Ecological Handprint - SUM: Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Luis Häcker, Katharina Landwehr, Benedikt Pröbstle, Miriam Schümmer, Lynn Weißer
Last updated: December 28, 2022

1 Definition

Following negative impact assessment approaches like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or Environmental Footprint (EF) thinking, to evaluate environmental sustainability, one would always have to assume that everything that exists is bad for the environment. This accounting method would always come up with the same answer: Our negative environmental impacts will never be zero. In recent years, however, a new orientation has begun to emerge. Some scientists state that the focus on negative impacts is not sufficient for the achievement of sustainability, and in line with the “never zero” thinking, tends to lead to stagnation and frustration.¹^,² Rather, it is necessary to know how to influence the situation positively – and therefore, to assess the positive environmental impacts made.³

Following this approach, the concept of Ecological Handprints (EH; simultaneously used: Environmental Handprint) arouse:

“The environmental handprint refers to the good we do for the environment.” ⁴

What was first described as actions towards sustainability in 2007, stands in line with other definition approaches as a consistent complement to the footprint approach:⁵

“Handprints are footprint–consistent estimates of positive change. If your handprint is larger than your footprints for a given impact category, then you are NetPositive for that impact category.” ⁶

The components of this definition are examined in more detail below:

An Ecological Footprint is the sum of all negative impacts on the environment generated over an entire life cycle and supply chain of a product, e.g., released pollution or resources consumed.⁷ The Environmental Footprint (EF) is therefore the sum of all negative impacts on the environment in a certain impact category.
The consistency of the Ecological Handprint and the Ecological Footprint approach results from the following aspects:
- For a handprint to exist, it is imperative that a footprint can be calculated: By assessing the negative impacts on the environment with the EF, these measurements provide information on where impacts can be saved, and Handprint thinking can be applied.⁸
- Both address the full supply chain within the whole life cycle.⁹
- The two concepts share the same sustainability-related impact categories.¹⁰
- Both principles use the same databases, calculation methods, software, and international norms and standards.¹¹
The term `positive change´ reflects on the measurement of the good (actions) that have been done compared to a baseline scenario without any actions: What would have happened or would happen, without this certain action?¹² Therefore, the Handprint is a dynamic indicator, as it changes over time according to actions and their impacts given by the acting entity.¹³
Impact categories: The measurement of the EF and the Ecological Handprint is always conducted in a particular impact category, such as water, nutrients, air quality, or resources.¹⁴ Therefore, the unit of measurement of the Handprint also depends on the impact category under observation (e.g., for the impact category water scarcity it is saved m³/time unit) and is equivalent to that of the footprint.
By minimizing the Footprint and maximizing the Handprint, this intertwining of the opposing principles aims to make the entity NetPositive. This is given if the Handprint outweighs the Footprint in size.¹⁵

To increase the size of the Handprint, aiming to gain NetPositivity, one has two options. The first option would be to minimize the Footprint by avoiding or preventing it, e.g., through the reduction of emissions.¹⁶ However, the literature does not clearly answer the question of whether the sole reduction of the EF is to be evaluated as a Handprint. Yet, some approaches suggest that both are possible, depending on the perspective taken.¹⁷ Secondly, one could create positive effects that favorably impact the environment and that would not have occurred without the intervention of the entity.¹⁸ Figure 1 shows the three defining principles of Handprint Thinking.

*Figure 1: Three defining principles of Handprint Thinking. (Own illustration, based on Guillaume et al. 2020 ¹⁹)*.

These aspects should be included in the assessment of the Handprint – although not all three need to be operationalized. The literature shows that the assessment can take different forms depending on the operationalization.²⁰^,²¹

Advantages and opportunities of the approach
The use of the Ecological Handprint approach is accompanied by a variety of application possibilities and benefits. For modern and future-oriented companies, the approach offers a good basis for managing and evaluating environmental sustainability. Through the focus on positive actions of organizations, individuals, or generically spoken the unit under observation (this could for example also be the assessment of the Handprint of Germany), the concept promotes and motivates pro-environmental actions and behavior in general. However, it is not only on a local and individual level that the handprint holds significant benefits. Globally, it creates the opportunity to master sustainability challenges. For example, the use of the Handprint can promote collaboration between different actors and global innovation intentions.²² Therefore, sustainability targets such as the Agenda 2030 can be addressed. Generally speaking, Handprint thinking supports the system thinking approach and leaves behind the linear perspective that approaches such as the Footprint have continued to follow.²³ This allows not only to explore the symptoms (linear thinking) but also the elements, interconnections, and functions (systematic thinking) of generating positive impacts of environmental sustainability.

2 Background

Sustainability, as an approach that seeks to preserve, is frequently confronted with making the impact of any activity accountable. Thus, in past years and decades, a variety of tools have been developed to make environmental impacts measurable to design products, processes, and activities more sustainably. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an environmental evaluation tool that has emerged from this setting. EIA is defined as “the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating, and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals before major decisions being taken and commitments made”.²⁴ In line with the EIA approach, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) follows cradle-to-grave thinking, as it assesses all environmental burdens connected with a product or service, contemplating the entire value chain.²⁵ The LCA method, therefore, is considered a holistic approach to assessing impacts and is an indispensable part of today’s sustainability debates.

Whilst it is important to consider impacts incurred through the satisfaction of demand, limits of resources also play a key role in calculating sustainability – reflected by concepts or initiatives such as planetary boundaries or the Earth Overshoot Day. Therefore, the Footprint method was invented in 1990 by Dr. William Rees at the University of British Columbia.²⁶ Using the LCA method the Footprint of an individuum or a nation can be analyzed. While Life cycle analysis is mainly focused on analyzing occurring negative impacts, the Footprint method aims to create a comparison of natural resources consumed and the biological capacities facing them.²⁷ Therefore, the accounting method of EF is concerned with the measurement of the demand for and the supply of nature.

Around the turn of the millennium, there was still a strict view that showing and calculating negative impacts through EIA, LCA’s, or EF, despite their relentless nature, can be the only true path to a more sustainable future. This can be found in a paper by Walter Klöpffer published in 1997: “(…) LCA is the only environmental assessment tool which avoids positive ratings for measurements which only consists in the shifting of burdens.” ²⁸ But just within a few years a change in thinking entered the minds of the population. On the one hand, the realization that a “good” result (the result of zero negative effects) can never be achieved by any calculations may have been smothering. In addition, society increasingly demanded that companies not only do no bad but that consumers could identify with them, their values, and the good they do. Correspondingly, this had an impact on companies; the corporate social responsibility (CSR) approach of those companies that embraced societal change understood that it was now not just a matter of avoiding harm, but of explicitly doing good.²⁹ Several scientific authors claimed the urgency of changing the business mindset instead of focusing on negative EIA to rather focus on positive impact measurements.³⁰, ³¹

It was against this background that the concept of the Ecological Handprint was born. The true founder of Handprinting is presented as controversial in the literature. Although individual sources refer to specific foundations of the approach, this does not find consensus across sources. Over the past years, various researchers and projects independently proposed the Handprint method, sharing the same fundamental idea of the concept – pointing out actions with positive impact.³²^,³³^,³⁴

In many scientific papers the Centre for Environmental Education (CEE) in India in the year 2007 is referred to as the cradle of the handprint approach.³⁵^, ³⁶, ³⁷ At the same time Gregory Norris from Harvard University is seen as one of the shaping influences in Handprint thinking. In the early 2000s, Norris gave a course at Harvard and mentioned Handprint thinking, using the concept in the following years to interact with companies and publish the process in ongoing project reports.³⁸ Norris in turn focused the Handprint rather on environmental aspects. Biemer et al. and Rohwedder shaped the approach in the following years with qualitative analyses and publications. The approach is still in process of emergence due to the lack of consensus among researchers and gaps in existing literature but is already being applied by some companies due to its great number of advantages.³⁹

3 Distinction between the Footprint and the Handprint method

As given in the definition terms above, the EH is to be considered complementary to the Footprint. Therefore, the two methods share some similarities but significantly differ in some respects.⁴⁰

The impact categories under assessment are the same for EH and EF. Going alongside with this the measurement units must resemble each other; this facilitates the accounting and analysis of NetPositivity.⁴¹ They both address the responsibility of the agent since the resulting action and its effects are the basis for evaluation.⁴² These effects (e.g., effects of an innovation action) may decline over time, which leads to both concepts being dynamic indicators. Double accounting needs to be avoided in both calculations as they may occur due to shared causations.⁴³ The full supply chain is considered as well as LCA-based databases and methods are drawn for calculation purposes.⁴⁴

In addition to these similarities, the two impact measurements show significant divergences. The consensus in the literature is that two differences are particularly central. First, unlike the Footprint, the Handprint does not refer to the effects of a purchase but to actions that have positive impacts in the future.⁴⁵, ⁴⁶ Secondly, differences result from deviating levels of inclusion: Whilst the EF considers only directly related impacts from the entity’s (purchase) decision, the Handprint, as shown above, also captures those effects that are caused by co-causalities. That is, other actors can be influenced positively in their actions and this influence is considered in the entity’s EH.⁴⁷ This inclusion of impact causality promotes the sharing of knowledge, support, and collaborative solutions, which makes the EH very different from the EF in its level of societal influence. Within these differences, there are different assumptions, which are displayed in Figure 2.

