Jukuri, open repository of the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
   
 
   
All material supplied via Jukuri is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. Duplication 
or sale, in electronic or print form, of any part of the repository collections is prohibited. Making electronic 
or print copies of the material is permitted only for your own personal use or for educational purposes.  For 
other purposes, this article may be used in accordance with the publisher’s terms. There may be 
differences between this version and the publisher’s version. You are advised to cite the publisher’s 
version. 
 
This is an electronic reprint of the original article.  
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. 
 
Author(s): Joseph Guillaume, Suvi Sojamo, Miina Porkka, Dieter Gerten, Mika Jalava, Leena 
Lankoski, Elina Lehikoinen, Michael Lettenmeier, Stephan Pfister, Kirsi Usva, 
Yoshihide Wada and Matti Kummu 
Title: Giving legs to handprint thinking: foundations for evaluating the good we do 
Year: 2020 
Version: Published version 
Copyright:   The Author(s) 2020 
Rights: CC BY 4.0 
Rights url: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 
 
Please cite the original version: 
Guillaume, J. H. A., Sojamo, S., Porkka, M., Gerten, D., Jalava, M., Lankoski, L., et al. (2020). Giving 
legs to handprint thinking: Foundations for evaluating the good we do. Earth's Future, 8, 
e2019EF001422. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001422 
Giving Legs to Handprint Thinking: Foundations
for Evaluating the Good We Do
Joseph H.A. Guillaume1,2 , Suvi Sojamo1 , Miina Porkka3,4 , Dieter Gerten5,6 ,
Mika Jalava1 , Leena Lankoski7 , Elina Lehikoinen1 , Michael Lettenmeier8 ,
Stephan Pfister9,10 , Kirsi Usva11 , Yoshihide Wada12 , and Matti Kummu1
1Water & Development Research Group, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 2Fenner School of Environment & Society,
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 3Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm,
Sweden, 4Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 5Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany, 6Geography Dept., Humboldt‐Universität
zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 7School of Business, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 8NODUS – Sustainable Design
Research Group, Department of Design, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 9Institute of Environmental Engineering,
Ecological Systems Design, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zurich, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, 10Institute of Science, Technology and Policy (ISTP), Department of
Humanities, Social and Political Sciences, ETH Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland,
11Natural Resources Institute Finland, Espoo, Finland, 12International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg,
Austria
Abstract In environmental management and sustainability there is an increasing interest in
measurement and accounting of beneficial impact—as an incentive to action, as a communication tool,
and to move toward a positive, constructive approach focused on opportunities rather than problems. One
approach uses the metaphor of a “handprint,” complementing the notion of environmental footprints,
which have been widely adopted for impact measurement and accounting. We analyze this idea by
establishing core principles of handprint thinking: Handprint encourages actions with positive impacts and
connects to analyses of footprint reductions but adds value to them and addresses the issue of what action
should be taken. We also identify five key questions that need to be addressed and decisions that need to be
made in performing a (potentially quantitative) handprint assessment, related to scoping of the
improvement to be made, how it is achieved, and how credit is assigned, taking into account constraints on
action. A case study of the potential water footprint reduction of an average Finn demonstrates how
handprint thinking can be a natural extension of footprint reduction analyses. We find that there is a
diversity of possible handprint assessments that have the potential to encourage doing good. Their common
foundation is “handprint thinking.”
Plain Language Summary The “handprint” has been suggested as a way of looking at the good
we do, to complement the negative impacts captured by environmental “footprints.” There are many ways
we could try to assess a handprint, which capture different perspectives on the world, and the potential role
of the handprint assessment in moving toward sustainability. This paper cuts down the definition of a
handprint to three core principles and then discusses five questions that need to be considered and the
decisions that need to be made in designing or evaluating a handprint assessment. A case study looks at how
an average Finnish consumer can reduce the water footprint of the food they eat.
1. Introduction
While the concept of an environmental footprint is already widely known and applied (Čuček et al., 2012;
Hoekstra & Wiedmann, 2014; Ridoutt, Fantke, et al., 2015; Wackernagel et al., 1999), the complementary
concept of a “handprint,”which aims to promote action to reduce environmental footprints, is still emerging
(Grönman et al., 2019; Hayward, 2010, 2012; Kühnen et al., 2019; Norris, 2011; Vatanen et al., 2018). The
handprint emphasizes an entity's positive impacts, in contrast to the negative impacts connoted by the foot-
print concept (Biemer et al., 2013; Goleman, 2012).
The idea of evaluating positive impacts is crucial to achieving sustainability. It is not enough to know that a
negative impact is occurring—we also need to know what actions would improve the situation. While there
© 2020 The Authors.
This is an open access article under the
terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs
License, which permits use and distri-
bution in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, the use
is non‐commercial and no modifica-
tions or adaptations are made.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
10.1029/2019EF001422
Key Points:
• “Handprints” encourage positive
impact and are inherently
value‐laden
• Handprint thinking provides the
foundation for a variety of possible
handprint assessments, centered
around five key questions
• Case study discusses the potential
handprint of an average Finnish
consumer aiming to reduce her food
water footprint
Correspondence to:
J. H. A. Guillaume, and S. Sojamo,
joseph.guillaume@anu.edu.au;
suvi.sojamo@aalto.fi
Citation:
Guillaume, J. H. A., Sojamo, S., Porkka,
M., Gerten, D., Jalava, M., Lankoski, L.,
et al. (2020). Giving legs to handprint
thinking: Foundations for evaluating
the good we do. Earth's Future, 8,
e2019EF001422. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2019EF001422
Received 18 NOV 2019
Accepted 19 MAR 2020
Accepted article online 23 MAR 2020
Joseph H. A. Guillaume and Suvi
Sojamo have equal contribution.
GUILLAUME ET AL. 1 of 20
are multiple ways of tackling this issue, this paper aims to show that the handprint provides a new angle and
potential new insights.
While we discuss the handprint as a general concept, most of the application examples we refer to are drawn
from water resources management. This field is the research focus of most of this paper's authors and an
issue that is increasingly prominent on governmental, corporate, and individual agendas but which has
not yet been examined from a handprint perspective. Focusing on this context, we note that despite remain-
ing gaps and uncertainties, water use and water footprints are increasingly well quantified (Hoekstra &
Wiedmann, 2014). Water use, however, has such diverse impacts that the need for “integrated” water
resources management across sectors—not only within the water sector—is well established. In this com-
plex setting, it is difficult to rigorously define what constitutes a positive impact and what actions should
be encouraged. At the same time, there is a sense of urgency in the face of growing population, water needs
and demand, and the realization that humanity is not able to increase its total use of water resources sustain-
ably for much longer, if at all (Foley et al., 2011; Gerten et al., 2013; Rockström et al., 2009; W. Steffen et al.,
2015; Wada & Bierkens, 2014). The handprint concept contributes to the suite of solutions to use less fresh-
water or use it more sustainably (e.g., Foley et al., 2011; Molden, 2007), as it tackles head‐on the issue of giv-
ing credit for positive impact. Its positive framing shifts the focus to opportunities rather than blame and
emphasizes what is possible rather than what is going wrong. These characteristics make the handprint con-
cept sufficiently attractive to warrant consideration.
As they stand, the current, diverse applications of the handprint concept do not yet provide sufficient gui-
dance for evaluating positive impacts. There are definitions and research on the topic (Biemer, 2009;
Centre for Environmental Education [CEE], 2008; Norris, 2011; Rohwedder, 2014), including attempts to
calculate handprints (Grönman et al., 2019; Kühnen, Hahn, et al., 2019; Norris, 2015). However, definitions
are not always compatible with each other; and there is still confusion, for example, about the added value of
a “handprint” over a “footprint reduction.”Assessing a handprint is non‐trivial, for example, quantifying the
positive impact attributable to a particular action. A handprint also carries ethical implications related to
whether and what action should be taken, by whom, and why. These issues need to be addressed both to
ensure handprint assessments are scientifically and socially justifiable and to reduce barriers to adoption
of the concept.
We argue that to achieve sound handprint analyses, they need to be based on sound underlying principles
regarding their purpose—and that the above‐mentioned confusion arises, at least partly, because of the need
for discussion of those principles. In this paper, therefore, we aim to frame the principles for handprint think-
ing, to provide a more solid and consistent base for handprint assessments—analogously to the examination
of life cycle thinking after life cycle assessments emerged in the 1990s. We identify the defining characteris-
tics of handprint thinking, as well as the key questions to be addressed and decisions to be made in a hand-
print assessment. These questions and decisions highlight the variety of “handprints,” each of which may be
legitimate when used for different purposes.
The paper first provides a brief review of existing work on footprint reductions, handprints, and related con-
cepts (section 2). This forms the basis for our principles and definition of handprint thinking (section 3.1)
and identification of the key questions and decisions (section 3.2). A simple case study (section 4) illustrates
one possible handprint configuration, highlighting some of the more subtle features of handprint thinking.
In the case study we focus on the water handprint of food consumption of a Finnish consumer, though the
underlying insights have broader applicability. Section 5 summarizes key conclusions and draws out impli-
cations for further research and practice.
2. Review: From Footprint Reductions to Handprint Concept
2.1. Footprint Reductions
The footprint concept is well accepted in various fields (Hoekstra &Wiedmann, 2014; Ridoutt, Fantke, et al.,
2015; Wackernagel et al., 1999) and widely adopted by companies, organizations, and individual citizens to
measure their pressure on environment through energy, water, material, or other environmental footprints.
There is a variety of definitions of footprints and procedures for their calculation (Čuček et al., 2012;
Hoekstra et al., 2011; International Organization for Standardization [ISO], 2014, 2018). For example, a
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 2 of 20
water “footprint” can either measure the amount of water used, or the impacts derived from it, as detailed in
section 3.2.1. A specific characteristic of the footprint concept is that it can be estimated for different entities,
such as a product, consumer, or producer (Hoekstra & Wiedmann, 2014).
