operational to the individual organization, we must first

elaborate them into the presented backcasting strategy.

<heading level 2> 4.1. Elaboration of the system conditions into guidelines

To meet the principles in the future, the whole civilization must – step by step – decrease its

economical dependence on:

_ Mining to cover dissipative use of fossil fuels and scarce metals, particularly such metals

that are already increasing in concentration in the ecosphere (system condition 1).

_ Dissipative use, as well as unintentional production of persistent compounds foreign to

nature, and of naturally occurring compounds that are already increasing in concentration

in the ecosphere (system condition 2).

_ Manipulation and over-harvesting of the ecosphere, causing reduced long term production

capacity and biodiversity (system condition 3).

_ Wasting of resources in relation to meeting human needs (system condition 4).

How these guidelines apply at the individual level can vary depending on agreements and

negotiations between actors within the society, but as a first approximation these guidelines

are also valid for each individual firm. Combined with the strategy of giving priority of such

investments that are flexible platforms and low hanging fruits, this creates a strategy for

systematic sustainable development that makes sense also from a business point of view, not

only for the common good, see figure 1. Examples will be given in section 4.3.

<heading level 2> 4.2. Economic risk assessment

22
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Those who want to apply this framework should be made aware of the difference between the

system conditions for sustainability on the one hand, and the consequences of the system

conditions as regards permitted flows of matter on the other. The total sustainable flows of

matter still remain to be calculated. However, one does not have to await detailed analysis of

those issues to apply the framework. Sometimes the permitted flows per capita are so close to

zero, e.g., concerning the dissipative use of mercury (system condition 1), that the lack of

concrete data is no problem for strategic planning. And, when the total permitted flows are
much higher, for instance concerning emissions of N2O (system condition 2), the relevant

questions can at least be raised: Is it possible that we – in our business corporation or

municipality – are investing ourselves into a dependence on N2O emissions that may exceed

our 'permitted' share of the total assimilation capacity of N2O? And even more intriguing: If
today's total emissions of N2O cause accumulation of this gas in the atmosphere, what is the

guarantee that the margins to severe problems related to further accumulation of N2O gives us

a secure life-span for this investment? In this way, the framework allows that the requirements

for proof are shifted from the public to the polluters and their investments. A clear and

stringent framework is helpful, even if it does not immediately lead you to very concrete

consequences regarding figures and measures. And conversely: the lack of very precise figures

does not justify ill-defined frameworks.

People at a large chemical company thought that system condition two was defined as

”phased-out production of persistent compounds foreign to nature”. However, this phrasing is

not system condition two, but an interpretation of system condition two. System condition

two reads: In order for the society to be sustainable, natures functions and diversity are not

systematically subject to increasing concentrations of substances produced by society.

Thereafter the intellectual and economic consequences must be drawn. The technical

problems and costs linked to a safeguarding of persistent compounds foreign to nature must

be compared with alternative compounds that fulfill the same function, but without requiring

technically difficult and costly solutions. To phase out persistent compounds foreign to nature

then often seems to be a wise strategy.

23
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

<heading level 2> 4.3. Applications

Together, the system conditions, and the presented backcasting strategy, provide a framework,

that can be applied for: (i) problem analyzing and designing of investment strategies, and (ii)

dialogue and as a shared mental model for community building.

Problem analyzing and designing of investment strategies

The long-term environmental problems can be discussed in a systematic way, system

condition by system condition for any field. Practical experience has been gathered in

scientific consensus building in Sweden. Thus, the quality of the framework to serve as an

instrument for systematic problem analyzing has been helpful in the preparation of consensus

documents, produced by invited experts from business and science about various problems

areas such as agriculture, forestry, the use of metals, the use of energy, political and

economical measures to support sustainable development and to design principles for local

agenda 21 planning. The result is often more challenging than when the discussion is focused

on what experts disagree upon. Firstly, the area of agreement is often larger than expected

and, secondly, often the dispute turns out to be about the different means to handle certain
requirements for sustainability rather than about the requirements themselves.