Handprint Thinking	Footprint Thinking
The good we do	The harm we do
Unlimited potential	Limited resources
Recover/Restore	Reduce/Reuse/Recycle
Influence/Educate/Inspire	Admonish
Count accomplishments	Measure quantities
Appreciate/Celebrate	Calculate
Advocate protection	Resist destruction
Entrepreneurism	Problem-solving

Table 1: Differentiation of assumptions in handprint thinking and footprint thinking (based on Biemer et al., 2013 ⁴⁸).

So far the origins and distinction of the ecological Handprint approach have been described and thus provide a good basis for diving deeper into the actual implementation of the EH. Therefore, the coming section is centered around explaining the most important methods and steps for measuring a company’s EH.

4 Practical implementation

4.1 The SHINE method for Ecological Handprint assessment

Right now, there are no commonly accepted guidelines for the measurement of positive impacts and EH assessment. This is contrary to the recognized need for more positive approaches to impact assessment that was described in the last section.⁴⁹

The first measurement approaches for Handprints were published in 2007.⁵⁰^,⁵¹ Other approaches followed in subsequent years. Today’s prominent literature indicates some approaches to calculating the ecological handprint; however, there is not yet a general agreement on a fixed scheme. Nevertheless, there is consensus among recent proposals that LCA-based modeling and measurements within Footprint calculations serve as the basis for quantitatively calculating the Handprint. In essence, this calculation is done by evaluating the EF of the object of interest in a baseline state and subsequently comparing it to the EF after a certain impact-reducing action has taken place. The difference between these two stages can then be interpreted as the EH.⁵²

This approach is also utilized by the handprint framework from “The Sustainability and Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise” (SHINE) developed by Norris et al. in 2021.⁵³ This approach aims to make positive changes and actions measurable – inside and outside the actor’s footprint. In contrast to other approaches for calculating the handprint, such as those of Biemer et al. (2013) ⁵⁴, Pajula et al. (2018) ⁵⁵, or Kühnen et al. (2019) ⁵⁶, the SHINE method offers the advantages of a systematic, comprehensive approach with high validity by using ISO-related calculations and comparability.⁵⁷ Due to these advantages and its contemporary nature the SHINE framework was selected to exemplify the process of EH assessment in this article. Nonetheless, there might be instances where other approaches might be better suited.

Norris et al. state that their SHINE method is (1) dynamic, (2) quantitative, including (3) all footprint impacts, and (4) full pathways:

The dynamic handprint method makes the changes through actions measurable, while the counterpart, the static method, measures the product-related differences. The basic distinction between static and dynamic is already made when the baseline scenario is defined: In the static method, the baseline scenario would be where the product under assessment does not exist, while under the dynamic scenario, the baseline scenario would be the measurement of an action compared with a scenario without the action taken place. The latter situation (without action) is called business as usual (BAU).⁵⁸
Quantitative approaches such as the SHINE method apply modeling data to assess the Handprint. In the case of the SHINE calculation LCA-based modeling is used.
Taking all footprint impacts into account allows the creation of a comprehensive overview in the impact category under assessment. If no Footprint impacts would be under consideration, NetPositivity could not be created and therefore the balance of “Good and Bad” could not be shown in such a broad way.⁵⁹
When considering full pathways, it applies to all kinds of actions of the entity which create an impact. This enables the accounting of ripple effects and co-cause measurement of Handprint-creating actions, which in turn generates incentives to take positive and collaborative actions.⁶⁰

4.2 Application of the SHINE framework

After establishing the broad characteristics of the SHINE method for EH assessment, this chapter is going to present the different steps for applying this method in practice. As mentioned, the SHINE method is based on the known LCA framework and therefore is also regulated by the same norms and follows the same steps. Specifically, these are the ISO norms 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 which determine the steps for assessing the EH. These steps are: “Goal and scope definition”, “Inventory analysis”, “Impact assessment”, and “Interpretation”.⁶¹ The steps of the SHINE assessment are visualized in Figure 3 below and shall be described in more depth within this chapter.

*Figure 3: Steps of the SHINE Handprints framework (own illustration, based on Norris, Burek et al., 2021 ⁶²).*

4.2.1 Goal and scope definition

To standardize the Handprint calculations the goal and scope are defined at the beginning. This involves the definition of a BAU scenario and afterward limiting the scope of the Handprint assessment – i.e., measuring the extent to which the actions have a positive impact on the environment. The SHINE framework focuses on actors, which can be individuals or organizations, and opposes two scenarios. One scenario with and one without actions to improve the environmental situation taking place. This method defines Handprints as the changes relative to the BAU scenario. Therefore, the application of the product is seen as more decisive by this approach than its actual change. Thus, the question of how and in what context the action creates a change to the BAU scenario is of importance.

The determination of the system boundaries of the BAU is important, as well as the actor’s life cycle. It is central to emphasize the emerging basic principle of the Handprint: The scope of the Handprint is not limited by the Footprint of the actor. Thus, the calculation of the Handprint is not limited by the impact of the positive changes, which can lead to a ripple effect. For example: If a company sponsors a school project to teach waste separation, this primarily helps the children and the waste separation at that school. However, if the children also practice separation at home and share this with their siblings, the positive effects on the environment spread and the company’s Handprint grow as a result. If all Handprints are combined, the influences on regional and global problems can be measured.⁶³

Scope & Boundaries of actor’s BAU assessment:
In the definition of the scope, the SHINE method has a special feature compared to the other existing Handprint calculation methods: Not only the difference between an improved product to a standard product is measured, but all actions of the actor are included. The baseline scenario is the repetition of the last measured timeframe. For instance:

An individual’s Footprint BAU is last year’s Footprint.⁶⁴ For an organization, on the other hand, the BAU Footprint is the response to the current demand with the processes and products that were available last year.⁶⁵

Scope and types of the SHINE Handprint assessment:
The actor of change, which can refer to companies, organizations, or individuals, can influence the Handprint by changing their Footprint or by impacting the Footprint of others. A distinction can be made between internal and external Handprints. Internal Handprints are those changes that take place within the Footprint of the actor. The external Handprint is defined as the changes of the actor that cannot be assigned to the Footprint. The sum of the internal and external Handprints represents the total Ecological Handprint.⁶⁶

Defining positive actions and changes:
When addressing the Ecological Handprint, a measurement of all environmental positive actions takes place. Therefore, the actions play a fundamental role in the assessment and should thus be well-defined to ensure consistency. The voluntariness and the exclusivity of the BAU scenario of an action are imperative criteria for including or excluding the action into the Handprint assessment. Norris et al. (2021) define three possible positive actions for organizations to form a potential Handprint:

Innovations: In the case of the Ecological Handprint, the improved Life Cycle Performance of an already existing product, resulting in a better solution than before the innovation, is an example of creating a Handprint. It can either account as an internal Handprint or an external Handprint.⁶⁷

Example: Nokia invented the world’s first liquid cooling system for radio base stations, which in the BAU scenario needs 500W to just cool down 1kW of generated heat from the station. With their innovation of the liquid cooling system, a reduction of CO2 emissions by 80% can be achieved. Therefore, the external Handprint would decrease for all the firms in their supply chain as CO2 emissions would decrease in total. Their internal Handprint is their CO₂ emission reduction based on the BAU scenario.⁶⁸

Investments: Due to investments like issuing green bonds or investments in renewable energy production, an external Handprint is potentially created.

Example: Apple issued a Green Bond worth $1.5 billion, being the first technology company to invest in a Green Bond.⁶⁹

Initiatives: Another way to create an external Handprint is by starting an initiative.

Example: In 2020, Dell announced an initiative within its new legacy of a good plan, which promises to decrease the usage of ocean-bound plastics by ten times in 2025. This would save up to 16,000 pounds of plastic from the ocean.⁷⁰

The definition of positive actions for individuals is not extensively addressed. Yet, an individual – as an actor of change – can also create an internal or external Handprint.⁷¹

Example: By living plastic-free and choosing innovations of plastic-free products, an internal handprint is initiated. Leading an initiative at work for the reduction of the use of plastic can thereby create an external Handprint.