While the footprint concept and footprint assessments have been extremely useful in estimating the impact
of human actions on various environmental measures, neither the concept nor indicator identifies whether a
footprint is reasonable or if it can be reduced (Amarasinghe & Smakhtin, 2014). This is left to interpretation,
sustainability assessment, and response formulation (Hoekstra et al., 2011; ISO, 2014) and attempts to define
maximum sustainable water footprints, benchmarks, and caps (Hoekstra & Wiedmann, 2014). There are
indeed numerous studies that estimate how a certain action or measure would reduce the given footprint
or footprints (e.g., Chaudhary et al., 2018; Jägermeyr et al., 2015; Jalava et al., 2016; Shaikh et al., 2017),
and those have helped and inspired societies, companies, and individual citizens to find ways to reduce
their footprint.
Thus, in practice, the idea of a metaphorical footprint is already used to guide actions, particularly focusing
on footprint reduction: All else being equal, a higher resource use results in greater impact on the environ-
ment. To assess whether a footprint is large in relative terms, it can be compared with footprints of similar or
alternative products/organizations/people. An example is the Resource Efficiency Potential Assessment
(Rohn et al., 2014), focusing on lifestyle material footprint. However, alternative definitions can lead to dif-
ferent conclusions about impact and therefore about actions to be taken. Finally, reducing one footprint may
cause an increase in others (Mekonnen et al., 2016; Pfister et al., 2011), raising questions about measurement
and definition of the systems to be assessed.
2.2. Handprint Concept—Existing Definitions and Applications
Handprint thinking emerged in the early 2000s, apparently as a response to the concept of the footprint as
well as an extension of the concept of the hand as a symbol for action (Hayward, 2010). According to
Hayward (2010) and Biemer et al. (2013), the term handprint was first used more or less independently by
a variety of people and groups (Biemer, 2009; CEE, 2008; Lownds, 2009; Norris, 2011; Rohwedder, 2014;
A. Steffen, 2006).
As the handprint is intended to be complementary to the footprint, they share similar properties. They both
measure impacts (or changes in impacts) for which an actor is responsible by a chain of cause and effect
(Norris, 2011). Responsibility is shared and can therefore result in double counting that assessments must
take into account (Hoekstra & Wiedmann, 2014). Impacts are measured relative to a stated resource, such
that trade‐offs may occur between different types of handprints or footprints. Actions and their impacts
change over time, such that footprints and handprints are considered to be dynamic indicators rather than
immutable or static. A key motivation for calculating these indicators is to assess how they can be improved
in the future, decreasing the size of a footprint and increasing the size of a handprint.
The handprint, however, differs from a footprint in key methodological ways, namely, that the impacts it
includes are subjective, social, and basically unlimited. In measuring the “good that has been done,” hand-
prints are built on normative statements on desired direction of change. They require assessment of a coun-
terfactual baseline, that is, what would have happened or would happen, without the action in question
(Norris, 2011). While footprints usually focus on physical inputs to an activity, handprints also consider
other causal influences, most importantly social links (Hayward, 2010; Norris, 2011). This means that influ-
encing someone to perform an action can in principle be valued as much as actually performing the action
oneself, as the action would not have been performed otherwise. In practice, this raises important questions
about whose actions are included in a handprint and hence “who should act under what conditions, and
why?” (Hayward, 2010). In other words, the handprint is directly related to the question of agency in envir-
onmental resource management and governance, that is, the capacity and position of an actor to change the
course of events or outcome of processes, with authority (Biermann et al., 2010; Pattberg & Stripple, 2008).
The inclusion of social causal influences means that handprints are not limited to reducing the footprint of
an actor's activities. They also include actions that provide new benefits, or help reduce others' footprints,
some commentators even seeing the latter as their primary definition (Grönman et al., 2019; Vatanen
et al., 2018). Depending on how a handprint is constructed, it may include actions that sustain themselves
and may possibly continue to have (potentially unlimited) impacts in the future. As Biemer et al. (2013)
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 3 of 20
put it, “there is no limit to the good you can do,” though in some cases applying a discount rate to future
impacts may reduce this effect. In principle this could, for example, even include companies putting pressure
on competitors by demonstrating their sustainability (e.g., Guziana & Dobers, 2013). These methodological
differences of the handprint compared to the footprint present significant challenges for its application but
also come with corresponding benefits, in further encouraging debate about what should be done, emphasiz-
ing agency of an actor, the effects of connections between actors and working “hand‐in‐hand” (Hayward,
2010), and promoting thinking about positive flow‐on effects in the long term.
The handprint concept has previously been implemented in a variety of ways. The Centre for Environmental
Education in India developed a quiz and suggested further actions that can be taken influencing the envir-
onment, society, and the economy (CEE, 2008). The Carbon Handprint website provided the means for any-
one to “record their achievements or promises for the environment” (Lownds, 2009). The Ecological
Handprints website has similarly collected stories about actions (Rohwedder, 2014). Norris (2011) outlines
principles for calculation of a handprint based on “linked event modeling,” which describes how events
are causally related. These ideas are partially implemented in the handprinter.org website, which allows cal-
culation of a carbon footprint, pledging of handprint actions, and includes indirect handprints by
referring friends.
Most recently, at least two projects have focused on developing handprint assessments for use by businesses.
The Collaborating Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production, a spin‐off of the Wuppertal
Institute, is developing a handprint as a “complementary measurement of positive sustainability impacts
of products” (Kühnen et al., 2019; Kühnen, Hahn, et al., 2019), using sustainability indicators and life cycle
assessment concepts. The VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland is coordinating development of carbon
and water handprints to be used in marketing and branding. The carbon handprint is defined as the reduc-
tion of the carbon footprint of another actor, calculated according to principles of ISO 14067 Carbon
Footprint (Grönman et al., 2019; Vatanen et al., 2018), while work on the water handprint is still ongoing.
2.3. Other Related Concepts
The handprint is not the only recent concept aiming to capture actions contributing to positive change.
Examples of broader approaches include net positivity and environmental stewardship. Net positivity origi-
nates from corporate social responsibility development and emphasizes designing corporate and public sec-
tor strategies, processes, and products in a way that benefits more than they constrain the environment and
society (NETPositive Futures & Stockholm Environment Institute, 2019). Stewardship approaches range
from prioritizing ecosystem health and intrinsic value (Davis et al., 2010; Lange & Shepheard, 2014;
Miller & Le Breton‐Miller, 2006) to developing environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable
resource use and governance in public interest with a focus on private sector actions (Alliance for Water
Stewardship, 2019; Schulte et al., 2014).
Different applications of compensating for impacts are exemplary of more quantitative takes. Offsetting of
carbon emissions by increasing carbon sinks, for example, has become a mainstream, though contested
approach in mitigating climate change (Cavanagh & Benjaminsen, 2014; Gössling et al., 2009). There have
also been discussions of water offsetting, but the context‐ and time‐specific nature of water resources and
water uses limits the applicability of the concept (Sojamo, 2015). Like carbon neutrality, organizational
claims and targets of water neutrality have also become popular during the past decade. Water footprints
of products or processes are generally impossible to bring down to zero, however, even though their negative
impacts can be minimized (Hoekstra, 2008). Lately, replenishment (Rozza et al., 2013) has become a popular
concept describing corporate attempts to compensate for their water use.
At a global level, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015) set an overall normative
framework steering desired action whereas the planetary boundaries define the environmental limits within
which humanity can safely operate (Dearing et al., 2014; Gerten et al., 2013; Rockström et al., 2009; W.
Steffen et al., 2015). Defining the best practices, indicators, and the contributions needed from different
actors to reach the targets and stay within a safe and just operating space is a field of ongoing research
and development where both the comprehensive and quantitative approaches described above meet (see,
e.g., the “doughnut” approach, Raworth, 2012, 2017; science‐based targets for climate action, CDP et al.,
2019; and science‐ and context‐based targets for water, CDP et al., 2017). Handprint thinking as we see it
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 4 of 20
should be situated in that intersection, combining actor‐specific targets and systemic understanding of issue
setting with comparable metrics when possible.
3. What Is Handprint Thinking?
3.1. Key Principles and Definition
Based on the preceding discussion, we propose three defining principles of handprint thinking, summarized
in Figure 1 and described below.
First, the primary focus of handprint thinking is to encourage actions with positive impacts (HP1). There are
many ways that encouragement can be provided. A handprint might be an indicator used for tracking and
incentivizing progress or a qualitative description that helps to understand what action can be taken.
There are also many existing techniques that can be used to encourage positive action, such as impact eva-
luation tools or decision support tools. These techniques can be used to support handprint assessments, but
handprint thinking is distinguished by its specific focus on encouragement.
The second principle is that handprint thinking connects to analyses of footprint reductions, but adds value to
them (HP2) (or other similar analyses of negative impacts). In most cases, we expect the connection will
involve the use of impact indicators and possibly notions of indirect impacts. The connection may, however,
also be at a more abstract level, for example, using the twometaphors of footprint and handprint side by side.
A handprint may add value compared to a footprint analysis either because it specifically considers doing
good or because it gives greater attention to the action itself rather than its outcome, for example, focuses
on the process of doing less harm. We identify four key examples:
1. A handprint may include positive impact indicators, which are by definition outside the scope of foot-
print analyses, for example, helping stakeholders meet their needs (Kühnen, Silva, et al., 2019).
2. A handprint may quantify the reduction of negative impacts caused by other agents, for example, redu-
cing the carbon footprint of another actor (Grönman et al., 2019).
3. A handprint may specifically describe the actual pathways by which an improvement occurs. This neces-
sarily extends beyond supply or value chains typically considered in footprint calculations, to the broader
value network consisting of a variety of actors (Bair, 2009; Gereffi et al., 2005; Gibbon et al., 2008) influ-
encing chain dynamics, product and resource use, and impacts.
4. A handprint may perform attribution of improvements in indicators, that is, assigning responsibility or
credit. This is out of scope of footprint calculations, but not unfamiliar, given that they often consider
allocation of impacts across multiple uses of a product.
The third defining principle is that handprint thinking addresses the issue of what action should be taken
(HP3). Given the focus in principle HP1 on encouraging particular actions, a handprint has an unavoidable
normative aspect, such that, unlike footprints, handprints cannot be used in a purely descriptive way. Design
of a handprint assessment will typically need to consider its ethical implications (Hayward, 2010), which is
Figure 1. Defining principles of handprint thinking (HP1–HP3, section 3.1) and decisions in handprint assessment,
expressed as questions (discussed in section 3.2).
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 5 of 20
why it is important to consider the alternative decisions that could be made, leading down different paths in
an analysis, with different consequences as well as results (Lahtinen et al., 2017).