One interesting example from the work with the consensus documents is a document on

agriculture (Andersson et al. 1993). It was mutually produced by the Swedish farmer’s
federation, the Swedish federation of organic farming, and the Natural Step. The document

denotes a need for radical change of Swedish farming, and it has substantially influenced the
official policy on science and business in this field in Sweden (LRF 1997). Persson and

Christerson (1998), from the Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF), writes:

24
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

“In 1992, the LRF made a strategic choice of course. Our annual general assembly

formally committed the LRF to enhance its efforts to improve environmental

work and animal welfare in Swedish agriculture. The purpose was twofold: to

improve our competitive strength on a short-term basis and to achieve a

sustainable agriculture over the long term.

Strategic decisions always have to be made for the long term. That’s why it’s

essential to have a compass pointing in the desired direction. If we want to

achieve a sustainable agriculture, then we have to be able to describe what we

mean by sustainability.

To define a sustainable agriculture, the LRF and the Federation of Organic

Farmers — under the leadership of the environmental organization the Natural

Step — have produced a consensus document entitled the Vital Sector. That

document presents the framework for a sustainable agriculture. The document

was devised and has been reviewed by some 80 researchers in Sweden.”

An example from business is the way by which Electrolux phased out CFC:s. Introduction of

HCFC would have meant an improvement in relation to CFC as regards effects on the ozone

layer. However, backcasting from a future frame given by the system conditions led to the

following questions: can we trust that HCFC will be used large scale in the future, and if not,

would the developed technology for HCFC be able to apply for other substances that would be

less problematic from the system conditions point of view? The questions led to a completely

different strategy towards hydrocarbons, using R134a as a flexible platform (Robèrt 1997).

Electrolux was first in launching a whole family of freon-free refrigerators and freezers. The

result was increased market shares in several important markets. They also presented a new

overall business strategy, based on the system conditions (Electrolux 1994).

25
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Another example was given by Tachi Kiuchi, Chairman of The Future 500, Managing

Director of Mitsubishi Electric, at the Fifth International High-level Seminar on Cleaner

Production, Seoul 1998. After having described a number of investments that later on proved

to be costly dead ends (contributions to the violations of the system conditions), he proceeded:

"This is a typical example that demonstrate well the importance of understanding The Natural

Step's framework of thinking. The lesson is that severe environmental problems and business

setbacks are inevitable unless companies dedicate themselves to meeting the basic conditions

necessary for the sustainable development of our society". In similar ways, the framework has

been applied for strategic planning in a large number of Swedish corporations such as

manufacturers like JM Construction, trading-companies like IKEA, and service-companies

like Swedish McDonald. It influences the routines in all areas of business: purchase, transport,

choice of materials, product design, waste management and energy.

Dialogue and a shared mental model for community building

It is essential for groups of people to have a shared mental framework of principles, if they

want to function as an effective team. The ability of our framework to reach out in

organizations, to trigger creativity, and to make individual efforts aligned in a coordinated and

effective way, is described in a doctoral dissertation on the implementation process in five

corporations (Scandic Hotel, Interface, IKEA, Collins Pine, and Sånga Säby Conference hotel)

(Nattrass & Altomare 1999). The general conclusion from this study was the framework’s

capacity of creating a shared mental model – a language – that enabled a more effective and

creative dialogue between management and employees within the firm, and that a prerequisite

for this was the teaching of the framework to all employees. At Scandic Hotel, after the

framework had been explained to all employees, 1500 measures to bring the company closer

to be aligned with the system conditions were launched within one year. They were all a result

of suggestions given to the management team from the employees. The investments were all

low hanging flexible fruits. The suggestions that were too costly were listed and

communicated back to the employees as being on line for the future. One year after, 500 of

these higher hanging fruits, were launched (Nattrass & Altomare 1999).

26
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

<heading level 1> 5. CONCLUSION

Backcasting is a methodology of planning. The term refers to the idea of planning from a

future vision of a desirable outcome of the planning, followed by the question: what shall we

do today to get there? It is a complement to forecasting, and is particularly relevant when the

problems we are dealing with are complex, and when today’s trends are part of the problem.

