From SDGs to planetary boundaries in corporate sustainability
Corporate sustainability has reached a critical juncture. While the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have dominated the business sustainability landscape since 2015, a growing number of forward-thinking companies are recognising the limitations of this framework and turning to a more scientifically grounded alternative: the planetary boundaries framework. This shift represents more than just a change in metrics – it's a fundamental reimagining of how businesses can understand, measure and manage their environmental impact.
The planetary boundaries framework as a scientific foundation
The planetary boundaries concept, developed by Johan Rockström and his colleagues at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, identifies nine critical Earth system processes that regulate the stability and resilience of our planet. These boundaries define the safe operating space for humanity, beyond which we risk triggering irreversible environmental changes. The nine boundaries encompass climate change, biodiversity loss, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, ocean acidification, land use change, freshwater use, ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading and chemical pollution.
Unlike the SDGs, which emerged from political negotiations and compromise, the planetary boundaries are rooted in Earth system science. They represent quantifiable thresholds based on our understanding of how the planet functions as an integrated system. This scientific foundation provides companies with clear, measurable targets that directly correspond to environmental limits our planet can sustain.
The SDG challenge of complexity without clarity
The 17 SDGs, while comprehensive and well-intentioned, present significant challenges for corporate implementation. With 169 targets and over 230 indicators, the framework's complexity often overwhelms businesses trying to establish meaningful sustainability strategies. Companies frequently struggle to prioritise among competing goals, leading to fragmented approaches that may address symptoms rather than root causes of environmental degradation.
Moreover, many SDGs are aspirational rather than science-based. Goals like ‘sustainable cities’ or ‘responsible consumption’ lack the quantitative precision necessary for effective corporate planning and measurement. This ambiguity allows for greenwashing, where companies can claim progress without substantially changing their environmental impact. The result is often a patchwork of initiatives that may look impressive in sustainability reports but fail to address the fundamental drivers of planetary-scale environmental problems.
The interconnected nature of the SDGs also creates confusion about priorities. A company might excel in one area while unknowingly undermining progress in others. Without clearlyunderstanding which environmental limits are most critical and how business activities relate to planetary-scale processes, companies risk misallocating resources and missing opportunities for meaningful impact.
Planetary boundaries as a source of clarity and scientific grounding
The planetary boundaries framework offers companies a fundamentally different approachthat prioritises clarity and scientific rigour over political palatability. Each boundary is quantifiable, with specific thresholds that companies can use to assess their impact. For instance, the climate change boundary is expressed in terms of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (currently set at 350 parts per million), while the nitrogen boundary relates to the amount of nitrogen removed from the atmosphere for human use.
This quantitative approach allows companies to translate their operations into planetary-scale impact with unprecedented precision. A manufacturing company can calculate not just its carbon footprint, but also its contribution to nitrogen pollution through fertiliser use in its supply chain, its impact on biodiversity through land use changes and its freshwater consumption relative to regional water boundaries. This comprehensive view enables more strategic decision-making about where to focus sustainability efforts for maximum planetary benefit.
The framework also provides natural prioritisation. Some boundaries, like climate change and biodiversity loss, are identified as ‘core boundaries’ that could single-handedly push Earth into a new state if crossed. This scientific hierarchy helps companies understand which impacts demand immediate attention and which can be addressed over longer timeframes.
Practical implementation advantages
The planetary boundaries framework offers several practical advantages for corporate implementation.
First, it provides a clear connection between local business decisions and global environmental outcomes. When a company reduces its freshwater consumption, it can directly relate this action to staying within the planetary freshwater boundary, making the relevance immediately apparent to stakeholders.
Second, the framework facilitates better supply chain management. Companies can assess suppliers not just on efficiency or cost, but also on their contribution to crossing planetary boundaries. This incentivises systemic change throughout value chains as companies demandsuppliers operate within planetary limits.
Third, the boundaries enable more sophisticated risk assessments. Companies can evaluate how their operations might be affected by crossing various planetary boundaries, from water scarcity due to freshwater boundary transgression to supply chain disruption from biodiversity loss. This forward-looking approach helps businesses build resilience while reducing their environmental impact.
The framework also supports innovation by highlighting specific environmental constraints that need technological solutions. Rather than pursuing general ‘sustainability’, companies can focus research and development efforts on staying within specific boundaries, leading to more targeted and effective innovation.
Measuring what matters
Perhaps the most compelling advantage of planetary boundaries is their measurability. Each boundary provides clear metrics that companies can track over time, enabling genuine accountability and progress monitoring. Unlike vague commitments to ‘sustainable development’, companies can set specific targets aligned with planetary limits and report progress with scientific precision.
This measurement capability extends to benchmarking and comparison. Companies operatingin similar sectors can directly compare their planetary impact, creating competitive pressures for improvement. Investors and other stakeholders can also make more informed decisions based on quantified environmental impact rather than subjective sustainability narratives.
The boundaries also enable allocation approaches, where companies can determine their ‘fair share’ of each planetary boundary based on their size, sector or other relevant factors. This creates a path towards science-based target setting that goes beyond current approaches focused primarily on climate change.
A path forward
The transition from SDGs to planetary boundaries doesn't require abandoning social responsibility or governance concerns addressed by the broader SDG framework. Instead, it means grounding environmental strategy in scientific reality while addressing social and governance issues through other frameworks better suited to these dimensions.
Companies ready to adopt this approach should start by conducting planetary boundary assessments to understand their current impact across all nine boundaries. This baseline enables strategic planning focused on the boundaries where the company has the greatest impact or where the planet is closest to dangerous thresholds.
The planetary boundaries framework represents the next evolution in corporate environmental responsibility, moving beyond political compromise towards scientific truth. For companies serious about environmental impact, the choice is clear: embrace the clarity and rigour of planetary boundaries and help build a business community operating within the safe space for humanity on Earth.