As an important side‐note, a handprint assessment should consider all of these aspects in its design but
might operationalize only some, depending on the application context. The decisions made will still affect
the suitability of the assessment for a given purpose—the analyst is not completely free to pick and choose,
but our definition of handprint thinking means that handprint assessment may take many forms (also see
Norris, 2015), depending on the configuration of decisions made.
3.2. Questions to Be Addressed in Handprint Assessment
This section highlights and discusses questions to be addressed and resulting decisions to be made in the
assessment of a handprint (Figure 1). The questions are raised by the handprint principles. Given that there
are a wide range of ways in which a handprint could be implemented, this analysis lays the groundwork for
development of specific methods.
3.2.1. Question 1: What Is Being Improved?
A handprint assessment needs to determine the scope of impact for which improvements will be investi-
gated. This potentially includes both mitigating negative impacts and making a positive impact
(Norris, 2015).
Footprints are an important class of negative (impact) indicator given their close relationship to handprints.
Fang et al. (2016) describe a classification of footprint indicators according to “theme” and “object,” while
Ridoutt, Fantke, et al. (2015) and Ridoutt, Pfister, et al. (2015) combine both theme and object into the “area
of concern” the public is interested in. We illustrate some of the issues involved using water footprints as an
example. In terms of “theme,” the water footprint can be considered an environmental resource footprint, as
opposed to a socio‐economic or emission footprint, while the concern of the public is to preserve water
resources. The water footprint can be either an inventory or impact measure (Fang et al., 2016), depending
on whether it only measures water consumption/use (e.g., the Hoekstra et al., 2011, method without the step
of sustainability assessment), or whether it specifically captures scarcity, quality or ecological impacts on
water resources, ecosystems, or humans (e.g., ISO 14046 Standard).
In terms of footprint “object,” the water footprint can either be calculated from a consumption or production
perspective and, for any scale, ranging from product to global footprints. Therefore, the scale of the footprint
to be reduced raises issues about distributional justice and trade‐offs between different water uses. What is
optimal at one scale and for one actor or object may not be optimal for another. There is a particular need to
account for the spatial and temporal characteristics of water footprints (Guzmán et al., 2017) and accord-
ingly, handprints, compared to, for example, carbon footprints, which can be straightforwardly added up
to global scale.
In the context of water, positive impact indicators may, for example, be tied to making progress on sustain-
able development goals, providing water supply or maintaining ecosystem health and services.
A comprehensive analysis of all indicators is generally not possible, so it is important to critically select the
indicators that are relevant to the specific purpose of the handprint assessment. Analogously, in LCA, com-
paring impacts of products is considered a specialized task, with its own recommendations (ISO, 2006). In
some cases, impacts onmultiple indicators could indeed be addressed. In others, onemight focus on a spatial
and temporal scale where a resource is considered unsustainably exploited or where the scarce resource is
inequitably distributed. Where externalities of optimizing a single indicator are known, they might be able
to be addressed by constraining what changes to the indicator are permitted. Constraints are further dis-
cussed in Question 5.
3.2.2. Question 2: What Changes Will Be Included, From What Baseline?
The second important decision for handprint analysis to tackle is the issue of what changes to include
(Norris, 2015). Which impacts are counted determines what is rewarded by the handprint, such that this
decision is value‐laden and may be controversial.
A change in an indicator is by definition relative to a baseline scenario. The baseline scenario can be used
quantitatively—calculating the difference in impact indicators, or it can be used qualitatively to single out
improvements that should be measured and rewarded. Table 1 gives examples of baselines that yield hand-
prints with various emphases. The handprints may reward different actions. Improvements over time
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 6 of 20
T
ab
le
1
E
xa
m
pl
es
of
B
as
el
in
es
F
ro
m
W
hi
ch
C
ha
n
ge
s
in
In
di
ca
to
rs
C
ou
ld
B
e
C
al
cu
la
te
d
F
oc
us
of
h
an
dp
ri
n
t
B
as
el
in
e
Po
te
n
ti
al
cr
it
ic
is
m
s
W
h
at
ac
ti
on
s
ar
e
re
w
ar
de
d?
Im
pr
ov
em
en
t
ov
er
ti
m
e?
C
om
pl
ia
n
ce
w
it
h
ag
re
ed
m
in
im
um
st
an
da
rd
s
A
do
pt
in
g
be
st
pr
ac
ti
ce
?
In
ac
ti
on
?
M
ea
su
re
an
d
en
co
ur
ag
e
im
pr
ov
em
en
t
ov
er
ti
m
e
(N
or
ri
s,
20
11
)
St
at
us
qu
o
or
pa
st
fo
ot
pr
in
t
Pa
st
ac
ti
on
s
n
ot
re
w
ar
de
d.
M
ay
re
w
ar
d
un
ac
ce
pt
ab
le
ou
tc
om
es
Y
es
Y
es
,i
f
n
ot
pr
ev
io
u
sl
y
co
m
pl
ia
n
t
Y
es
,i
f
n
ot
pr
ev
io
u
sl
y
ad
op
te
d
Y
es
,i
f
pr
ev
io
us
ly
op
po
si
n
g
ac
ti
on
B
en
ch
m
ar
ki
n
g,
en
co
ur
ag
e
ov
er
‐a
ch
ie
ve
m
en
t
A
gr
ee
d
n
or
m
s
R
eq
ui
re
s
ag
re
em
en
t
on
m
in
im
um
st
an
da
rd
s
Y
es
,i
f
im
pr
ov
em
en
t
go
es
be
yo
n
d
ag
re
ed
n
or
m
N
o
(u
n
le
ss
av
er
ag
e
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
is
n
on
‐
co
m
pl
ia
n
t)
D
ep
en
ds
on
th
e
n
or
m
:
Y
es
,u
n
le
ss
in
ac
ti
on
is
ex
pl
ic
it
ly
co
n
de
m
n
ed
‐
B
es
t
pr
ac
ti
ce
‐
N
o
‐
A
ve
ra
ge
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
‐
Y
es
,u
n
le
ss
be
st
pr
ac
ti
ce
is
av
er
ag
e
‐
M
in
im
um
ac
ce
pt
ab
le
pr
ac
ti
ce
s
‐
Y
es
M
ea
su
re
po
si
ti
ve
im
pa
ct
of
ac
to
r
Sc
en
ar
io
w
it
h
ou
t
ac
to
r's
su
pp
or
t
M
ay
n
ot
su
ffi
ci
en
tl
y
en
co
ur
ag
e
de
si
re
d
ou
tc
om
es
.
R
eq
ui
re
s
cr
ed
ib
le
un
de
rs
ta
n
di
n
g
of
ac
to
r's
ro
le
in
th
e
sy
st
em
N
o,
un
ti
li
m
pa
ct
is
n
et
po
si
ti
ve
Y
es
,i
f
im
pa
ct
is
n
et
po
si
ti
ve
Y
es
,i
f
im
pa
ct
is
n
et
po
si
ti
ve
D
ep
en
ds
on
sc
en
ar
io
‐
B
us
in
es
s
as
us
ua
l
‐
N
o
‐
A
ct
or
op
po
si
n
g
ou
tc
om
e
‐
Y
es
E
n
co
ur
ag
e
al
tr
ui
sm
Sc
en
ar
io
un
de
r
se
lf
‐i
n
te
re
st
,f
or
ex
am
pl
e,
pr
ofi
t
m
ax
im
iz
in
g
E
ve
n
se
lfi
sh
ac
ti
on
sh
ou
ld
be
re
w
ar
de
d
N
o,
un
le
ss
im
pr
ov
em
en
t
w
as
al
tr
ui
st
ic
Y
es
,i
f
co
m
pl
ia
n
ce
is
co
st
ly
Y
es
,i
f
be
st
pr
ac
ti
ce
is
co
st
ly
Y
es
,i
f
op
po
si
n
g
ac
ti
on
is
pr
ofi
ta
bl
e
M
ea
su
re
an
d
en
co
ur
ag
e
ef
fo
rt
O
ut
co
m
e
w
it
h
m
in
im
um
ef
fo
rt
E
as
y
ac
ti
on
s
sh
ou
ld
be
en
co
ur
ag
ed
Y
es
,i
f
av
oi
di
n
g
ch
an
ge
is
ea
si
er
N
o,
un
le
ss
m
in
im
u
m
st
an
da
rd
s
ar
e
di
ffi
cu
lt
Y
es
,u
n
le
ss
be
st
pr
ac
ti
ce
is
ea
sy
N
o
N
ot
e.
B
as
el
in
es
ar
e
id
en
ti
fi
ed
by
th
e
au
th
or
s,
pr
om
pt
ed
by
id
ea
s
fr
om
a
va
ri
et
y
of
di
sc
ip
li
n
es
,a
n
d
di
ff
er
en
ti
at
ed
ac
co
rd
in
g
to
th
e
re
su
lt
in
g
fo
cu
s
of
th
e
h
an
dp
ri
n
t,
po
te
n
ti
al
cr
it
ic
is
m
s,
an
d
th
e
ac
ti
on
s
re
w
ar
de
d.
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 7 of 20
include new innovations as well as personal improvements. Compliance with minimum standards and
adoption of best practice might involve stopping violation of regulations or ceasing unsustainable practices.
Noteworthy inaction includes refraining from preventing adoption of new technology. Whether these
actions should be rewarded by a handprint is likely to be controversial and is influenced by the choice of
baseline.
Beyond the baseline, the scope of impact improvements considered can also change the focus of the hand-
print. For example, handprint assessment of past actions describes an “actual” handprint. When calculating
for a future or hypothetical scenario, one could consider a handprint “potential,”which can help in thinking
about future improvements.
A particular point of concern when talking about reductions is the potential that they be offset by flow‐on
increases in impact elsewhere, for example, to other groups, other places, or other times. Impact improve-
ments from one perspective may yield worsening impacts from another perspective and, for example, a
net zero improvement when combined. Analogously, reducing one group's footprint may fail to reduce or
may even increase the footprint of a different group; and improvements in efficiency can enable increased
consumption in a “rebound effect.” These are major concerns of the argument for demand‐side as well as
supply‐side measures to improve resource use (e.g., Butler & Memon, 2005; Hoekstra & Mekonnen, 2012).