One reason for using backcasting is the potential self-benefit in it (if there would be no self-

interest in it, backcasting would be useful only for policy making out of altruistic ambitions).

Firstly, when problems are complex, backcasting provides the possibility of a more reliable

and systematic approach of the planning procedure. Secondly, to systematically decrease ones

own contribution to non-sustainability, is a way to be prepared for future market changes and

to avoid costly head over heal measures that may otherwise occur. Some costs will increase,

either as a consequence of further ecological depravation, or as a consequence of active

political measures and proactive market demands to avoid such damage. Examples are

escalating costs of scarce and non-polluted resources, management of toxic waste,

differentiated green taxes, insurance, loans, bad reputation on the market, and competition

from those who plan their activities to avoid such problems.

In order to harvest the potential self-benefit from a backcasting planning procedure two

qualities of all investments should be combined, particularly when large resources are bound:

(i) Investments should be technically and ecologically as flexible as possible platforms for

further investments in line with the vision of sustainability, and

(ii) amongst the various flexible alternatives, the low hanging fruits should be picked first,

i.e. measures that give early return on investment. It relates to the need of aligning the

long-term goal with the short-term economical reality.

27
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

The rationale lies in the combining of the two qualities, i.e. in the same time as each measure

is designed to fit a path towards sustainability, the measures must also pay off soon enough.

Finally, to harvest as much as possible of the potential economic and ecological benefit of

backcasting, it should be performed from a frame set by principles for sustainability of the

whole ecosphere. The future cannot be foreseen, but its principles can. The system conditions

can be applied for this purpose. They are all principles of sustainability, not sustainable

development. That is a prerequisite for backcasting, since this methodology keeps principles

for a certain state (sustainability) apart from the methods of meeting them (sustainable

development). Further, they don't overlap functionally, and they cover relevant aspects of

sustainability.

Since the framework is constituted by principles, it is only useful for the overall structuring of

relevant questions, thoughts and measures. There will always be a need for more knowledge

to make the framework function efficiently during the transition towards sustainability, for

instance in order to make appropriate priorities (Spiro 1997). Sometimes we don't know if the

principles are met or not, and sometimes we have to violate the principles for a certain time

period because other aspects of social life, such as economy, make anything else impossible.

However, all the problems connected to violation of the system conditions exist whether we

are aware of them or not, or want to handle them in a structured way or not. Our experience is

that if the framework is applied in a non-prescriptive way to structure problems at hand, it is

helpful in problem analyzing, to design investment strategies, to facilitate dialog and to recruit

engagement, creativity and shared responsibility into the problem solving process.

By using the system conditions as a guide to what must be fulfilled in a future sustainable

society on a general level, different actors within business, organizations and municipalities

(who are experts within there own fields) can draw conclusions about what these restrictions

imply for their specific activities. A number of creative solutions have emerged from this

process in which they have used backcasting from the system conditions in a non-prescriptive

28
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

way. For instance, the first system condition rises the following question to an actor: will the

activity or investment cause emission (directly or indirectly) of substances extracted from the

lithosphere? And will they be a part of a flow that lead to systematically increased

concentrations in the ecosphere of elements extracted from the lithosphere? (Maybe some of

the actual elements are already known to cause harmful effects?) If this is the case, the next

question is then to figure out how this can be avoided. For different activities and investments

different actors find different solutions to e.g.: finding a substitute for the specific element or,

avoiding dissipative use, increasing the recycling, reducing the down-cycling or fulfilling the

same service with less of the material. The other system conditions can be used in the same

way.

In this paper we have described the framework from different points of view, and the

rationales for its different components. In recent and current studies, various aspects of

applying and implementing the framework is studied (Holmberg 1998; Nattrass & Altomare

1999). We are also studying how concepts like Ecological Footprint, LCA, ISO 14001 and

Factor X can be used in a backcasting perspective, utilizing the framework presented here.