Temporal and spatial boundaries and spheres of influence:
To make comparisons of Footprints and Handprints possible, temporal boundaries in form of an equal period must be chosen. In a net positive assessment for individuals and organizations this is most often one year. Since innovations and their positive outcomes are usually not limited to one year, two temporal measures can be chosen:

Action-year accounting: All impacts are included in the year where the action was taking place.
Impact-year accounting: All impacts are included in the year where the impact takes place. This is especially useful for innovations with a long impact time.

Next to the temporal boundaries of impact accounting, the number of sales years of an innovation (i.e., how long an innovation holds improvements on the market compared to the BAU scenario) needs to be determined. This is necessary since the Handprint of a certain action decreases as new options enter the market. The innovation-relevant time horizon(IRTH) is therefore established and depends on product categories and the common duration of products in the market until an innovation usually enters.⁷²

When considering spatial boundaries, generally spoken, the positive actions measured by the Environmental Handprint take place all over the world. For some actions, spatial boundaries do not matter, as, the reduction of GHG is a global concern and the effects of reduction do not follow any local boundaries. For all other impacts, spatial boundaries are important for comparisons of Handprints and Footprints in the same ecosystem, and the assessment of the Handprint is subject to the interpretation of certain characteristics of the region, local economic situation, or watershed.

In the SHINE method spheres of influence are very extensive, as all actions are considered when assessing the Handprint. Regardless of whether the effects of the actions are direct, indirect, or cascade down, they are attributed to the Handprint, just as all influences in a causal chain are attributed to the Footprint along the supply chain. Thus, a comparison of Handprint and Footprint can be ensured.⁷³

4.2.2 Inventory analysis

The second step in the SHINE Method, similar to the LCA, is inventory analysis. Here the focus is on the inputs and outputs related to the BAU scenario and the positive change. Therefore, the BAU footprint is assessed with the guidance of the ISO norm for Life Cycle Assessment, 14072:2014. Data is then collected and accumulated for the given impact category or actor, and within the already established temporal as well as spatial boundaries.⁷⁴

4.2.3 Impact assessment

To assess the specific impacts, it is necessary to quantify the different Handprints. As mentioned above, the Handprint is measured in the same units as the Footprint, making it possible to offset these two measures. Various environmental impact assessment tools can be integrated into this step, e.g., IMPACT World+.⁷⁵ It is necessary to keep an eye on the boundaries, scopes, and spheres, which were designated in Step 1, as they affect the aggregation of impacts. Additionally, for the assessment of Handprints, it is vital to observe whether a context or location dependency persists. For example, the depletion of the stratosphere is not dependent on location or context since its disruptions and impacts are happening on a global scale. Context dependency is given when the magnitude of impact is influenced by contextual factors. A possible example of this is the dependency of the human health impact on the distance to an environmental hazard like a polluted river. These local dependencies can characterize targets or carrying capacities of the impact. When impact categories show such context-depending targets, distributional aspects, or carrying capacity concerns, the formation of impact sheds is suggested. These sheds ensure the comparison of impacts within a specific region, as they are assessed and reported in this joint pool. An example of such a shed would be if Footprints and Handprints of biodiversity are under assessment, they would be accumulated in a given ecological region.⁷⁶

Co-caused Handprints and shared responsibility:
One of the above-mentioned basic principles of the Handprint method is the incentivization of joint environmentally positive actions. In this third step of the calculation, this aspect must be considered accordingly. The co-causation, meaning that several actors are responsible for the same impact, appears in both the Footprint and the Handprint method. In the Handprint calculation, the credit for the Handprint is distributed among the actors. This means, that if a shared Handprint is calculated within a group the Handprint of the group is smaller than the summed Handprints of the individual actors.⁷⁷

4.2.4 Interpretation

In this last assessment step, the Footprint and the Handprint of similar actors, which share the same impact category in the predefined spatial and period, are compared and evaluated. The aim and assessment basis of the interpretation is the above-mentioned principle of NetPositivity – also described as „do more good than bad”. Meaning, the total Handprint should exceed the Footprint. The Handprint, therefore, stands for the good actions and the Footprint for the bad impacts that were done. For a certain impact category, the actions accounted as “good” or “harmful” can differ. For the measurement of harmful activities, the Footprint methods according to the impact category under observation are recommended (e.g., the Carbon Footprint). For the “good” impacts, the Handprint is calculated in the same units as the Footprint. To avoid double counting, either the entity’s actual Footprint is compared with the external Handprint, or the BAU-Footprint is compared with the total Handprint.⁷⁸

After the methods and specific steps for assessing the EH have been clarified it is important to compare this approach to other methods of Handprint assessment. This will be the focus of the upcoming section. Additionally, there will be a more practice-oriented look into EH assessment as the example of Interface Inc. is going to be discussed.

4.3 Alternative Handprint approaches and critique of LCA based Handprint assessment

Qualitative Handprint approaches
Specific Handprint definitions and designs may vary since Handprint thinking emerged independently across the globe and was simultaneously shaped by different authors and institutions.⁷⁹ Early stages of Handprint thinking were primarily characterized by qualitative approaches (see e.g., Centre for Environmental Education⁸⁰; Germanwatch⁸¹; Biemer et al.⁸²; Rohwedder⁸³). Alike the SHINE framework the focus is put on actions (dynamic method) as drivers for positive change. Qualitative Handprint frameworks include but are not limited to the identification and promotion of Handprint actions as well as the suggestion of further steps for practical transition.⁸⁴ However, the ability to encourage actors to participate in positive change this way is limited. Hence, an increasing demand for frameworks capable to quantify Handprint actions emerged.⁸⁵ Nonetheless, especially for private actors and individuals – due to the complex nature of quantitative handprint frameworks – qualitative Handprint approaches might play an important role in familiarizing the Handprint concept.

Quantitative Handprint approaches
In recent years, several carbon Handprint frameworks have been proposed (see e.g., Pajula et al.⁸⁶; Behm et al.⁸⁷; Grönman et al.⁸⁸). These approaches – likewise to SHINE – are guided by the principles of LCA, are based around the idea of impacts and positive change, and try to enable a comparison of quantified Handprint and Footprint in compatible units. Since carbon Handprint frameworks focus on only one impact category (climate change), products instead of actors (static method), and the scope of a product life cycle, they promise high feasibility in practice. Yet, due to this narrowness, the idea of a Handprint framework that boosts profound action toward positive change is limited.⁸⁹ Hence, Grönman et al. (2019) see the need for a holistic Handprint method that includes the economic, environmental, and social sphere of a product (full pathway),⁹⁰ which the SHINE framework satisfies and further expands upon actors instead of a mere product.⁹¹
The Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP) designed a Handprint method that uses the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as benchmark and sustainability indicators to assess Handprints and follows a four-stage framework consistent with ISO norm 14040:2006 and 14044:2006.⁹² The idea to include SDGs in Handprint thinking and assessment is endorsed by Guillaume et al., which see the need for research in terms of appropriate indicators and best practices.⁹³ The CSCP developed several indicators to quantify the achievement of SDGs in organizations’ actions and thus the contribution to positive change. They can show that the general utilization of SDGs as a benchmark enables the assessment of positive impacts. However, they must limit their results: explicit indicators to assess SDGs and their specific grading still need further research. Furthermore, some SDGs such as transparency (see: SDG 12.8; SDG 12.6; SDG 16.6) are quantifiable by suitable indicators but still lack the unit equivalent to a Footprint.⁹⁴

Critique towards LCA-based handprint assessment
While most authors agree that LCA-based Handprint assessment promises high feasibility, there still is a critique that a linear comparison of Footprint and Handprint – meaning measuring by status and by change – in a net positive assessment inherits several challenges and issues.⁹⁵ Different authors argue that the design and selection of the right BAU baseline lack a high level of consent and therefore provide no comparable scenario. Further, assigning positive impacts among the sphere of influence of an actor (e.g., suppliers) is vulnerable to exploitation and uncertainties – inter alia actors might impute themselves positive influence which exceeds reality.⁹⁶, ⁹⁷ Due to the unpredictability of the future, prognostic assignment of positive change to a certain time frame lacks reasonability. Thus, in practice assessing change must be measured by the repeated judgment of the status. Furthermore, measuring by change might benefit actors that previously were on the low end in terms of sustainable performance.⁹⁸ However, the issues stated above can be bypassed by the thorough implementation of the SHINE Handprint method.⁹⁹

4.4 Best practice example: Interface, Inc.

Like other quantitative Handprint methods, SHINE has not yet reached broad application by organizations or individuals. However, its fit to quantitatively measure Handprints and promote positive action has been studied in several cases: Zhao et al. apply the SHINE framework to assess Handprints of a chemical facility that switched to a hybrid energy system and can show its ability to promote action and mitigate climate impacts.¹⁰⁰ Burek et al. highlight the potential of the SHINE handprint approach by assessing handprint potentials for a fictional company engaging in eco-innovation for milk packaging. Withal, they show how sole Footprint thinking would not lead to a desirable outcome in terms of mitigating climate change impacts.¹⁰¹

To illustrate the application of the SHINE Handprint method, a case study by Norris et al. from 2021 about the company Interface will be used:

Interface is an international acting manufacturer of carpet and resilient flooring, that shows a history of efforts to reduce its negative ecological impacts. Due to rising natural gas prices, it got attractive for industrial actors to make use of landfill methane output to sustain their energy-intensive processes. Hence, in 2001 Interface suggested a cooperation with the City of LaGrange landfill to capture methane (CH4) at the depot which then will be flared or used by Interface. The practice entails another benefit since methane has a significantly smaller global warming potential when burnt instead of being released at landfills. As a result, LaGrange flared methane from the year 2003 on. The proposition came further to fruition when LaGrange started to sell methane to Interface from 2005 on and due to excess numbers of captured methane was able to supply even another manufacturer, Milliken. Because of very low natural gas prices LaGrange ended methane disposition in 2016.