Approaches for including flow‐on effects include calculating net improvements, being careful of which
improvements are included, and revisiting the selected scope of impacts to ensure the flow‐on effects are
appropriately accounted for. Calculating net improvements decreases the resulting handprint, providing a
penalty because of the flow‐on effects. Whether or not this is appropriate depends on whether or not the
actor in question is considered responsible for ensuring negative flow‐on effects do not occur (also see
section 3.2.4).
3.2.3. Question 3: Whose Actions Does the Handprint Capture, by What Pathway of Influence?
As noted when introducing the second principle (HP2, see Figure 1), one of the ways in which the handprint
concept can add value compared to a footprint reduction is by explicitly considering agency of an actor and
pathways by which an actor's actions lead to reductions in a given footprint or to other positive changes.
These may cover material, information, and interaction flows.
The actor in focus should be selected based on the purpose and audience of the handprint. As for
footprint‐based calculations, handprints could be calculated for a broad range of actors such as individuals,
companies, non‐governmental organizations, countries, or even humanity as a whole.
The scope of a handprint is not restricted to the footprint of the actor selected. Their influence may extend
much further. For example, an individual may potentially have a (small) indirect impact on the global foot-
print through the action of their country and democratically elected representative or by being a role model
for her peers. A company may provide solutions helping to reduce footprints of others or tackle, for example,
a pollution problem whose original responsibility bearers are difficult to identify.
The handprint reflects differences in the agency of actors, that is, their capacity, position, and authority to act
within their broader environment (Biermann et al., 2010). Compared to footprints, the handprint can also
add value by encouraging individual agency and potentially increasing sense of empowerment. The hand-
print can also be appealing to companies wanting to showcase their advances in sustainability.
From the actor, there are a range of pathways of influence resulting in, for example, water footprint reduc-
tions or other changes improving sustainability of water use and services. Bandura (2000) distinguishes
between three different forms of agency: personal, proxy, and collective.
An actor can act directly through a personal action, in which case the pathway is (seemingly) obvious.
An actor can act via a proxy, meaning that another entity acts on their behalf. In this case, we can work back-
ward from a direct change and track down the chain of influence.
An actor can also act collectively with others. In determining pathways, this means that influence is exerted
by multiple actors in an interdependent way, each of which might in turn be influenced separately.
This distinction is however not always clear‐cut, as an actor's action may be influenced by other factors. For
example, the actor's scope for action may be constrained by other actors, or possible changes may be limited
by infrastructure constraints or lack of availability of alternative consumption choices. Identification of
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 8 of 20
pathways therefore needs to follow‐up such factors, seeking to identify other actions by which the actor can
further influence them. Furthermore, between actors influence usually goes both ways, making it cyclical.
Useful approaches for identifying actors and their interaction may include stakeholder analysis (see, e.g.,
Reed et al., 2009), institutional mapping and analysis (e.g., Aligica, 2006), and value chain and network ana-
lysis, with the network extending to actors beyond producers, processors, retailers, and consumers in the
value chain, to technology providers, social groups, NGOs/civil society organizations, political parties,
media, regulatory agencies, and research institutes influencing its dynamics (e.g., Kahler, 2009; Kaplinsky
& Morris, 2002). Essentially, concentration and consolidation of power in value chains and networks high-
lights the actors whose actions need to be changed if different outcomes are to emerge (Sturgeon, 2009).
It is not always clear what action should be taken and by whom, however. As discussed by Hayward (2010),
dialogue and inaction may sometimes be more appropriate than action—and action should ideally be
informed by consent of those affected. In complex global value chains and networks, well‐intended action
may lead to adverse unintended consequences. Therefore normative constraints, as highlighted in the third
principle (HP3) and discussed in more detail in section 3.2.5, should always inform the choice of handprint
action to be taken.
3.2.4. Question 4: What Credit Does the Actor Receive for the Improvement?
A handprint actor would not typically be considered responsible for the full improvement connected with
their action. In the case of direct action, the action may vary in effectiveness over time, there may be an ele-
ment of chance involved, or the actionmay have been influenced by other actors. In the case of proxy actions,
theymight share credit, such that the footprint reduction could be attributed between actors. Where action is
collective, it may be difficult to untangle the precise role of any single actor.
When not formally assigned, allocating responsibility is a difficult problem and can change the meaning of a
handprint assessment. From a quantitative perspective, the problem is to identify the portion of the footprint
reduction attributed to the actor, addressing interactions between actions which may cause synergies,
trade‐offs, and risk double counting. From a qualitative perspective, the issue is to determine who should
be rewarded and hence influence which actions an actor is encouraged to take. How these problems are dealt
with therefore reflects different perspectives on influence and power relations.
In Table 2 we propose six alternative approaches, prompted by work in a broad range of disciplines. In a foot-
print context, every actor is responsible for their own activity and the associated value chain. Focus is on
Table 2
Examples of Criteria for Allocating Responsibility and Reward
Focus of handprint Criteria for allocating responsibility and reward Potential criticisms
Measure role of actor Causal attribution—identify causal links, what
would happen without actor, linked event
modeling (Norris, 2011)
Causal links in social context are highly uncertain, and
potentially ambiguous, for example, who is responsible
for outcome of a vote?
May lead to a sense of disempowerment
Individualistic perspective
Encourage solidarity and cooperation
(collective action, Hayward, 2010)
Group identity attribution—actor receives credit
for action of groups they belong to
Objectively assessing belonging may be controversial
Potential for manipulation or overestimation of handprint
Collectivist perspective
Social learning about roles of actors
(reflection)
Perceived agency attribution—actors assign
credit based on role they think they had
Only useful in limited contexts
Encourage action and sense of
self‐effectiveness (targeted incentives)
Agency promotion attribution—assign credit to
encourage specific actions, for example,
consistent with a well‐functioning, equitable
democracy
For management purposes, it is the effect that should
count, not the effort made (Hoekstra, 2008)
Benchmarking (establish standards) Any consistent allocation rule, as used in LCA, for
example, based on physical quantities involved,
or economic value added—who pays most
should get most credit
Potentially perceived as arbitrary or biased if justification
is not accepted
Encourage innovation Problem solver attribution—credit to actors
contributing an innovation that reduces others'
impacts (Grönman et al., 2019)
Plays down difficulty of adoption of new solutions
Does not encourage taking ownership of problems one
causes
Note. Criteria are identified by the authors, prompted by ideas From a variety of disciplines, and differentiated according to intended focus of a handprint.
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 9 of 20
objective measurement of the role of an actor. However, optimism may be preferable over realism when
faced with obstacles, and a handprint might be used for other purposes, for example, to specifically encou-
rage collective action or personal reflection, to provide targeted incentives, to establish benchmarking stan-
dards, or to encourage innovation.
3.2.5. Question 5: What Constraints Should Be Placed on Action?
The fifth question to be addressed deals with limitations that should be placed on action—for example, what
should not be done in the pursuit of efficiency. The constraints should capture what outcomes or processes
are considered unacceptable for different handprint actions and for different actors involved across the value
network. Constraints can be either quantitative or qualitative. The first are primarily associated with out-
comes and achieving a particular function while the latter are primarily associated with issues of equity, jus-
tice, and sustainability.
A key aspect of quantitative constraints involves verifying that after applying handprint actions, essential
objectives are still achieved. In a comparative LCA, two product system alternatives need to provide the
same function in order to provide a fair comparison. A “functional unit” (ISO, 2006; Weidema et al., 2004)
quantitatively defines the outcomes that need to be achieved, ensuring that the new product or service pro-
vides the same benefits as the original. In a handprint context, the function/objective to be achieved may no
longer have as strict a technical definition andmay bemore subjective. A function can be achieved in a broad
range of ways, and the resulting constraints may be similarly broad. At the global level, actions could be con-
strained within planetary boundaries and a safe and just operating space for humanity (Dearing et al., 2014;
Raworth, 2017). At a local level, constraints might more specifically relate to water for environmental flows,
basic needs, and livelihoods. Specific handprint applications may still focus on delivery of a particular pro-
duct or service through a clear value chain, as is usually the case in LCA (ISO 14040/14044). It is also pos-
sible, however, to define a handprint around a function of achieving acceptable levels of happiness
(beyond meeting basic needs) as judged by the actor in question, in which, for example, traveling and water
for golf courses are preserved as essential aspects of lifestyle—unless happiness can be maintained in
other ways.
Focusing only on quantitative constraints easily limits considerations to outcomes and resource use effi-
ciency while consideration of the process of achieving outcomes as well as distributive aspects of the out-
comes are of equal importance for achieving sustainable and just impact. Besides quantitative water use
aspects within a value chain, water handprint action should take into account broader aspects of sustainabil-
ity and good governance in the associated network that should be enhanced or, at minimum, not be violated.
Sustainability covers meeting environmental, social, and economic needs, including preserving livelihoods.
For water handprint action to be legitimate, that is, justified and exercised with authority (Bodansky, 1999),
it must fit with the dominant discourses of the society and institutional traditions but be sensitive to issues of
power, equity, and justice within them (Fuchs et al., 2015; Karlsson‐Vinkhuyzen & Vihma, 2009;
Sojamo, 2015).
The choice of constraints interacts with all the other implementation considerations raised in the preceding
sub‐sections. They determine whether it is acceptable to focus on reducing a selected footprint and whether
the given action can be considered as an improvement (Questions 1 and 2). If focusing on the footprint might
cause externalities, constraints can be used to mitigate them. The changes achieved (Question 1), baseline
(Question 2), and actions taken (Question 3) should be permitted and feasible according to the constraints
selected. The attribution of credit to the actor (Question 4) should be consistent with the values espoused
by the constraints. The need for all elements to be consistent with baselines prompts a need for an iterative
approach to the development of a handprint. Fixing inconsistencies with one element may cause ripple
effects that require changes to the answers selected to any other question.