(Holmberg et al. 1998; Andersson et al. 1998).

Acknowledgement

We want to thank Dean Abrahamson and Donald Aitken for valuable comments. The financial

support by Gothenburg Energy Ltd Research Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

29
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

30
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Reference List

Allenby, B.R. 1998. Industrial Ecology: Policy Framework and Implementation. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Andersson K., Høgaas Eide M., Lundqvist, U., and B. Mattson. 1998. The feasibility of

including sustainability in LCA for product development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 6,

289-298

Andersson R. et al, 1993. The vital sector. Swedish Farmers Federation; the Natural Step;

Swedish Federation of Organic Farmers, Stockholm, Sweden.

Ayres, R. and U. Simmonis (eds.), 1995. Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for SD. UN

University Press, Tokyo and New York.

Ayres, R. U. and A. V. Kneese. 1969. Production, consumption, and externalities. The

American Economic Review. 59:282-297

Ayres, R.U. and U.E. Simonis. 1994. Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable

Development. Tokyo/New York/Paris: United Nations University Press.

Ayres, R. U. and L. Ayres 1996. Industrial Ecology : Towards Closing the Materials Cycle.
Edward Elgar Publishers, London.

Azar, C., Holmberg, J., and K. Lindgren, 1995. Socio-ecological indicators for sustainability,

Ecological Economics, 18, 89-112

Bergbäck B. 1992. Industrial Metabolism the Emerging Landscape of Heavy Metal Immission

in Sweden, Ph.D. thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Boulding, K. E. 1966. The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. pp 3-14 In: H. Jarrett

(Ed.) Environmental quality in a growing economy. Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore, MD

31
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Bras, B. 1996, Current Educational Status, Interaction with Industry, and the Future of

Sustainable Development, NTVA-report 2: Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Product

Design, The Norwegian Academy of Technological Science, Norway.

Brattebø H. 1996 Industrial Ecology — Interdisciplinary perspectives and challenges, ,

NTVA-report 2: Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Product Design, The Norwegian

Academy of Technological Science, Norway.

Broman, G., Holmberg, J., and K-H. Robèrt, 1998. Simplicity without Reduction - Thinking

Upstream Towards the Sustainable Society, International Journal of the Institute of

Mangement Sciences and the Operations Research Society of America (In press)

Bucciarelli L. (1998) Project oriented learning as part of curriculum Development, NTVA-

seminar: Industrial Ecology and Curriculum, 15-16 October 1998. The Norwegian Academy

of Technological Science, Norway.

Cleveland, C. J. 1987. Biophysical economics: historical perspective and current research

trends. Ecological Modeling. 38:47-74.

Costanza, R., ed. 1991. Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability.

Columbia University Press, New York.

Daly, H. E. 1992. Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient,

just, and sustainable. Ecological Economics 6:185-193.

Daly, H. E., 1990. Towards some operational principles of sustainable development,

Ecological Economic,. 2, 1-6.

Dreborg, K. H., 1996. Essence of Backcasting, Futures, 28, 813-828.

Ehrenfeld, J. R. 1992, Industrial Ecology: A Technological Approach to Sustainability,

Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials 9(3):209-211.

32
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Ehrlich, P. and J. Holdren, 1972. One-dimensional ecology, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 28:5,

pp 16, 18-21.

Electrolux 1994. Electrolux annual report 1994.

Esty, D. C. and M. E. Porter 1998. Industrial Ecology and Competitiveness — Strategies

Implications for the Firm, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2, 35-43.

Frosch, R. A., and N. E. Gallopoulos. 1989. Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific

American 261 (3), 114-152.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1977. Matter matters, too pp. 293-313 in: K.D. Wilson (ed), Prospects

for growth: changing expectations for the future. Praeger, New York.

Goodland, R., H.E. Daly and S. El Serafy (eds.). 1992. Population, Technology Lifestyle: The

Transition to Sustainability. Washington, DC: Island.

Graedel, T.E. and B.R. Allenby. 1995. Industrial ecology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Hart J., and R.H. Socolow 1971. Patient Earth. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. New York .