For their handprint assessment, Norris et al. follow their proposed SHINE framework and the 4-step method:

Step 1: Goal and scope definition
The goal was to determine Interface’s past Handprint resulting from their part in instigating landfill gas utilization. The necessary BAU scenario was identified as a situation where no methane was captured, flared, or used. Note: Without Interfaces initiation, methane capture and flare at the City of LaGrange landfill would have not occurred. Since the SHINE framework emphasizes all actions for change by an agent, the Handprint is composed of an internal Handprint (at Interface) and an external Handprint (at the City of LaGrange; Milliken). The Handprint consists of avoided methane emissions to air and the equivalent natural gas production and combustion GHG emissions that would have occurred at Interface and Milliken under a BAU scenario. Spatial boundaries do not apply since the reduction of GHG is of global concern and the effects of reduction do not follow any local boundaries. The time frame of interest was determined to be the years 2003-2016.¹⁰²

Step 2: Inventory Analysis
Interfaces BAU footprints were assessed annually for the years 2003-2016 and enumerated as a carbon footprint. Due to the data gap only scope 1 and scope 2 footprints were estimated, whereas a scope 3 footprint got omitted.¹⁰³

Step 3: Impact Assessment
At first, actions of interest were assigned to their respective years within the time frame of observation (e.g., CH₄ flaring at LaGrange landfill from the year 2003 on; CH4 selling from the year 2005 on). No case of context dependency got identified. In terms of impact assessment, Norris et al. describe the amount of burnt CH4 to be equal to the amount of CH4 not emitted to air at the LaGrange landfill (external Handprint of Interface). At flaring CH4 partially converts to CO2, hence these emissions are added to the previously assessed Footprint of Interface. To compute GHG emissions, the IPCC’s global warming potential characterization factors were adopted.¹⁰⁴

Step 4: Interpretation
The early years of the study period are characterized by the external Handprint that Interface generates due to the flaring of methane at the landfill (and hence not being emitted to the air). However, the Handprint did not exceed its respective Footprint. Once capturing, selling, and utilization of methane were initiated, Interfaces total Handprint excels its Footprint. Since natural gas prices changed and the amount of captured and utilized methane adjusted, later years of the study period are characterized by decreasing Handprints of Interface. Nonetheless, due to the continuous flaring of methane at the LaGrange landfill Interface still generates a Handprint. Norris et al. accumulate Interface’s total Handprint (internal + external) for the evaluated years 2003-2016 and compute an amount of 640.247 MT CO2-eq.¹⁰⁵
However, they must limit their findings: Due to the data gap, they were not able to include the scope 3 Footprint of Interface to determine a comprehensive BAU. Like in other Handprint frameworks (e.g., carbon Handprint), only one impact was assessed (GHG emissions), which omits one of the core strengths of SHINE. To make assertions about NetPositivity, a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis would be required. Furthermore, only three actors were assessed, whereas SHINE supplies a framework that permits the consideration of unlimited actors.¹⁰⁶
Nonetheless, Norris et al. conclude that adopting the SHINE framework enables the quantification of Handprints. Actors can present and communicate their contribution towards positive change, hence are inspired to ramp up innovation and sustainable thinking. Notably, since the scope is unlimited in SHINE, actors are encouraged to have a positive impact on their sphere of influence instead of solely themselves.¹⁰⁷

5 Drivers and barriers

5.1 Firm-external drivers and barriers

As Ecological Handprinting is a relatively new field of research and development work there are some major challenges in this field. On the other hand, there are some drivers which support the implementation and dissemination of the Ecological Handprint. The following part gives an overview of the external factors regarding the Ecological Handprint. To narrow down the environment of influence, we distinguish between the political, economic, social, technological, and ecological environment. The political environment is the state, government, and its institutions and legislations as well as the private stakeholders who operate and interact with or influence the system.¹⁰⁸ The term economic environment refers to all the external economic factors that influence buying habits of consumers and businesses and therefore affect the performance of a company.¹⁰⁹ The social environment of a business consists of all that society believes, which incorporates forces like customs and traditions, values, social trends, society’s expectations of the business, et cetera.¹¹⁰ The technological environment refers to the state of science and technology in the country and related features such as the rate of technological progress, institutional arrangements for the development and application of new technology, et cetera.¹¹¹ The ecological environment factors that are influencing business are connected to actions and processes necessary to protect the natural environment and at the same time maintain or increase the efficiency of the corporation.¹¹²

5.1.1 Firm-external drivers

Several firm-external drivers positively influence the implementation of the Ecological Handprint. The drivers are categorized into the previously mentioned environments to distinguish the different impacts.

Political environment
The political environment plays a big role in the promotion and further elaboration of the concept. As an example of government support to promote nationwide environmental awareness, the Centre for Environmental Education (CEE) develops innovative programs and educational material thus strengthening the capacity in the area of sustainable development. The Ecological Handprint emerged as one of the CEE Programs and gave the first nudge towards a tool to measure an individual Ecological Handprint.¹¹³ With the help of new ideas, approaches, and support for the implementation of the Ecological Handprint, politics can further increase the use of the concept and cover additional areas of application.

Economic environment
The orientation of the business toward positive sustainability contributions provides a vision for a sustainability transformation of business and society.¹¹⁴ Hence, sustainability performance measurement can support sustainable entrepreneurship as a constructive, positive approach to participate in the sustainable transformation.¹¹⁵ A transparent and robust method for measuring and communicating carbon handprints and overall sustainability performance could be a useful implementation for forerunner companies to create a competitive advantage. At best, these activities have a positive impact on the well-being of people and the environment along the value chain.¹¹⁶

Social environment
Ecological Handprinting also highlights the positive approach to impact assessment that can motivate and inspire company staff and encourages creativity and new ideas on how to create more positive company impacts.¹¹⁷ There are multiple potential application fields for the Handprint and new ones are bound to arise as the development work proceeds in various sectors.¹¹⁸ For example, Handprint symbols are increasingly used by non-governmental organizations in campaigns to mobilize citizen action.¹¹⁹

Technological environment
Many institutions are currently focusing on how to conceptualize methodologies for measuring and calculating Handprints. Sustainable performance measurement is challenged to appraise how human and industrial systems provide benefits to nature and human well-being, and thus, support decision-makers in recognizing and realizing win-win opportunities for business and society.¹²⁰ For example, there is the Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP) which supports the consumer goods industry in sustainability assessment and the application of the methodology in practice. Parallel, they work on the conception of a global meta-network, also linking to similar initiatives.¹²¹

Ecological environment
The Handprint sets one’s sights on shifting the focus in sustainability assessment and management from reducing unsustainable, negative business practices toward positive contributions to sustainable development.¹²² Consequently, the Handprint provides a critical contribution to overcoming the typical negative paradigm that humankind harms the environment.¹²³ By focusing on benefits and inserting sustainability in different functions of the business, companies can discover new sources of competitive advantages.¹²⁴

5.1.2 Firm-external barriers

In the following, the company-external barriers to the implementation of the Ecological Handprint are discussed as an approach that is also influenced by different environments, which can complicate its execution.

Political environment
In brief, there is a need to address methodological development for Handprinting through a science-based approach comprehensively and consistently, and to build it on a broad understanding of the overall framework and its key elements.¹²⁵ A wide application of a Handprint concept requires global benchmarking, consideration of compatibility with existing tools and methods, as well a definition of terminology.¹²⁶ If we focus on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that have been defined in a unified, global way for sustainability policy, further support measures and assistance are needed to facilitate the implementation of the Ecological Handprint.