4. Case Study
The way handprint thinking is operationalized may be quite obvious or subtle. Our main case study, below,
emphasizes some of the more subtle aspects. To put it in context, we contrast it with a previous publication
that illustrates some of the more obvious and intuitive benefits of handprints. Grönman et al. (2019) calcu-
late the handprint of a company producing diesel from renewable resources, measured in terms of the reduc-
tion in the carbon footprint of their customers. The focus is therefore on reducing the harm done by others
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 10 of 20
and hence achieving a net positive outcome. The handprint is presented as a single indicator of positive
impact for use in communication with specific customers or customer segments. Given the aim is to
provide a simple and effective marketing tool, the other aspects of handprint thinking are only touched
upon: The producer is given 100% of the credit for the customer's footprint reduction as a result of the
customer purchasing their product instead of an alternative of equivalent function. While the calculation
includes multiple carbon footprint reduction mechanisms, the handprint does not consider other more
complex pathways or constraints on action. The approach of Grönman et al. (2019) is summarized in the
second column of Table 3.
In contrast, our case study focuses on handprint thinking as it relates to reducing a final consumer's own
footprint and combines a quantitative analysis and qualitative discussion. We therefore demonstrate how
Table 3
Summary of Decisions Used to Assess Handprint in Illustrative Examples
Principle/question Decision in Grönman et al. (2019) Decision in our case study
HP1: Encourages actions with
positive impacts
Supports marketing for organizations “providing
products that reduce the footprints of customers”
Encourages reflection on what an individual can do, combining
quantitative analysis of footprint reductions with qualitative
analysis of the role of an individual. Specifically:
• What is the potential to reduce the global food water footprint
of an average individual in Finland?
• What role can and should an individual Finn play in reducing
that footprint?
HP2: Connects to analysis of
footprint reduction, but
adds value to it
Calculates reduction in footprint of other actors
rather than their own
Describe the pathways by which reduction in an individual's
footprint could occur and the role an individual can play,
including potential trade‐offs with other impacts
HP3: Address the issue of
what action should be taken
Assumes that reducing (carbon) footprint is
inherently beneficial
Limit footprint reductions based on ethical considerations
(section 4.1) and discuss constraints on individual's actions
(section 4.2.2)
Question 1: What is being
improved?
Transportation carbon footprint, calculated using
LCA methods, for the annual kilometers driven
by a logistics operator in Finland
Individual's food water footprint, for an average person in
Finland
Question 2: What changes
will be included …
Switching transportation energy source—to a
specific renewable diesel product
Changes throughout food value chain:
(i) Reduction of total consumption, that is, shift to recommended
diet
(ii) Change in distribution of consumption to less water‐intensive
products, that is, a maximum of 25% of protein from animal
products and a maximum of 8.3% of protein from meat
(iii) Reduction in the footprint per unit of the product itself, that
is, improvement of water productivity
(iv) Halving of waste and loss occurring in the production,
distribution, and consumption of the product
… from what baseline? Status quo: average diesel fuel sold and used in
Finland in 2016, including 12% bio‐based diesel
Status quo: current diet in Finland
We verify that it already meets dietary energy demand and that
no additional footprint is needed to meet health requirements.
Question 3: Whose actions
does the handprint capture,
by what pathway of
influence?
Energy producer: the renewable diesel producer's
impact by selling the renewable diesel product
An individual acting directly, and indirectly, through formalized
and informal pathways, focusing specifically on conditions in
Finland
Question 4: What credit does
the actor receive for the
improvements?
100%, and the consumer explicitly does not receive
a handprint for reducing their own footprint.
(Other actors involved are not considered, e.g.,
the producers of used cooking oil, the fuel
distribution system, and regulatory authorities.)
Discussed qualitatively, drawing on analysis of pathways of
influence (section 4.2.5), as a contribution to advancing
handprint understanding
Question 5: What constraints
should be placed on action?
The new fuel provides the same function and
purpose (annual kilometers driven) and
accounts for the whole life cycle “from
well‐to‐wheel.”
When calculating total footprint reduction, we impose the
requirement of absence of undernourishment (overeating is
tolerated), involving meeting dietary energy demand, and
meeting minimum Food and Agriculture Organization and
World Health Organization nutritional guidelines
(Jalava et al., 2014)
(Other impacts of switching products are not
considered.)
Other constraints are discussed qualitatively
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 11 of 20
a footprint reduction analysis can be extended into a handprint analysis, adding value by connecting to
qualitative understanding of how action actually occurs and assigning responsibility and credit.
Specifically, we provide a discussion of the pathways an individual could take to achieve footprint
reductions.
The case study is divided into two parts, respectively, answering the following questions:
1. Quantitative footprint reduction analysis: What is the potential to reduce the global food water footprint of
an average individual in Finland?
2. Qualitative analysis: What role can and should an individual Finn play in reducing that footprint?
Figure 2 summarizes the structure of the qualitative analysis. We first identify the direct actions that influ-
ence the footprint and then put them in context by considering the constraints on individual action and the
formal and informal pathways to achieve indirect action. In order to address issues relating to boundary of
the analysis, we then explicitly discuss the trade‐offs involved when the individual Finn is trying to decide
what action to take.
In order to avoid interrupting the flow of the case study section, the questions and decisions in the design of
the handprint analysis are only implicitly discussed in the text but are explicitly summarized in Table 3.
4.1. Potential to Reduce an Average Finn's Food Water Footprint
We focus on reducing the average annual food water footprint of an average individual in Finland. The
water footprint of food production is selected as a prominent sustainability issue. There is significant pres-
sure on water resources globally (Kummu et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2017; Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2016; Wada
& Bierkens, 2014), and food production is identified to have the largest share of our consumptive water
use, varying between 75% and 95% of the entire global water consumption by humans (Kummu et al.,
2016; Wada et al., 2011). The necessary data are readily available at country scale, including average con-
sumption of foodstuffs collected by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2013a), water footprint data
for the corresponding products (Hoekstra & Mekonnen, 2012; Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011), and existing
analyses of water reduction strategies (e.g., Jägermeyr et al., 2017; Jalava et al., 2016; Mueller et al., 2012;
Wada et al., 2014).
Our choice of case study provides an easily relatable and replicable example. Rather than selecting an aver-
age global individual, focusing on a specific country allows the case study to start examining the effects of
global links, including the values and norms involved, issues related to distribution of resources and food
worldwide, value chain management and governance, and concerns about proper process in international
diplomatic and trade relations. Indirect impacts on water resources due to imported food are of particular
interest in Finland, which is otherwise water rich and its water resources arguably underused
(Lehikoinen et al., 2019). Means of influencing those impacts are therefore also important to consider. We
are only considering one narrow indicator, so it will be important to qualitatively evaluate potential
side‐effects of actions.
Figure 2. Summary of case study structure, discussing the pathways an individual could take to achieve footprint
reductions.
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 12 of 20
We focus on four changes in the food supply chain that affect the water footprint, with both amoderate and a
high‐intensity scenario, as listed in Table 4. Our baseline is the water footprint of the current diet in Finland,
with the aim of quantifying potential future reductions. The calculation is based on Kummu et al. (2017).
We ensure that both the baseline and the scenario with changes fulfill the same function, namely, absence of
undernourishment. The diet must meet minimum dietary energy requirements as well as macronutrient
limits defined by Food and Agriculture Organization andWorld Health Organization nutritional guidelines,
as used in Jalava et al. (2014). Overeating is allowed, as it occurs in the baseline. The average Finnish diet has
a marginally too high energy intake (2,578 kcal/cap/day; compared to the limit of 2,550 kcal/cap/day), and a
too high fat intake (40% relative to a limit of 30% of energy intake), notably due to high consumption of dairy
products. We checked that the water footprint of the baseline is higher than with the recommended diet,
ensuring that the handprint will reward reduction of overeating and will not penalize eating healthily.
The actions selected cover large parts of the food value chain and network, facilitating discussion of the role
of an individual Finn. However, there are a number of changes that have been deliberately avoided. We do
not consider actions that would clearly shift the burden of resource use onto others, for example, reserving
themost resource efficient land (and products) in the world for the average Finn at the expense of others. We
only consider changes that preserve diversity and freedom of choice, hence ruling out a completely meat‐free
diet for the entire population, for example. We avoid radical changes to the functioning of society, for exam-
ple, to reduce food losses to zero or completely close yield gaps. Other constraints that affect how the changes
are achieved are discussed in section 4.2.
The total footprint reduction (Table 4) is 51% in a moderate scenario and 69% in a high scenario. Our choice
of an individual's footprint as an indicator does not allow for any offsets to be included in this calculation,
and we ignore potential rebound effects by which the reductions would at least partially disappear over time.
This is important to account for in future studies of handprint assessments. An average Finn cannot
single‐handedly reach this outcome. Handprint thinking is needed to help understand how this footprint
reduction can be achieved and what role the average Finn can play.
4.2. What Role Can/Should an Individual Finn Play in Reducing Their Food Water Footprint?
After identifying the potential to reduce the global food water footprint of an average individual in Finland,
we now focus on what an average Finn can do to reach the reduction and what they should do to contribute
to positive change. According to Statistics Finland (2019), an average Finn is female, 42 years old, is in a rela-
tionship and has at least one child, lives in a small detached house in an urban area, has at least a
lower‐degree level tertiary degree, earns 3,500 €/month, votes in elections, eats more meat and animal pro-
ducts than the national recommendations, often has lunch at a workplace cafeteria, and is responsible for
food purchases and cooking. For the purpose of the case study, we consider her role in the value chain to
be primarily a consumer. Farmers, corporate executives, researchers, and other experts as well as policy
makers would have a different agency.
Table 4
Reduction in an Average Finn's Food Water Footprint (Expressed as Percentage Changes)
Action Moderate scenario High scenario References
Baseline: original diet (OD) 0% 0% (FAO, 2013a)
Recommended diet: avoiding overeating
(RD)
−19% −19% (Jalava et al., 2014, 2016)
Diet change: reduction in overeating and
animal protein (i.e., includes RD)
−33% (reduction of animal protein
intake to 25% of total intake)
−37% (reduction of animal
protein intake to 12.5%)
(Jalava et al., 2014, 2016)
Food waste and loss reduction −5% (25% loss reduction) −10% (50% loss reduction) (Kummu et al., 2012), (Jalava et al., 2016)
Yield gap closure: a) nutrient supply and
management and b) integrated farm water
management—enhanced irrigation
efficiency and rainwater management
−24% −44% Moderate: (a) & (b): (Mueller et al., 2012)
High: (a) (Fader et al., 2013); (b)
(Jägermeyr et al., 2016)
Change in footprint from baseline −51% −69%
Note. Footprint reductions are not additive. Results are adapted from Kummu et al. (2017).