Holdren, J. P., Daily, G. C. and P. R. Ehrlich, 1992. The Meaning of Sustainability:

Biogeophysical Aspects, Expended version of a keynote presentation at the International

Conference on the Definition and Measurement of Sustainability: The Biophysical

Foundations, Washington, DC, 22-25 June 1992.

Holmberg, J. 1998. Backcasting — a natural step when making sustainable development

operational for companies, Greener Management International, 23.

Holmberg, J., and S. Karlsson, 1992. On Designing Socio-Ecological Indicators, In: Svedin,

U. & Hägerhäll Aniansson, B. (eds), Society and Environment: A Swedish Research

Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

33
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Holmberg, J., 1995. Socio-Ecological Principles and Indicators for Sustainability, Ph.D.

Thesis, Institute of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.

Holmberg, J., and K.-H.Robèrt, 1997. The Rationale behind the System Conditions,

Department of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.

Holmberg, J., Robèrt, K.-H., and K.-E. Eriksson, 1996. "Socio-ecological principles for

sustainability", in: Costanza, R., Olman, S., and Martinez-Alier, J. (ed.), Getting Down to

Earth Ñ Practical Applications of Ecological Economics, International Society of Ecological

Economics, Island Press. Wasington.

Holmberg, J., Lundqvist, U., Robèrt, K.-H., and M. Wackernagel, 1998. Ecological footprint
from a systems perspective of sustainability, submitted for publication.

Jacobs, M., 1991. The Green Economy, Pluto Press, London.

Johansson, T. B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A. K. N., and R.H. Williams, 1993.Renewable fuels and

electricity for a growing world economy: defining and achieving the potential. In: Johansson,

T. B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A. K. N., &Williams, R.H. (Eds) Renewable Energy. Sources for

fuels and electricity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Lazarus, M., 1993. Towards a fossil free energy future—- the next energy transition.

Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston, and Greenpeace International,

Amsterdam.

Von Weiszäcker, E. U., A. B. Lovins, and L. H. Lovins. 1997. The factor four. Earthscan,

London.

LRF, 1997. Environmental report for Swedish Agriculture 1996/97, Federation of Swedish

farmers and Statistics Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden.

Martinez-Alier, J., 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment, and Society. Basil

Blackwell, Oxford.

34
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Meadows, D., Meadows, D. and J. Randers, 1992. Beyond the Limits. Toronto: McClelland &

Stewart Inc.

Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J. and W. Behrens, 1972. Limits to Growth. New York:

Universe Books.

Nattrass, B. and M. Altomare, 1999 (January), The Natural Step for Business: Wealth,

Ecology and the Evolutionary Corporation, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC and

Stony Creek, CT.

Odum, H. T., 1971. Environment, power and society. Wiley-Interscience, New York.

Persson, S. and P. Christerson, 1998. Swedish farmers towards sustainability, A report from

Federation of Swedish farmers, Stockholm, Sweden.

Prigogine I. and I. Stengers, 1984. Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature,

New York, Bantam Books.

Robèrt, K.-H., 1997, ICA/Electrolux – a case report from 1992, Presented at: 40th CIES

annual executive congress, 5-7 June, 1997, Boston.

Robèrt, K.-H., Daly, H., Hawken, P., and J. Holmberg, 1997, A Compass for Sustainable

Development. Int. J. Sustainan. Dev.World Ecol. 4 (1997) 79-92.

Robinson, J.B., 1990. Future under glass — A recipe for people who hate to predict, Futures

October 1990.

Schmidheiny S. 1992. Changing Course. Business Council for Sustainable Development

(BCSD). Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

Socolow, R., C. Andrews, F. Berkhout, and V. Thomas, eds. 1994. Industrial Ecology and

Global Change. Cambridge University Press.

Spiro. T. 1997. Comments in TNS/US newsletter - volume 1, number 3.