Economic environment
In general, there is a need for further development of the sustainability Handprint concept as a science-based assessment method for measuring and communicating positive contributions, actions, and impacts – hence, to supply businesses with a framework to evaluate their supply chain performance and accompanying key elements.¹²⁷ Specific company cases based on realistic conditions could be very favorable for the demonstration and testing of the Handprint concept and associated assessment approaches.¹²⁸ At the moment, hardly any Handprint-related studies can be found thus there is a need to develop common calculation principles and guidelines which are based on scientific methods and principles.¹²⁹ Companies need user-friendly approaches with clear terminology, scopes, and baselines considering market drivers.¹³⁰

Social environment
The main barrier to social innovation, which in this case is the increased use of the ecological Handprint, is the shortage of consumer or customer acceptance.¹³¹ Consumers or customers cherish rather low prices than sustainability aspects, and companies answer these calls.¹³² That means, companies that focus only on monetary success rather than putting a focus on increasing the ecological Handprint have no disadvantage. Radical changes in consumer preferences are needed, but there is still a desire for cheap products and services. Thus, a regulation that offers cost-benefits for sustainable customers and does not encourage overconsumption is required.¹³³

Technological environment
Better methodologies for measuring and calculating handprints must be developed. A limitation to do so is that the approach is complex in terms of data collection and evaluation.¹³⁴ The different types of data require the expertise of the assessor to collect quantitative and qualitative data from different areas, such as environmental, social, and economic aspects.¹³⁵ Data collection is particularly challenging and time intensive as current databases often include a great variety of environmental data but lack social data.¹³⁶ Furthermore, as in Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (ELCA), data need to be compiled from sources covering the entire supply chain because the Handprint approach builds on life cycle thinking.¹³⁷ In a nutshell, the Carbon Handprint or in general Ecological Handprint concept and associated assessment approaches need to be specified further to be easily applicable and useful in technology.¹³⁸

Ecological environment
Future outlooks predict that the next generation of consumers want more eco-friendly businesses, yet not every business meets that demand.¹³⁹ Transitioning to an eco-friendlier business requires a new way of thinking, an enormous amount of planning and research, and a long-term commitment to guarantee sustainability.¹⁴⁰ As there was already discussed, the research and development as well as the conception of guidelines is still in the early stages and therefore to date not attractive for companies as a sustainability communication tool.

5.2 Firm-internal drivers and barriers

As mentioned before, companies face various drivers and barriers to implementing tools and strategies considering sustainability. Not only external factors in a firm’s environment play an important role, but also the firm’s internal drivers and barriers. The following part gives an overview of the internal factors regarding the Ecological Handprint. Based on literature research the below-stated figure shows drivers and barriers influencing a business’ decision-making for or vice versa against implementing the Ecological Handprint as a tool for sustainability measurement.

*Figure 3: Firm-internal drivers and barriers (own illustration).*

The above-depicted figure is structured in drivers and barriers, whereas some aspects can be identified as both, driver and barrier, depending on the status quo of a company. It is based on the results of two project workpieces on the approach of the Ecological Handprint by firstly, the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd together with LUT University¹⁴¹ and secondly, the Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP) GmbH Wuppertal, Germany, and others.¹⁴² Both projects conducted years of research accompanied by firms and other organizations to assess the idea of the Ecological Handprint, its methodology, and its benefits, especially in a business context.

5.2.1 Firm-internal drivers

Starting with a firm’s internal drivers for the implementation of the Ecological Handprint as a tool for their sustainability management, there are two main drivers – (green) marketing and communication.

Ecological Handprints as a marketing tool
Firstly, the Ecological Handprint can be used as a marketing tool and therefore to create credibility and transparency on a firm’s product’s positive impacts.¹⁴³ Through this a company may also capture the market of sustainability-oriented customers, which demand sustainability-related information and benefits of a product.¹⁴⁴ According to interviewed companies during the research phase of the VTT, this aspect is underlined by the claim that “handprints were also considered a source of attraction for new customers and so were incorporated into branding and marketing initiatives.” ¹⁴⁵

Ecological Handprints as a communication tool
Secondly, communication is a key factor that may drive businesses to make use of the Ecological Handprint. Again, in terms of marketing, communicating a product’s positive environmental impacts and benefits to customers can be profitable for firms.¹⁴⁶ As “industries and companies have already recognized the need to communicate the environmental benefit of their products over others in the market” ¹⁴⁷, they might be able to create a competitive advantage through external communication. More importantly, communication can be a key driver for implementing the Ecological Handprint from a firm’s-internal perspective. Employees were identified as the most important target group of the Ecological Handprint within a company. The approach serves as an internal communication method.¹⁴⁸ This is based on the idea that employees are the ones who communicate a firm’s message to external stakeholders.¹⁴⁹ Thus, managers can use the results of calculating the Ecological Handprint to communicate the positive environmental benefits of their products to their employees. Additionally, a broad range of target groups can be captured by using the Ecological Handprint, such as customers, investors, consumers, policymakers, and the public.¹⁵⁰ From a firm’s-internal perspective it is advantageous to use one approach to communicate the positive impacts of their products to a broad range of stakeholders at the same time. Furthermore, the Ecological Handprint supports internal and external education processes. As “positive action promotes other positive actions, e.g., in terms of people educating each other regarding accrued knowledge” ¹⁵¹, stakeholders and firms can learn from each other by sharing their expertise. Especially forerunner companies that already have great knowledge of sustainability matters may have intentions to share their experiences and educate others.¹⁵² Thus, a business may become an opinion leader and may support network effects. A firm may strive to become an opinion leader within a market to improve its image on the one hand and on the other to create a more sustainable market, in which they perform, generally. From the organizational perspective of a firm, the Ecological Handprint can help to educate their employees and to sensitize them to sustainability matters, which is desirable considering good communication on the benefits of the Ecological Handprint and respectively on the positive environmental benefits of a company’s product.¹⁵³ Closely connected to communication and education is the aspect of motivation within a firm. The Ecological Handprint can create a higher motivation among decision-makers and employees for doing good. As the approach comes from a positive mindset of solving a challenge instead of doing harm and just causing more greenhouse gas emissions.¹⁵⁴

Ecological Handprint as a management tool
Furthermore, the Ecological Handprint method serves as a good management tool for decision-makers of a company. Supplementary to the Environmental Footprint it helps to create a more holistic picture of the considered product and its impacts.¹⁵⁵ Therefore, it is a useful tool for a business’s strategic decision-making.¹⁵⁶ Due to that fact the Ecological Handprint also supports the improvement of product and process development. Results of calculating the ecological handprint of a firm’s specific product compared to a baseline product may lead to an unsatisfying or no handprint at all.¹⁵⁷ Thus, a company may consider these as indicators for optimizing their products and processes regarding positive environmental impacts.¹⁵⁸ Finally, the implementation process of the Ecological Handprint as such may be a firm’s internal driver. As for the Ecological Handprint the same measurement tools and calculations, such as for LCA or the Environmental Footprint, must be considered, it is simple to take a step further and additionally implement the Ecological Handprint.¹⁵⁹ Hence, a firm does not need to provide substantially more financial resources, time, and labor. Only on condition that a company already has good knowledge of the above-mentioned methods and has already applied these to their business practices.¹⁶⁰

5.2.2 Firm-internal barriers

Besides the above-stated drivers, businesses can also face firm-internal barriers, which may hinder them to implement the Ecological Handprint into their business activities. The implementation itself can be identified as one major barrier. This is due to the novelty of the handprint method. The whole process of integrating the Ecological Handprint is laborious because of the intensive preparation and planning phases.¹⁶¹ Especially for companies that do not have any previous knowledge of environmental performance evaluation, such as LCA or the Environmental Footprint, the implementation acquires a lot of preparing and planning.¹⁶² This may lead to higher labor costs and high worktime expenditure. A lack of those needed resources and capabilities may serve as a barrier to the application of the Ecological Handprint. As already mentioned before, the implementation process can be time-consuming and labor-intensive. The Ecological Handprint approach requires high information, data, and knowledge, expertise on environmental performance evaluation, and a lot of clear communication internally and externally.¹⁶³ Companies considering the Ecological Handprint, may be limited in their financial resources and knowledge. In addition, firms may also be restricted in their organizational structure and do not have sufficient manpower for the whole implementation process. Furthermore, communication is a key factor regarding the Ecological Handprint. It can be both, a firm’s internal driver and barrier. As a barrier, it might be challenging for companies to communicate the benefits of the approach clearly, which however is necessary.¹⁶⁴ In specific, the Ecological Handprint method is comparable to LCA and Environmental Footprint methodologies and therefore its topic-specific vocabulary.¹⁶⁵ Thus, specialist terminologies can be difficult to communicate to a company’s employees, consumers, and other stakeholders.¹⁶⁶ Not only for them but also for internal stakeholders which already possess expertise on LCA or other approaches to measure corporate sustainability, the method of the Ecological Handprint may be difficult to understand due to its novelty.¹⁶⁷ Moreover, from a firm’s organizational culture and identity point of view, it might be intimidating to change shared values and norms and to break through inhabited processes by applying and communicating a new method, such as the Ecological Handprint. In addition to that, roles and role identities within a company can hinder the adaptation of the new approach, as employees were identified as the most important target group for communicating the results and benefits of the Ecological Handprint to external stakeholders, such as consumers. Management leaders need to convince their employees, among other internal stakeholders, that the Ecological Handprint is a useful tool for their sustainability management. This might be challenging, not only considering a firm’s employees’ self-perception and internal motivation towards sustainability but also the difficulties of communicating the Ecological Handprint. It follows, that decision-makers need to make time to educate and motivate their employees and to provide them with information on the new approach, which brings back the aspect of insufficient resources and capabilities as a firm-internal barrier.