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 13 of 20
In order to add value to the footprint, consistent with Principle 2 (Figure 1), we next discuss the different
opportunities for action and pathways of influence she can take.
4.2.1. Opportunities for Direct Action by an Average Finn
The individual's opportunities for reducing her food water footprint are generally determined by her role
as a consumer in the value chain. For instance, the individual's actions can rarely contribute to reduction
in the footprint of the product itself (improvement of water productivity), except by choosing an equiva-
lent but more efficiently produced product. However, this action might shift the environmental burden of
the original product onto other consumers and is therefore not considered in our footprint reduction cal-
culations. As the average individual in Finland is responsible for the household food purchases and cook-
ing, her direct pathways of influence include a shift to the recommended, healthy diet (i.e., in the
Finnish context, limiting overall dietary energy and fat intake; see section 4.1), shift to a less
water‐intensive diet (i.e., limiting the consumption of animal‐based foods) and reducing food waste at
home and when eating out. Concrete ways to reduce food waste include, for instance, buying only what
is necessary, planning meals in more detail, shopping more frequently, storing food properly, and consid-
ering expiration dates as suggestions rather than strict rules (FAO, 2013b). To some extent, the individual
can also influence food waste reduction at the retailer, for example, by selecting less desirable products
that are likely to end up as waste, such as soon‐to‐be expired products. Our focus here is on action affect-
ing the footprint of consumption—we assume that if consumption decreases, production will decrease
too, and along with it, water use and stress.
4.2.2. Factors Influencing the Individual's Capacity for Action
Even with actions that seem very personal, such as diet change, the individual's capacity for action can be
limited by a number of factors. Allergies and other health issues may exclude certain foods. Consumer
choices are constrained by distributors' selection of products, which are further regulated by national and
international policies and trade. Finland is part of the EU, which has common agricultural policy and mar-
kets and aims to ensure free competition in consumer goods market for the benefit of the consumer. Even
when assuming an unlimited selection of products, the individual may be limited by availability of and
access to reliable knowledge on diet recommendations and water footprints of different foods. Awareness
of water footprints is growing, but Finland still lacks a reliable labelling system for them.
Economic incentives and decision‐making biases, such as moral licensing (Tiefenbeck et al., 2013), are
among the subtler constraints. For instance, buying groceries is often cheaper in bulk and lunch restaurants
tend to offer all‐you‐can eat buffets, creating economic incentives to buy larger quantities of food and poten-
tially leading to higher consumption ormore food waste. Similarly, pricing of food rarely reflects the water or
other environmental footprints of products. In some cases, prices simply reflect production costs, but often
the perverse incentives (from the viewpoint of water footprint reduction) can also be due to agricultural sub-
sidies. In Finland, meat and dairy production are heavily subsidized by EU and national agricultural support
(Niemi et al., 2014). Cognitive biases play a role in, for example, self‐service eating settings, where larger
plate sizes have been shown to increase food waste (Kallbekken & Sælen, 2013).
4.2.3. Formal and Informal Pathways to Influence Other Actors
Other actors in the value chain and broader network that are easily accessible by an individual in Finland
include governmental and municipal actors, Finnish companies including farms, non‐governmental‐-
organizations, and other Finnish individuals. Actors abroad may also be accessible but in many cases indir-
ectly. An individual may influence them in formal and informal ways.
When it comes to formal pathways of influence, an individual may influence legislation by voting at par-
liamentary, EU, or municipal levels. Finnish government and the EU support domestic agricultural pri-
mary production by different means, such as agricultural subsidies, taxation, and advisory services
(Niemi et al., 2014). In addition, the Government and State Treasury provides information and instruc-
tions for the municipalities about setting the criteria for sustainability in public procurement competitive
bidding process. Finland has a public health and educational system, where daily meals are provided
from kindergarten to upper secondary school, from public offices to hospitals. If the public procurements
are directed toward local and plant‐based raw materials, the individual's water footprint is reduced and
remains in Finland.
Informal pathways of influence include civil society and consumer activism demanding and supporting (e.g.,
by financial means) more sustainable water use and stewardship practices along food value chains, from
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 14 of 20
farms to processors, retailers, and restaurants. Information dissemination in general is another option for
advancing more sustainable water footprints and diets and may take place publicly or privately.
1. Public discussion: An average Finn may take a stand on the water footprint issues in public, that is, in
social media or organize or attend public demonstrations to influence actors in charge. She may also
share information provided by reliable actors, for example, public and private research institutes that
provide information about proper nutrition values and the possibilities to eat more sustainably.
2. Private discussion: The individual normally has an influence on her family and friends. By her own beha-
vior, an average Finn may support the similar behavior of those close to her and in that way support the
general opinion in public.
By supporting the positive attitude toward water handprint thinking and reducing water footprint, an indi-
vidual informally supports the actors actually responsible for direct actions toward reducing the water foot-
print of her own diet.
4.2.4. Accounting for Trade‐Offs Between Different Types of Footprints
The calculation of potential water footprint reduction carefully ruled out certain extreme trade‐offs, for
example, eating healthily increasing the water footprint, and reserving resource efficient land at the expense
of others (section 4.1). Specific footprints, however, inevitably address a specific area of concern (such as pro-
tecting water resources in the water footprint) and do not cover the full set of environmental concerns
(Ridoutt, Pfister, et al., 2015). The individual therefore still faces trade‐offs in their pursuit of a
larger handprint.
When improving water productivity (24% reduction in water footprint for moderate scenario, Table 4), the
risk of burden shifting is high: Global assessment shows that in general, there are trade‐offs between water
and land footprints (Pfister et al., 2011). For example, if we use additional water for irrigation, we can
increase yields and thus land use efficiency (reducing land footprint), or conversely, reduce water use but
increase land footprint. On the extreme side, one can irrigate the drylands with little land use impacts or
cut‐down rainforests and cultivate crops without irrigation but with high ecosystem damage. Similarly, there
are trade‐offs between carbon and water footprints (Berger et al., 2015), for example, regarding whether to
encourage energy‐intensive greenhouse production of tomatoes in Northern Europe versus irrigation in
water‐scarce Spain (Page et al., 2012).
An individual could make her own mind up about how to maximize the impact of her efforts. Unless she is
well informed (including about the needs and desires of other stakeholders), it may, however, be better to
provide support to other institutions to make the decision on her behalf. Weighing competing consequences
is, after all, one of the purposes of a democratic government and active civil society.
4.2.5. Overall Assessment
In summary, there are a broad range of actions that an average Finn can take in reducing her food water
footprint. Given the importance of diet change in particular (33% reduction in footprint in the moderate sce-
nario, Table 4), an individual can take charge of a large portion of the potential reduction (section 4.2.1).
Individuals that do so should be given full credit for this improvement, to reward and encourage this beha-
vior. At the same time, the individual cannot be held individually responsible for achieving the change,
given the constraints on her action (section 4.2.2). The potential handprint described here provides an
aspirational rather than critical or judgmental benchmark.
There is also a substantial portion of the food water footprint reduction that the individual Finn cannot
achieve directly (including 24% reduction through yield gap closure in the moderate scenario but also food
waste reductions along the supply chain). However, as our handprint is measured in actual change in water
footprint, it is not enough for the individual to promote interest in the topic, but her actions need to translate
into tangible outcomes for them to be counted. The footprint will only change if production practices actu-
ally change too. This is an all‐or‐nothing situation—if change is successful, the individual Finn should be
given credit commensurate with her effort, but effort alone is not sufficient. This provides a powerful incen-
tive to work collectively (section 4.2.3). This part of the Finn's handprint is not about individual action, but
effective collaboration with other actors at different stages and levels of food value chains and governance.
Importantly, not all actions are permitted. Placing illegitimate pressure on producers is not a permissible
solution (e.g., destruction of property). Trade‐offs mean that some actions will come at the cost of increased
footprints (or reduced handprints) in other areas (section 4.2.4), and in section 4.1, we noted that not all
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 15 of 20
direct actions the average Finn can take to reduce her footprint are credited either. Measuring and achieving
a handprint is not just about doing more but about doing more of the right things, from both an ethical and
system‐wide perspective.
We conclude that it is within the capacity of the individual Finn to achieve the entire 51% or 69% footprint
reduction of themoderate and high scenario (although a substantial portion of the reduction will require col-
lective action and influencing other actors) and she should be encouraged (and credited) in seeking to
achieve this potential handprint. The path to achieving it is nuanced and accountability is asymmetric:
Success is attributable to (every) individual, but the burden of “failure” (at any particular moment) is shared
by society. In short, as long as the individual stays within permissible actions and has weighed the trade‐offs
involved, according to this handprint there is no downside for the average Finn to try to achieve change.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Handprints are emerging as a promising tool in the search for promoting improvements in sustainability.
Drawing attention to the positive may be a more powerful way of achieving impacts than focusing on the
negative alone. Instead of paralyzing, a positive approach provides encouragement by making improvement
opportunities visible and reachable in the face of global grand challenges, such as climate change, water cri-
sis, and biodiversity loss. This is a critical consideration as achieving true impacts has become more and
more urgent with regard to many environmental problems. Recognizing this potential of handprints—but
also the lack of clarity surrounding them—we set out to examine and clarify the foundations upon which
handprints rest, with the objective to advance the development and application of handprints.
Accordingly, we provide a structured and systematic examination of the broad phenomenon of handprints,
going beyond its visible manifestations to the underlying dimensions and choices. We put forward and dis-
cuss a number of important distinctions that serve to clarify handprints: We separate handprint thinking
from the actual handprint assessment, outline principles for handprint thinking, and identify questions that
need to be addressed in handprint assessments. Throughout, we illustrate our analysis with examples from
freshwater use as related to food production, a centrally important context for environmental protection and
an issue that is increasingly prominent on governmental, corporate, and individual agendas but which has
not yet been examined from a handprint perspective.