35
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Tyler, G., 1993. Critical Concentrations of Heavy Metals In the Mor Horizon of Swedish

Forests, Department of Ecology, Soil Ecology, University of Lund, Östra Vallgatan 14, S-223

61 Lund.

United-Nations, D. o. I. E. a. S. A., 1992. Long-range World Population Projections _Two

Centuries of Population Growth: 1950-2150. Department of International Economic and

Social Affairs. United Nations, New York.

Wackernagel, M. and W.E. Rees, 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact

on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Weijnen, M. 1998. Experiences at TU-Delft, NTVA-seminar: Industrial Ecology and

Curriculum, 15-16 October 1998. The Norwegian Academy of Technological Science,

Norway.

Williams, R. H., 1996. Fuel Decarbonization for Fuel Cell Applications and Sequestration of

the Separated CO2. CEES Report 295, Princeton University, New Jersey.

Vellinga, P, de Bruyn, S., Heintz, R., and P. Mulder (editors), Hertwich, E., Welch, E., de

Bruyn, S., Anderberg, S., Hinterberger, F., Yavuz, N. and A. Femia, (contributors), 1997.

Industrial Transformation — An Inventory of Research, A publication of RMNO and

IVM/SENSE, Free University of Amsterdam, NL.

Vitousek, P. M. et al., 1997. Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems, Science, 277, pp.

494-499.

36
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

Figure legend

Figure 1. The concentrations of substances extracted from the lithosphere and produced in

society are systematically increasing in the ecosphere and the long term productivity and

biodiversity are declining (system condition 1-3). This means that the resource-potential for

health and economy is systematically decreasing. At the same time, Earth's population is

increasing and since the efficiency of fulfilling human needs are relatively low the average

demand for resources are increasing (system condition 4). Non-sustainable development could

be visualized as entering deeper and deeper into a funnel, in which the space becomes

narrower and narrower. To the individual company, municipality, or country - wanting to

make skillful investments, the crucial thing must then be to direct its investments towards the

opening of the funnel, rather than into the wall. In reality this means that the smart investors

make themselves less and less economically dependent on being a relatively large contributor

to the violation of the system conditions. The wall of the funnel will superimpose itself more

and more into daily economic reality in the following way: more and more environmentally

concerned customers, stricter and stricter legislation, higher and higher costs and fees for

resources as well as pollution, and tougher and tougher competition from competitors who

invest themselves skillfully towards the opening of the funnel.

1
The ecosphere is that part of Earth which directly or indirectly maintains its structure and
flow using the exergy (ordered energy, available work) flow from the ”sun/space battery”.
With this definition the ecosphere contains the biosphere , the atmosphere (including the
protective stratospheric ozone layer), the hydrosphere and the pedosphere (the free layer of
soils above the bed-rock). The lithosphere is the rest of Earth, i.e., its core, mantle and crust.
Processes in the lithosphere are mainly driven by radioactive decays of its heavy elements.
The formation and concentration of minerals in the lithosphere is so slow that these resources,
as viewed from the society, can be considered as finite stocks. There is a natural flow from the
lithosphere into the ecosphere through volcanoes and through weathering processes and there
are reversed flows through sedimentation. However, compared to the turnover within the
ecosphere, the exchange of energy and matter between the ecosphere and the lithosphere is
often much smaller.
[These definitions have earlier been used by Holmberg and Karlsson (1992). They deviate
from current usage. The reason for introducing this definition is that society influences more

37
 Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7 (2000) 1-18

than the biosphere, and depends on more than is traditionally included in the concept of
biosphere (the part of the planet where life is active). An example is the deterioration of the
ozone layer.]
2
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "systematically" means: in a
systematic manner; according to a system or organized plan; regularly or methodically. In this
context systematically can be interpreted in two ways: (i) the deviation from the natural state
must not systematically increase (increase more and more) due to the influence from society.
(ii) the society must not be organized in such a way that it makes itself systematically
dependent on activities that cause such (i) effects.
3
i.e., the thickness of the productive soils, nutrient contents, ground water, genetic variation
etc.
4
The word waste is here used in a broad sense, which means that, e.g., "molecule" waste is
included.

38

View publication stats