5.3 Best practice example: Nokia

Best practice examples for incorporating the Ecological Handprint as a sustainability measurement tool for firms are rare. As has already been shown with the external barriers, the approach is still relatively new and there is still no scientific consensus on the idea of the Ecological Handprint. Project workpieces on the Ecological Handprint method often remain with further research on its implementation. However, a few companies already seem to apply the Eco-logical Handprint in at least somewhat way in their business practices. Nokia, for instance, an international player in the technology sector, incorporated the approach after being a practical partner of the above-mentioned project by the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd together with LUT University.¹⁶⁸ Nokia’s technology of a liquid-cooled base station reducing energy consumption compared to other technologies, such as air-cooled base stations, was conducted.¹⁶⁹ The outcome of calculating the Ecological Handprint of air-cooled base stations compared to conventional ones, was promising.¹⁷⁰ Thus, Nokia implemented the Ecological Handprint into their business activities as a communication tool for their responsibility and sustainability efforts. Since March 2022, Nokia also shares its knowledge and expertise on the innovation of liquid cooling with others.¹⁷¹ After doing some further research on Nokia’s official web page and their provided reports, no in-depth data or numbers on the Ecological Handprint could be identified. It seems that the company is using the approach mostly and only as a communication and marketing tool for their improved technologies. Unfortunately, information on how Nokia has overcome firm-external and firm-internal barriers to implementing the Ecological Handprint is not available.

6 Critical reflection

Since distinct Footprint methods do not satisfy the idea of encouraging actors toward positive change, Handprint thinking as a concept has become highly relevant. A complementary application of the Footprint and Handprint approach promises to depict actors’ positive and negative impacts more comprehensively. Hence, environmentally harmful practices may not only be decreased but ecologically friendly practices are actively considered. It enables actors to identify, implement and communicate contributions to a more sustainable world. However, different definitions and framework designs lead to a lack of clarity about Handprints and their practical application. So far, no Handprint framework guarantees a straightforward assessment, thus currently no coherent application by actors, such as organizations, companies, or individuals, is occurring. Nonetheless, the case of Interface shows the possibilities and advantages of quantifying and assessing Handprints via the methodology provided by the SHINE framework. It can identify actors’ positive impact across their sphere of influence and how Handprints can incentivize positive change. Another promising approach for assessing Handprints might be the measuring of SDG achievement due to their renowned and well-established form. To make an impact and encourage positive change a broad application by all actors is necessary. Therefore, to assist green innovation and meet future needs, further research and development are necessary to simplify and standardize the application of the Ecological Handprint.

References

1
Ergene, S. & Banerjee, S. B.; Hoffman, A. J. (Un)Sustainability and Organization Studies: Towards a Radical Engagement. Organization Studies 42 (8), 1319-1335 (2021).
2
George, C. Sustainability appraisal for sustainable development: integrating everything from jobs to climate change. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19 (2), 95-106 (2001).
3
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
4
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
5
Handprint: Positive Actions Towards Sustainability. Available online: https://www.handprint.in/the_handprint_idea#:~:text=Handprint%20is%20a%20measure%20of,together%20towards%20a%20sustainable%20future (2019).
6
Norris, G. A. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Hg. v. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Center for Health and the Global Environment https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint-based_netpositive_assessment.pdf (2015), p. 3.
7
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
8
Pandya, M. & Vyas, P. & Schwarz, R. From Footprint to Handprint. Our personal action for sustainable development https://www.handprint.in/pdf/Handprint%20article%20GEER%20final.pdf (2013).
9
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
10
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
11
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
12
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
13
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
14
Pajula, T. & Vatanen, S. & Pihkola, H. & Grönman, K. & Kasurinen, H. & Soukka, R. Carbon Handprint Guide (2018).
15
Norris, G. A. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Hg. v. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Center for Health and the Global Environment https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint-based_netpositive_assessment.pdf (2015).
16
Alvarenga, R. A. F. et al. A framework for using the handprint concept in the attributional life cycle (sustainability) assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 265, 121743 (2020).
17
Norris, G. A. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Hg. v. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Center for Health and the Global Environment https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint-based_netpositive_assessment.pdf (2015).
18
Alvarenga, R. A. F. et al. A framework for using the handprint concept in attributional life cycle (sustainability) assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 265, 121743 (2020).
19
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
20
Norris, G. A. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Hg. v. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Center for Health and the Global Environment https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint-based_netpositive_assessment.pdf (2015).
21
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
22
Husgafvel, R. Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint-Part 1: Handprint and Life Cycle Thinking and Approaches. Sustainability 13 (20) (2021).
23
SHINE Summit. Innovating for NetPositive Impact. Summary Report https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2481/2021/03/SHINE-Summit-Report-2015.pdf (2015).
24
Muralikrishna, I. & Manickam, V. Life Cycle Assessment. In Environmental management. Science and engineering for industry (eds. Muralikrishna, I.& Manickam, V.) 57-75 (Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford, Cambridge, 2017), p. 1.
25
Castellani, V. & Sala, S. Ecological Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment in the sustainability assessment of tourism activities. Ecological Indicators 16, 135-147 (2012).
26
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
27
Klöpffer, W. Life cycle assessment: From the beginning to the current state. Environmental science and pollution research international 4 (4), 223-228 (1997).
28
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strat. Env. 11 (2), 130-141 (2002), p. 223.
29
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
30
McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. Design for the Triple Top Line: New Tools for Sustainable Commerce. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9 (3), 251-258 (2002).
31
Norris, G. Doing more good than harm: Footprints, handprints, and beneficence http://www.fusbp.com/wp‐-content/uploads/2010/09/Basic‐Beneficience‐Primer‐Handprint‐accounting1.pdf (2011).
32
Castellani, V. & Sala, S. Ecological Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment in the sustainability assessment of tourism activities. Ecological Indicators 16, 135-147 (2012).
33
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
34
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
35
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
36
Alvarenga, R. A. F. et al. A framework for using the handprint concept in attributional life cycle (sustainability) assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 265, 121743 (2020).
37
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
38
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strat. Env. 11 (2), 130-141 (2002).
39
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
40
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
41
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
42
Ferrante, M. & Arzoumanidis, I.& Petti, L. Socio-Economic Effects in the Knitwear Sector-A Life Cycle-Based Approach Towards the Definition of Social Indicators. In 1st ed Social Life Cycle Assessment. Case Studies from the Textile and Energy Sectors (eds. Muthu, S. S.) 59-98 (Springer Nature Singapore, 2019).
43
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
44
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
45
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
46
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
47
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
48
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
49
Lakanen, L. & Grönman, K. & Kasurinen, H. & Vatanen, S. & Pajula, T. & Behm, K. & Soukka, R. Approach for assessing environmental handprints. E3S Web Conf. 349 (2022).
50
Centre for Environmental Education. Handprint action towards sustainability. Handprint https://www.handprint.in/ (2022).
51
Germanwatch. Handprint – action towards sustainability https://www.germanwatch.org/en/5549 (2007).
52
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
53
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
54
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
55
Pajula, T. & Vatanen, S. & Pihkola, H. & Grönman, K. & Kasurinen, H. & Soukka, R. Carbon Handprint Guide (2018).
56
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