5.1. Key Findings
We find that lack of clarity about handprints results partly from confusion and partly from contestation
regarding the concept (a distinction raised by Miles, 2012). The fundamental idea of handprint thinking is
confused with details of individual handprint assessments. Handprint thinking is intended to be the uncon-
troversial, joint foundation upon which everything else rests. The three principles of handprint thinking that
we lay out (see Figure 1) emphasize points that are shared by all handprints, notably that (i) handprints are
intrinsically normative—they address the issue of what should be done, not just what has been done; (ii)
handprints deal with and encourage positive impacts against some baseline, rather than focusing on nega-
tives; (iii) as a result, they go beyond current footprint accounting practice, whether it is by measuring dif-
ferent things (positive impacts, impacts of others), or digging deeper into how action will actually be
taken in practice, by who, when, and where. The perspective provided by handprint thinking is important
and useful even if one never proceeds to a formal handprint assessment.
Part of the lack of clarity surrounding handprints, however, can be attributed to contestation. There are dif-
ferent choices that can be made within handprint assessments, and while these choices cause variability in
the resulting outcomes, they can nevertheless all be justified in appropriate circumstances. Thus the carrying
out and use of actual handprint assessments is contested as there can be a range of different handprints
depending on the way the handprint is conceived. As we have outlined, there are different views, for exam-
ple, as to (i) whether reducing your own footprint is counted in the handprint; (ii) what is the baseline for
handprint assessments; (iii) whether the handprint is assessed for an individual, an organization, or a
product/service, which in turn influences the relative importance of direct versus indirect pathways of influ-
ence; (iv) how credit is allocated between actors; (v) whether all improvements in indicators are permitted,
or some are left out of bounds. These choices lead to a variety of different configurations for
handprint assessments.
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 16 of 20
5.2. Theoretical Contribution
We contribute to the debate on handprints as well as to the broader debate on capturing and communicating
environmental impacts and improvements in three ways. First, as discussed above, we separate handprint
thinking and the actual handprint assessment, which helps to clarify where areas of confusion and contesta-
tion lie. Second, it becomes apparent that handprint thinking is sufficiently general that it underpins a broad
range of approaches to examining positive impacts, which helps to both situate handprints within existing
work and highlight opportunities for future experimentation. Third, we identify different configurations
in handprint assessments and discuss their pros, cons, and implications. All this helps improve theoretical
understanding of handprints but has been lacking in previous literature.
In addition, we contribute specifically to water handprints, providing the first account of how a water hand-
print relates to existing water footprints in a case study of a food consumption of a Finnish consumer, as well
as a range of examples for how water handprint assessments might be designed in the future. We highlight
that the five questions we propose (see Figure 1) are likely to be highly contested in the water sector—per-
haps more so than for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Water use impacts are inherently local and
require an integrated perspective that embraces trade‐offs and constraints linked to other sectors. This does
not prevent the use of handprints but does mean that handprint assessments for water are likely to be con-
text and purpose‐specific.
5.3. Practical Implications
Our analysis is also relevant for future practice about handprints. Through solidifying the foundations of
handprints it can reduce barriers to adoption of handprint thinking and handprint assessments. Our general
message to practitioners is a recommendation to be clear about what kind of handprint configuration one is
utilizing and to communicate this also to others. Our specific elaborations about options with handprint
assessments provide guidance for users who can, using the framework of our paper, make more informed
choices that are best suited for their purposes.
5.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Work
We have outlined the choices and options with handprints, but we have not attempted to pinpoint one “cor-
rect” choice among the possibilities. While with contested concepts there may not be strictly “correct”
answers as such, some methodological harmonization might nevertheless be desirable to facilitate compar-
isons and communications in the domain of handprints, as advocated by Grönman et al. (2019), for instance.
This is an area for future research to explore. Furthermore, we have not exhausted the list of alternative
approaches to performing a handprint assessment, including alternative methods, tools, and data sources,
as well as means by which social science understanding of pathways and agency might be incorporated into
an assessment. There is thus a lot of potential for future research to address these issues.
5.5. Conclusion
By bringing to light the positive actions of individuals, corporations, and other organizations alike, hand-
prints can play an important part in promoting and encouraging contributions to sustainability. During
these early stages of development, different interpretations of the handprint concept abound, causing confu-
sion and slowing down its effective application. In this paper we have presented an analysis of the considera-
tions and options within handprints. With the help of this analysis, both scholars and practitioners can now
proceed more productively with this promising concept.
References
Aligica, P. D. (2006). Institutional and stakeholder mapping: Frameworks for policy analysis and institutional change. Public Organization
Review, 6(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115‐006‐6833‐0
Alliance for Water Stewardship. (2019). International water stewardship standard. Version 2.0. Retrieved from https://a4ws.org/
the‐aws‐standard‐2‐0/
Amarasinghe, U. A., & Smakhtin, V. (2014). Water productivity and water footprint: Misguided concepts or useful tools in water man-
agement and policy? Water International, 39(7), 1000–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.986631
Bair, J. (2009). Frontiers of commodity chain research. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8721.00064
Berger, M., Pfister, S., Bach, V., & Finkbeiner, M. (2015). Saving the planet's climate or water resources? The trade‐off between carbon and
water footprints of European Biofuels. Sustainability, 7(6), 6665–6683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066665
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 17 of 20
Acknowledgments
Data sets for this research are included
in this paper (and its supplementary
information files): Kummu et al. (2017).
The authors would like to thank Helena
Wessman‐Jääskeläinen and Dr. Naho
Mirumachi for useful feedback during
the development of this article, Prof.
Olli Varis and Dr. Marko Keskinen for
their continuous support, and Greg
Norris and an anonymous reviewer for
their useful comments. Authors
received funding from Academy of
Finland funded project WASCO and
WATVUL (grants 305471 and 317320),
Emil Aaltonen Foundation funded
project “eat‐less‐water,” Maa‐ ja
ve‐si‐tek‐nii‐kan tuki ry, Strategic
Research Council (SRC) through pro-
ject “From Failand to Winland” (grants
303623 and 303626), European
Research Council (ERC) under the
European Union's Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme
(grant agreement 819202), Research
Area 7 of The Bolin Centre for Climate
Research, and Australian Research
Council Discovery Early Career Award
(project DE190100317).
Biemer, J. (2009). Environmental handprints for a sustainable green world. Ode Magazine.
Biemer, J., Dixon, W., & Blackburn, N. (2013). Our environmental handprint: The good we do. In 2013 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies
for Sustainability (SusTech) (pp. 146–153). Portland, Oregon, USA: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SusTech.2013.6617312
Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., et al. (2010). Earth system governance: A research
framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10784‐010‐9137‐3
Bodansky, D. (1999). The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law? The American
Journal of International Law, 93(3), 596–624. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555262
Butler, D., & Memon, F. A. (2005). Water demand management. London: IWA Publishing.
Cavanagh, C., & Benjaminsen, T. A. (2014). Virtual nature, violent accumulation: The ‘spectacular failure’ of carbon offsetting at a
Ugandan National Park. Geoforum, 56, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.013
CDP, the Nature Conservancy, Pacific Institute, World Resources Institute, & WWF International. (2017). Exploring the case for corporate
context‐based water targets. Retrieved from https://www.ceowatermandate.org/files/context‐based‐targets.pdf
CDP, UN Global Compact, World Resources Institute, &WWF. (2019). Foundations of science‐based target setting. Retrieved from https://
sciencebasedtargets.org/wp‐content/uploads/2019/04/foundations‐of‐SBT‐setting.pdf
Centre for Environmental Education. (2008). About the sustainable handprint. Ahmedabad, India.
Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D., & Mathys, A. (2018). Multi‐indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nature
Communications, 9, 848. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‐018‐03308‐7
Čuček, L., Klemeš, J. J., & Kravanja, Z. (2012). A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 34, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.036
Davis, J. H., Allen, M. R., & Hayes, H. D. (2010). Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1093–1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐6520.2010.00415.x
Dearing, J. A., Wang, R., Zhang, K., Dyke, J. G., Haberl, H., Hossain, M. S., et al. (2014). Safe and just operating spaces for regional
social‐ecological systems. Global Environmental Change, 28, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.012
Fader, M., Gerten, D., Krause, M., Lucht, W., & Cramer, W. (2013). Spatial decoupling of agricultural production and consumption:
Quantifying dependences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environmental Research Letters, 8,
014046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/8/1/014046
Fang, K., Song, S., Heijungs, R., de Groot, S., Dong, L., Song, J., &Wiloso, E. I. (2016). The footprint's fingerprint: on the classification of the
footprint family. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 23, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.002
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2013a). FAOSTAT—Database for food and agriculture. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2013b). Toolkit: Reducing the food wastage footprint. Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/
i3342e/i3342e.pdf
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet.
Nature, 478(7369), 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
Fuchs, D., Di Giulio, A., Glaab, K., Lorek, S., Maniates, M., Princen, T., & Røpke, I. (2015). Power: The missing element in sustainable
consumption and absolute reductions research and action. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132, 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.02.006
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1),
78–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
Gerten, D., Hoff, H., Rockström, J., Jägermeyr, J., Kummu, M., & Pastor, A. V. (2013). Towards a revised planetary boundary for con-
sumptive freshwater use: Role of environmental flow requirements. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 551–558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.001
Gibbon, P., Bair, J., & Ponte, S. (2008). Governing global value chains: An introduction. Economy and Society, 37(3), 315–338. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03085140802172656
Goleman, D. (2012). Handprints, not footprints. Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2108015,00.
html
Gössling, S., Haglund, L., Kallgren, H., Revahl, M., & Hultman, J. (2009). Swedish air travelers and voluntary carbon offsets: Towards the
co‐creation of environmental value? Current Issues in Tourism, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802220687
Grönman, K., Pajula, T., Sillman, J., Leino, M., Vatanen, S., Kasurinen, H., et al. (2019). Carbon handprint—An approach to assess the
positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 1059–1072. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.233
Guziana, B., & Dobers, P. (2013). How sustainability leaders communicate corporate activities of sustainable development. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1292
Guzmán, C., Verzijl, A., & Zwarteveen, M. (2017). Water footprints and ‘pozas’: Conversations about practices and knowledges of water
efficiency. Water, 9, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9010016
Hayward, B. (2010). The social handprint: Understanding decentred citizen agency and UK UnCut (RESOLVE Working Paper 06–10).
Retrieved from http://resolve.sustainablelifestyles.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resolve_wp_06_10.pdf
Hayward, B. (2012). Children, citizenship, and environment: Nurturing a democratic imagination in a changing world. New York: Routledge.
Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=U_ZyOcza3g0C.
