Abstract: In the last decade, two scientific tools have been extensively used worldwide to measure the human impact on nature: ecological footprint (EF) and emergy analysis (EA). Papers trying to combine the strong points of EF and EA, and obtain more accurate results have appeared in scientific literature, in which Zhao’s et al. (2005) approach is an important one. Unfortunately, some weak points of the original methods still remain on the new approaches proposed. The aim of this present work is to discuss some weak points found in Zhao’s approach, trying to overcome them through a new approach called emergetic ecological footprint (EEF). The main difference between Zhao’s approach and EEF is that the last one accounted for the internal storage of capital natural in the biocapacity calculation. Besides that, soil loss and water for human consume were considered as additional categories in the footprint calculation. After discussing it through comparisons with other approaches, EEF was used to assess Peru as a case study, resulting in a biocapacity of 51.76ghacapita−1 and a footprint of 12.23ghacapita−1, with 2004 data; that resulted in an ecological surplus of 39.53ghacapita−1. The load capacity factor obtained was 4.23, meaning that Peru can support a population 4.23 times bigger considering the life style of 2004. The main limitations of the EEF are: (i) it is impossible to make comparisons between the biocapacity and footprint for each category; (ii) a need for a handbook with emergy intensity factors with good quality. On the other hand, the main positive points are: (i) its easiness of application in global and national scales; (ii) its final indicators account for all the previous energy (or emergy) used to make something; (iii) internal natural capital storage was accounted for in the biocapacity calculation, which can be a valid step towards the evaluation and assess of services provided by nature. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]