57
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
58
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
59
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
60
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
61
Nokia (n.d.). Combating Climate Change https://www.nokia.com/about-us/sustainability/climate/ (2022).
62
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
63
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
64
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
65
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021), p. 533.
66
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
67
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
68
Matthews, K. 10 Green Companies with Amazing Environmental Initiatives. Hg. v. Blue and Green Tomor-rowhttps://blueandgreentomorrow.com/magazines/10-green-companies-with-amazing-environmental-initiatives/ (2020).
69
Srivastav, A. K. Green Investments https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/green-investments/ (2022).
70
Bulle, C. et al. IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24 (9), 1653-1674 (2019).
71
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strat. Env. 11 (2), 130-141 (2002).
72
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
73
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
74
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
75
IAIA. Principle of environmental impact assessment best practice (1999).
76
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
77
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
78
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
79
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
80
Handprint: Positive Actions Towards Sustainability. Available online: https://www.handprint.in/the_handprint_idea#:~:text=Handprint%20is%20a%20measure%20of,together%20towards%20a%20sustainable%20future (2019).
81
Germanwatch. Handprint – action towards sustainability https://www.germanwatch.org/en/5549 (2007).
82
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
83
Rohwedder, R. Ecological handprints: breakthrough innovations in the developing world. Atavist (2016).
84
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
85
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
86
Pajula, T. & Vatanen, S. & Pihkola, H. & Grönman, K. & Kasurinen, H. & Soukka, R. Carbon Handprint Guide (2018).
87
Behm, K. & Husgafvel, R. & Hohenthal, C. & Pihkola, H. & Vatanen, S. Carbon handprint: Communicating the good we do https://cris.vtt.fi/en/publications/carbon-handprint-communicating-the-good-we-do (2016).
88
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
89
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
90
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
91
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
92
Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP). Der Handabdruck: ein komplementäres Maß positiver Nachhaltigkeitswirkung von Produkten. Inhaltlicher Abschlussbericht http://handabdruck.org/downloads/Inhaltlicher_Abschlussbericht_Handabdruck.pdf (2019).
93
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
94
Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP). Der Handabdruck: ein komplemen-täres Maß positiver Nachhaltigkeitswirkung von Produkten. Inhaltlicher Abschlussbericht http://handabdruck.org/downloads/Inhaltlicher_Abschlussbericht_Handabdruck.pdf (2019).
95
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
96
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
97
Germanwatch. Handprint – action towards sustainability https://www.germanwatch.org/en/5549 (2007).
98
Germanwatch. Handprint – action towards sustainability https://www.germanwatch.org/en/5549 (2007).
99
Burek et al. Assessing Handprint Potentials for Business’s Eco-Innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29, 201-214 (2022).
100
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
101
Burek et al. Assessing Handprint Potentials for Business’s Eco-Innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29, 201-214 (2022).
102
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
103
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
104
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
105
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
106
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
107
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
108
MBA Skool Team. Political Environment – Meaning, Importance, Factors & Example https://www.mbaskool.com/business-concepts/marketing-and-strategy-terms/2515-political-environment.html (2021).
109
BDC. Economic environment https://www.bdc.ca/en/articles-tools/entrepreneur-toolkit/templates-business-guides/glossary/economic-environment (2020).
110
Farooq, U. How Social Factors Affect Business Environment https://www.marketingtutor.net/how-social-factors-affect-business-environment/ (2016).
111
Chouhan, K. Technological Environment https://www.vskills.in/certification/blog/technological-environment/ (2015).
112
CEOpedia. Ecological factors affecting business https://ceopedia.org/index.php/Ecological_factors_affecting_business (2022).
113
Centre for Environmental Education. Handprint action towards sustainability. Handprint https://www.handprint.in/ (2022).
114
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
115
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
116
Behm, K. & Husgafvel, R. & Hohenthal, C. & Pihkola, H. & Vatanen, S. Carbon handprint: Communicating the good we do https://cris.vtt.fi/en/publications/carbon-handprint-communicating-the-good-we-do (2016).
117
Burek et al. Assessing Handprint Potentials for Business’s Eco-Innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29, 201-214 (2022).
118
Burek et al. Assessing Handprint Potentials for Business’s Eco-Innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29, 201-214 (2022).
119
Sygna, L. & O’Brien, K. & Wolf, J. A changing environment for human security. Transformative approaches to research, policy and action https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136272509 (2013).
120
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
121
Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP). Handprint https://www.cscp.org/our-work/handprint (2022).
122
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
123
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
124
Boston, O. & Ivanova, V. How sustainability strategies can create competitive advantage https://www.ey.com/en_us/sustainability/sustainability-strategies-create-competitive-advantage (2021).
125
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
126
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
127
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
128
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
129
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
130
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
131
Laukkanen, M. & Patala, S. Analysing barriers to sustainable business model innovations: Innovation systems approach. Int. J. Innov. Mgt. 18 (06), 1440010 (2014).
132
Chouhan, K. Technological Environment https://www.vskills.in/certification/blog/technological-environment/ (2015).
133
Chouhan, K. Technological Environment https://www.vskills.in/certification/blog/technological-environment/ (2015).
134
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
135
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
136
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
137
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
138
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
139
Rolling Stone Culture Council. 10 Barriers Keeping Businesses From Becoming More Eco-Friendly. In: Rolling Stone https://www.rollingstone.com/culture-council/panels/barriers-businesses-eco-friendly-1255459/ (2021).
140
CEOpedia. Ecological factors affecting business https://ceopedia.org/index.php/Ecological_factors_affecting_business (2022).
141
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
142
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
143
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. The Carbon Handprint approach to assessing and communicating the positive climate impact of products. (2018).
144
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
145
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021), p. 8.
146
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
147
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021), p. 6.
148
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
149
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
150
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
151
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021), p. 6.
152
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
153
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
154
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
155
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Projekt Handabdruck. Der Handabdruck: ein komplementäres Maß positiver Nachhaltigkeitswirkung von Produkten Inhaltlicher Abschlussbericht. (2017).
156
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
157
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
158
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
159
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
160
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
161
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
162
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
163
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
164
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4),143-156 (2021).
165
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
166
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
167
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
168
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
169
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
170
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
171
Nokia. Combating climate change https://www.nokia.com/about-us/sustainability/climate/#liquid-cooling-innovation (2022).

