Although Industrial Ecology (IE) aims to optimise resource use, reduce environmental impacts, and promote sustainable systems, many of its methods and proposed solutions rely on normative decisions that often remain implicit. This thesis explores the foundational role of ethics in IE by examining how explicit and implicit moral assumptions influence its research and applications. Drawing on examples such as the Circular Economy, green growth and degrowth, Life Cycle Assessment, and anthropogenic impacts on nonhuman animals, this research shows how unresolved ethical tensions can shape both the direction and effectiveness of IE and sustainability research more broadly. In response, this study develops a systematic tool to help researchers identify, evaluate, and communicate the moral assumptions underpinning their work.
To explore how ethics is explicitly applied, a targeted literature review of 32 IE-related papers was conducted. Each paper was assessed for its use of ethical theories, its moral assumptions, and the role these play in guiding research outcomes. While a wide variety of ethical theories are referenced in the literature, no single one dominates the field. Nonetheless, outcome-based reasoning, focused on how people or animals would be affected, is consistently used to justify normative choices. The analysed papers also pay special attention to the perspectives of underrepresented groups, such as informal workers, nonhuman animals, and future generations.
To analyse implicit ethical views, two case studies covering 53 papers were conducted: one on green growth versus degrowth, and one on anthropogenic impacts on nonhuman animals. The results suggest that moral disagreements are often rooted in differences in reasoning and available information, rather than in fundamentally opposing and irreconcilable views. Across both case studies, normative arguments again tended to rely on the anticipated impacts on affected groups, reinforcing earlier findings. These results were presented in a Delphi study with a panel of academic experts, who discussed them from multiple perspectives. Despite some differences in interpretation, participants broadly supported the need for moral pluralism, transparency, and experience-based ethical reasoning, while cautioning against rigid, prescriptive frameworks.
Building on these insights, this thesis proposes a non-prescriptive framework for evaluating moral assumptions in sustainability research: the Descriptive Holistic Moral Framework (DHMF). Grounded in four key premises that emerged from this research, the DHMF centres on the lived experiences of all sentient beings affected by sustainability-related decisions. It forms the foundation for the Holistic Moral Evaluation (HoME) Profile, which is a one-page overview designed to help researchers summarise their scientific contribution, core recommendation, moral assumptions, and anticipated experiential impacts. By making ethical reasoning more visible and accessible, the HoME Profile supports clearer communication, critical reflection, and broader engagement with stakeholders, even those without a scientific background.
Ultimately, this thesis argues that ethical reflection must become a core part of sustainability research. The DHMF and HoME Profile do not replace existing ethical theories but complement them by promoting transparency, inclusivity, and shared responsibility in addressing the urgent and complex sustainability challenges of the 21st century.