Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse




Journal Article

Giving legs to handprint thinking: Foundations for evaluating the good we do


Guillaume,  J. H. A.
External Organizations;

Sojamo,  S.
External Organizations;

Porkka,  M.
External Organizations;


Gerten,  Dieter
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Jalava,  M.
External Organizations;

Lankoski,  L.
External Organizations;

Lehikoinen,  E.
External Organizations;

Lettenmeier,  M.
External Organizations;

Pfister,  S.
External Organizations;

Usva,  K.
External Organizations;

Wada,  Y.
External Organizations;

Kummu,  M.
External Organizations;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)

(Publisher version), 2MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available

Guillaume, J. H. A., Sojamo, S., Porkka, M., Gerten, D., Jalava, M., Lankoski, L., Lehikoinen, E., Lettenmeier, M., Pfister, S., Usva, K., Wada, Y., Kummu, M. (2020): Giving legs to handprint thinking: Foundations for evaluating the good we do. - Earth's Future, 8, 6, e2019EF001422.

Cite as: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_23928
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.”