Hoekstra, A. Y. (2008). Water neutral: Reducing and offsetting the impacts of water footprints. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/
77202/1/Report28‐WaterNeutral.pdf
Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., & Mekonnen, M. M. (2011). The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global
standard. London: Earthscan. Retrieved from. http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/TheWaterFootprintAssessmentManual_2.
pdf
Hoekstra, A. Y., &Mekonnen, M. M. (2012). The water footprint of humanity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 109(9), 3232–3237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109936109
Hoekstra, A. Y., &Wiedmann, T. O. (2014). Humanity's unsustainable environmental footprint. Science, 344(6188), 1114–1117. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1248365
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). 14040: Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and frame-
work. London.
International Organization for Standardization. (2014). 14046:2014 Environmental management—water footprint—Principles,
requirements and guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/43263.html
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 18 of 20
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). 14067:2018 Greenhouse gases—Carbon footprint of products—Requirements and
guidelines for quantification. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/71206.html
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Schaphoff, S., Kummu, M., & Lucht, W. (2015). Water savings potentials of irrigation systems:
Global simulation of processes and linkages. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(7), 3073–3091. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess‐19‐3073‐2015
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Heinke, J., Lucht, W., & Rockström, J. (2016). Integrated crop water management might sus-
tainably halve the global food gap. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 025002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/11/2/025002
Jägermeyr, J., Pastor, A., Biemans, H., & Gerten, D. (2017). Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for sustainable
development goals implementation. Nature Communications, 8, 15900. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15900
Jalava, M., Guillaume, J. H. A., Kummu, M., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., & Varis, O. (2016). Diet change and food loss reduction: what is their
combined impact on global water use and scarcity? Earth's Future, 4, 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EF000327
Jalava, M., Kummu, M., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., & Varis, O. (2014). Diet change—A solution to reduce water use? Environmental Research
Letters, 9, 074016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/9/7/074016
Kahler, M. (2009). Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Economics Letters,
119(3), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019
Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. (2002). A handbook for value chain research. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Center
(IDRC).
Karlsson‐Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & Vihma, A. (2009). Comparing the legitimacy and effectiveness of global hard and soft law: An analytical
framework. Regulation & Governance, 3(4), 400–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748‐5991.2009.01062.x
Kühnen, M., Hahn, R., Silva, S. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). Final report: The handprint—A complementary measure of positive sustain-
ability impacts. Wuppertal, Germany. Retrieved from https://www.scp‐centre.org/publications/final‐report‐handprint/
Kühnen, M., Silva, S., Beckmann, J., Eberle, U., Hahn, R., Hermann, C., et al. (2019). Contributions to the sustainable development goals in
life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the handprint research project. NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum|Sustainability
Management Forum, 27(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550‐019‐00484‐y
Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain
losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertilizer use. Science of the Total Environment, 438, 477–489. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092
Kummu, M., Fader, M., Gerten, D., Guillaume, J. H. A. J. H., Jalava, M., Jägermeyr, J., et al. (2017). Bringing it all together: Linking
measures to secure nations' food supply. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 29, 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2018.01.006
Kummu, M., Guillaume, J. H. A., de Moel, H., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Porkka, M., et al. (2016). The world's road to water scarcity: Shortage
and stress in the 20th century and pathways towards sustainability. Scientific Reports, 6, 38495. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38495
Lahtinen, T. J., Guillaume, J. H. A., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2017). Why pay attention to paths in the practice of environmental modeling?
Environmental Modeling & Software, 92, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.02.019
Lange, B., & Shepheard, M. (2014). Changing conceptions of rights to water? An eco‐socio‐legal perspective. Journal of Environmental Law,
26(2), 215–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/equ013
Lehikoinen, E., Parviainen, T., Helenius, J., Jalava, M., Salonen, A., & Kummu, M. (2019). Cattle production for exports in water‐abundant
areas: The case of Finland. Sustainability, 11(4), 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041075
Liu, J., Yang, H., Gosling, S. N., Kummu, M., Flörke, M., Pfister, S., et al. (2017). Water scarcity assessments in the past, present and future.
Earth's Future, 5(6), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000518
Lownds, S. (2009). Your carbon footprint is your effect on our planet. Your handprint is what you do about it.
Mekonnen, M. M., Gerbens‐Leenes, P. W., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2016). Future electricity: The challenge of reducing both carbon and water
footprint. Science of the Total Environment, 569‐570, 1282–1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.204
Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). The green, blue and gray water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, 15(5), 1577–1600. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess‐15‐1577‐2011
Mekonnen, M.M., &Hoekstra, A. Y. (2016). Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Science Advances, 2, e1500323. https://doi.org/
10.1126/sciadv.1500323
Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholder: Essentially contested or just confused? Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551‐011‐1090‐8
Miller, D., & Le Breton‐Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business
Review, 19(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741‐6248.2006.00063.x
Molden, D. (2007). Water for food water for life. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849773799
Mueller, N. D., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water
management. Nature, 490(7419), 254–257. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420
NETPositive Futures, & Stockholm Environment Institute. (2019). What is NETPositive? Retrieved from https://www.netpositivesupplier.
co.uk/about/
Niemi, J., Liesivaara, P., Lehtonen, H., Huan‐Niemi, E., Kettunen, L., Kässi, P., & Toikkanen, H. (2014). EU:n yhteinenmaatalouspolitiikka
vuosina 2014–2020 ja Suomenmaatalous (EU's Common Agricultural Policy during 2014–2020 and Finnish agriculture). Retrieved from
http://urn.fi/URN/URN:ISBN:978-952-487-512-7
Norris, G. (2011). Doing more good than harm: Footprints, handprints, and beneficience. Retrieved from http://www.fusbp.com/wp‐-
content/uploads/2010/09/Basic‐Beneficience‐Primer‐Handprint‐accounting1.pdf
Norris, G. (2015). Handprint‐based NetPositive assessment. Retrieved from http://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/handprint‐based_
netpositive_assessment.pdf
Page, G., Ridoutt, B., & Bellotti, B. (2012). Carbon and water footprint tradeoffs in fresh tomato production. Journal of Cleaner Production,
32, 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.036
Pattberg, P., & Stripple, J. (2008). Beyond the public and private divide: Remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century.
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784‐008‐9085‐3
Pfister, S., Bayer, P., Koehler, A., & Hellweg, S. (2011). Environmental impacts of water use in global crop production: Hotspots and
trade‐offs with land use. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(13), 5761–5768. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1041755
Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and
Resilience. Retrieved from. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oxpp/oppccr/2012/00000008/00000001/art00001
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 19 of 20
Raworth, K. (2017). A doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity's compass in the 21st century. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(2),
e48–e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542‐5196(17)30028‐1
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder
analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2009.01.001
Ridoutt, B. G., Fantke, P., Pfister, S., Bare, J., Boulay, A.‐M., Cherubini, F., et al. (2015). Making sense of the minefield of footprint indi-
cators. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(5), 2601–2603. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00163
Ridoutt, B. G., Pfister, S., Manzardo, A., Bare, J., Boulay, A.‐M., Cherubini, F., et al. (2015). Area of concern: A new paradigm in life cycle
assessment for the development of footprint metrics. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment., 21(2), 276–280. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367‐015‐1011‐7
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature,
461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Rohn, H., Pastewski, N., Lettenmeier, M., Wiesen, K., & Bienge, K. (2014). Resource efficiency potential of selected technologies, products
and strategies. Science of the Total Environment, 473–474, 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.024
Rohwedder, R. (2014). Ecological handprints: Breakthrough innovations in the developing world.
Rozza, J. P., Richter, B. D., Larson, W. M., Redder, T., Vigerstol, K., & Bowen, P. (2013). Corporate water stewardship: Achieving a sus-
tainable balance. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3. https://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v3n4p41
Schulte, P., Orr, S., & Morrison, J. (2014). Shared risks and interests. In P. H. Gleick (Ed.), The world's water: The biennial report on fresh-
water resources, (pp. 19–33). Washington, Covelo and London: Island Press.
Shaikh, M. A., Kucukvar, M., Onat, N. C., & Kirkil, G. (2017). A framework for water and carbon footprint analysis of national electricity
production scenarios. Energy, 139, 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.124
Sojamo, S. (2015). Unlocking the “prisoner's dilemma” of corporate water stewardship in South Africa—Exploring corporate power and
legitimacy of engagement in water management and governance. Sustainability, 7(6), 6893–6918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066893
Statistics Finland. (2019). Finnish national statistics database. Retrieved from http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/index_en.html
Steffen, A. (2006). Ecological handprints: Population and the limits of possibility. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/
20150914055624/http://worldchanging.com/archives/004509.html
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science, science.1259855‐, 347, 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Sturgeon, T. J. (2009). From commodity chains to value chains: Interdisciplinary theory building in an age of globalization. In J. Bair (Ed.),
Frontiers of commodity chain research, (pp. 110–135). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K., & Sachs, O. (2013). For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral
energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.021
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledeve-
lopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf.
Vatanen, S., Grönman, K., Pajula, T., Pihkola, H., Soukka, R., Kasurinen, H., et al. (2018). The Carbon handprint approach to assessing and
communicating the positive climate impact of products. Espoo, Finland. Retrieved from https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2018/
T346.pdf
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Callejas Linares, A., Susana López Falfán, I., Méndez Garcıá, J., et al. (1999). National natural capital
accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 29(3), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921‐8009(98)90063‐5
Wada, Y., & Bierkens, M. F. P. (2014). Sustainability of global water use: Past reconstruction and future projections. Environmental
Research Letters, 9, 104003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/9/10/104003
Wada, Y., Gleeson, T., & Esnault, L. (2014). Wedge approach to water stress. Nature Geoscience, 7(9), 615–617. https://doi.org/10.1038/
ngeo2241
Wada, Y., van Beek, L. P. H., & Bierkens, M. F. P. (2011). Modeling global water stress of the recent past: On the relative importance of
trends in water demand and climate variability. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(12), 3785–3808. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess‐15‐3785‐2011
Weidema, B., Wenzel, H., Petersen, C., & Hansen, K. (2004). The product, functional unit and reference flows in LCA. Retrieved from
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/Publications/2004/87-7614-233-7/pdf/87-7614-234-5.PDF
10.1029/2019EF001422Earth's Future
GUILLAUME ET AL. 20 of 20