1
Ergene, S. & Banerjee, S. B.; Hoffman, A. J. (Un)Sustainability and Organization Studies: Towards a Radical Engagement. Organization Studies 42 (8), 1319-1335 (2021).
2
George, C. Sustainability appraisal for sustainable development: integrating everything from jobs to climate change. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19 (2), 95-106 (2001).
3
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
4
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
5
Handprint: Positive Actions Towards Sustainability. Available online: https://www.handprint.in/the_handprint_idea#:~:text=Handprint%20is%20a%20measure%20of,together%20towards%20a%20sustainable%20future (2019).
6
Norris, G. A. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Hg. v. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Center for Health and the Global Environment https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint-based_netpositive_assessment.pdf (2015), p. 3.
7
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
8
Pandya, M. & Vyas, P. & Schwarz, R. From Footprint to Handprint. Our personal action for sustainable development https://www.handprint.in/pdf/Handprint%20article%20GEER%20final.pdf (2013).
9
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
10
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
11
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
12
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
13
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
14
Pajula, T. & Vatanen, S. & Pihkola, H. & Grönman, K. & Kasurinen, H. & Soukka, R. Carbon Handprint Guide (2018).
15
Norris, G. A. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Hg. v. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Center for Health and the Global Environment https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint-based_netpositive_assessment.pdf (2015).
16
Alvarenga, R. A. F. et al. A framework for using the handprint concept in the attributional life cycle (sustainability) assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 265, 121743 (2020).
17
Norris, G. A. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Hg. v. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Center for Health and the Global Environment https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint-based_netpositive_assessment.pdf (2015).
18
Alvarenga, R. A. F. et al. A framework for using the handprint concept in attributional life cycle (sustainability) assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 265, 121743 (2020).
19
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
20
Norris, G. A. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. Hg. v. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Center for Health and the Global Environment https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint-based_netpositive_assessment.pdf (2015).
21
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
22
Husgafvel, R. Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint-Part 1: Handprint and Life Cycle Thinking and Approaches. Sustainability 13 (20) (2021).
23
SHINE Summit. Innovating for NetPositive Impact. Summary Report https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2481/2021/03/SHINE-Summit-Report-2015.pdf (2015).
24
Muralikrishna, I. & Manickam, V. Life Cycle Assessment. In Environmental management. Science and engineering for industry (eds. Muralikrishna, I.& Manickam, V.) 57-75 (Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford, Cambridge, 2017), p. 1.
25
Castellani, V. & Sala, S. Ecological Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment in the sustainability assessment of tourism activities. Ecological Indicators 16, 135-147 (2012).
26
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
27
Klöpffer, W. Life cycle assessment: From the beginning to the current state. Environmental science and pollution research international 4 (4), 223-228 (1997).
28
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strat. Env. 11 (2), 130-141 (2002), p. 223.
29
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
30
McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. Design for the Triple Top Line: New Tools for Sustainable Commerce. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9 (3), 251-258 (2002).
31
Norris, G. Doing more good than harm: Footprints, handprints, and beneficence http://www.fusbp.com/wp‐-content/uploads/2010/09/Basic‐Beneficience‐Primer‐Handprint‐accounting1.pdf (2011).
32
Castellani, V. & Sala, S. Ecological Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment in the sustainability assessment of tourism activities. Ecological Indicators 16, 135-147 (2012).
33
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
34
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
35
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
36
Alvarenga, R. A. F. et al. A framework for using the handprint concept in attributional life cycle (sustainability) assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 265, 121743 (2020).
37
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
38
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strat. Env. 11 (2), 130-141 (2002).
39
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
40
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
41
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
42
Ferrante, M. & Arzoumanidis, I.& Petti, L. Socio-Economic Effects in the Knitwear Sector-A Life Cycle-Based Approach Towards the Definition of Social Indicators. In 1st ed Social Life Cycle Assessment. Case Studies from the Textile and Energy Sectors (eds. Muthu, S. S.) 59-98 (Springer Nature Singapore, 2019).
43
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
44
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
45
Norris, G. A. The New Requirement for Social Leadership: Healing. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good: Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms (eds. Stefan Gröschl) (Applied Research – Governance and Leadership Ashgate Publishing Group, 2013).
46
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
47
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
48
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
49
Lakanen, L. & Grönman, K. & Kasurinen, H. & Vatanen, S. & Pajula, T. & Behm, K. & Soukka, R. Approach for assessing environmental handprints. E3S Web Conf. 349 (2022).
50
Centre for Environmental Education. Handprint action towards sustainability. Handprint https://www.handprint.in/ (2022).
51
Germanwatch. Handprint – action towards sustainability https://www.germanwatch.org/en/5549 (2007).
52
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
53
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
54
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
55
Pajula, T. & Vatanen, S. & Pihkola, H. & Grönman, K. & Kasurinen, H. & Soukka, R. Carbon Handprint Guide (2018).
56
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
57
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
58
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
59
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
60
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
61
Nokia (n.d.). Combating Climate Change https://www.nokia.com/about-us/sustainability/climate/ (2022).
62
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
63
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
64
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
65
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021), p. 533.
66
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
67
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
68
Matthews, K. 10 Green Companies with Amazing Environmental Initiatives. Hg. v. Blue and Green Tomor-rowhttps://blueandgreentomorrow.com/magazines/10-green-companies-with-amazing-environmental-initiatives/ (2020).
69
Srivastav, A. K. Green Investments https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/green-investments/ (2022).
70
Bulle, C. et al. IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24 (9), 1653-1674 (2019).
71
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strat. Env. 11 (2), 130-141 (2002).
72
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
73
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
74
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
75
IAIA. Principle of environmental impact assessment best practice (1999).
76
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
77
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
78
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
79
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
80
Handprint: Positive Actions Towards Sustainability. Available online: https://www.handprint.in/the_handprint_idea#:~:text=Handprint%20is%20a%20measure%20of,together%20towards%20a%20sustainable%20future (2019).
81
Germanwatch. Handprint – action towards sustainability https://www.germanwatch.org/en/5549 (2007).
82
Biemer, J. & Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N. Our environmental handprint: The good we do. 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech) 146-153 (2013).
83
Rohwedder, R. Ecological handprints: breakthrough innovations in the developing world. Atavist (2016).
84
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
85
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
86
Pajula, T. & Vatanen, S. & Pihkola, H. & Grönman, K. & Kasurinen, H. & Soukka, R. Carbon Handprint Guide (2018).
87
Behm, K. & Husgafvel, R. & Hohenthal, C. & Pihkola, H. & Vatanen, S. Carbon handprint: Communicating the good we do https://cris.vtt.fi/en/publications/carbon-handprint-communicating-the-good-we-do (2016).
88
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
89
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
90
Grönman, K. & Pajula, T.; Sillman, J. & Leino, M.& Vatanen, S. & Kasurinen, H. et al. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production 206, 1059-1072 (2019).
91
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
92
Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP). Der Handabdruck: ein komplementäres Maß positiver Nachhaltigkeitswirkung von Produkten. Inhaltlicher Abschlussbericht http://handabdruck.org/downloads/Inhaltlicher_Abschlussbericht_Handabdruck.pdf (2019).
93
Guillaume, J. H.A. et al. Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations for Evaluating the Good We Do. Earth’s Future 8 (6) (2020).
94
Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP). Der Handabdruck: ein komplemen-täres Maß positiver Nachhaltigkeitswirkung von Produkten. Inhaltlicher Abschlussbericht http://handabdruck.org/downloads/Inhaltlicher_Abschlussbericht_Handabdruck.pdf (2019).
95
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
96
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
97
Germanwatch. Handprint – action towards sustainability https://www.germanwatch.org/en/5549 (2007).
98
Germanwatch. Handprint – action towards sustainability https://www.germanwatch.org/en/5549 (2007).
99
Burek et al. Assessing Handprint Potentials for Business’s Eco-Innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29, 201-214 (2022).
100
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
101
Burek et al. Assessing Handprint Potentials for Business’s Eco-Innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29, 201-214 (2022).
102
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
103
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
104
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
105
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
106
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
107
Norris, G. A. & Burek, J. & Moore, E. A. & Kirchain, R. E. & Gregory, J. Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26 (3), 528-542 (2021).
108
MBA Skool Team. Political Environment – Meaning, Importance, Factors & Example https://www.mbaskool.com/business-concepts/marketing-and-strategy-terms/2515-political-environment.html (2021).
109
BDC. Economic environment https://www.bdc.ca/en/articles-tools/entrepreneur-toolkit/templates-business-guides/glossary/economic-environment (2020).
110
Farooq, U. How Social Factors Affect Business Environment https://www.marketingtutor.net/how-social-factors-affect-business-environment/ (2016).
111
Chouhan, K. Technological Environment https://www.vskills.in/certification/blog/technological-environment/ (2015).
112
CEOpedia. Ecological factors affecting business https://ceopedia.org/index.php/Ecological_factors_affecting_business (2022).
113
Centre for Environmental Education. Handprint action towards sustainability. Handprint https://www.handprint.in/ (2022).
114
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
115
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
116
Behm, K. & Husgafvel, R. & Hohenthal, C. & Pihkola, H. & Vatanen, S. Carbon handprint: Communicating the good we do https://cris.vtt.fi/en/publications/carbon-handprint-communicating-the-good-we-do (2016).
117
Burek et al. Assessing Handprint Potentials for Business’s Eco-Innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29, 201-214 (2022).
118
Burek et al. Assessing Handprint Potentials for Business’s Eco-Innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29, 201-214 (2022).
119
Sygna, L. & O’Brien, K. & Wolf, J. A changing environment for human security. Transformative approaches to research, policy and action https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136272509 (2013).
120
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
121
Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP). Handprint https://www.cscp.org/our-work/handprint (2022).
122
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
123
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
124
Boston, O. & Ivanova, V. How sustainability strategies can create competitive advantage https://www.ey.com/en_us/sustainability/sustainability-strategies-create-competitive-advantage (2021).
125
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
126
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
127
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
128
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
129
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
130
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
131
Laukkanen, M. & Patala, S. Analysing barriers to sustainable business model innovations: Innovation systems approach. Int. J. Innov. Mgt. 18 (06), 1440010 (2014).
132
Chouhan, K. Technological Environment https://www.vskills.in/certification/blog/technological-environment/ (2015).
133
Chouhan, K. Technological Environment https://www.vskills.in/certification/blog/technological-environment/ (2015).
134
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
135
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
136
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
137
Kühnen, M. et al. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. Sustainability Management Forum,27(1), 65–82 (2019).
138
Zhao et al. (2022): The Role of Hybrid Energy Systems in Decarbonizing Industry: A Carbon Handprint-Based Case Study.
139
Rolling Stone Culture Council. 10 Barriers Keeping Businesses From Becoming More Eco-Friendly. In: Rolling Stone https://www.rollingstone.com/culture-council/panels/barriers-businesses-eco-friendly-1255459/ (2021).
140
CEOpedia. Ecological factors affecting business https://ceopedia.org/index.php/Ecological_factors_affecting_business (2022).
141
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
142
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
143
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. The Carbon Handprint approach to assessing and communicating the positive climate impact of products. (2018).
144
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
145
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021), p. 8.
146
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
147
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021), p. 6.
148
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
149
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
150
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
151
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021), p. 6.
152
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
153
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
154
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
155
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Projekt Handabdruck. Der Handabdruck: ein komplementäres Maß positiver Nachhaltigkeitswirkung von Produkten Inhaltlicher Abschlussbericht. (2017).
156
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
157
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
158
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
159
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
160
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
161
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
162
Russell, S. Estimating and reporting the comparative emissions impacts of products https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-and-reporting-comparative-emissions-impacts-products (2019).
163
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
164
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4),143-156 (2021).
165
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
166
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
167
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
168
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
169
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
170
Croes, P. & Vermeulen, W. The assessment of positive impacts in LCA of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26(4), 143-156 (2021).
171
Nokia. Combating climate change https://www.nokia.com/about-us/sustainability/climate/#liquid-cooling-innovation (2022).