Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach
- 998 Downloads
This article discusses the choice of stakeholder categories and the integration of stakeholders into participatory processes to define impact categories and select indicators.
We undertook a literature review concerning the roles and the importance of stakeholders in participatory processes, and the use of such processes in environmental and social LCAs (Biswas et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(4):184-190, 1998; Sonnemann et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(6):325-333, 2001; Baldo Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):269-275, 2002; James et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(3):151-157, 2002; Bras-Kapwijk Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):266-272, 2003; Mettier et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):468-476, 2006). As part of the French National Research Agency Piscenlit project, we adapted the Principle, Criteria, Indicator (PCI) method (Rey-Valette et al. 2008), which is an assessment method of sustainable development, as a way to integrate the participatory approach into Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methodology, mainly at the impact definition stage.
Results and discussion
Different views of participation were found in the literature; there is no consensual normative approach for the implication of stakeholders in LCA development. Some attempts have been made to integrate stakeholders into environmental LCAs but these attempts have not been generalized. However, they strongly emphasize the interrelationship between research on the growing integration of stakeholders and on the choice of stakeholders. We then propose criteria from stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984; Mitchell et al. Acad Manage Rev 22(4):853-886, 1997; Geibler et al. Bus Strat Environ 15:334-346, 2006) in order to identify relevant stakeholders for SLCA participatory approach. The adaptation of the PCI method to Principles, Impacts, and Indicators (PII) enables stakeholders to express themselves and hence leads to definitions of relevant social indicators that they can appropriate. The paper presents results regarding the selection of stakeholders but no specific results regarding the choice of impact categories and indicators.
Conclusions and recommendations
Integrating a participatory approach into SLCAs is of interest at several levels. It enables various factors to be taken into account: plurality of stakeholder interests, local knowledge, and impact categories that make sense for stakeholders in different contexts. It also promotes dialogue and simplifies the search for indicators. However, it requires a multidisciplinary approach and the integration of new knowledge and skills for the SLCA practitioners.
KeywordsImpact choices Participatory approach SLCA Stakeholder
- Baudry B (2003) Economie de la firme. Repère. La Découverte. 128 ppGoogle Scholar
- Beach S (2008) Sustainability of network governance: stakeholder influence. In Brown K.A., Mandell M., Furneaux C.W., Beach S (Eds) Proceedings contemporary issues in public management: the twelfth annual conference of the International Research Society for public management (IRSPM XII), Brisbane, Australia, pp 1-23Google Scholar
- Dalal-Clayton B, Bass S (2002) Sustainable development strategies. A resource book. Earthscan Publication Ltd.Google Scholar
- Freeman ER (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach, Pitaman, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Fréry F (1997) la chaine et le réseau. In Besson P. (coord.) Dedans, dehors, les nouvelles frontières de l'organisation, Vuibert, pp 23–52Google Scholar
- Gafsi M (2006) Exploitations agricoles et agriculture durable. Agric Cah Etudes Rech Francoph 15(6):491–497Google Scholar
- Griffon M (2010) Pour une agriculture écologiquement intensive des territoires à haute valeur environnementale et de nouvelles politiques agricoles. Editions de l’Aubes. 141 ppGoogle Scholar
- Kruse SA, Flysjö A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz AJ (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment- an application to salmon production systems. Int J life Cycle Assess 14(2):8–18Google Scholar
- Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):3–15Google Scholar
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood D (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886Google Scholar
- Paterman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. The University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
- Rey-Valette H, Clément O, Aubin J, Mathé S, Chia E, Legendre M, Caruso D, Mikolasek O, Blancheton J-P, Slembrouck J, Baruthio A, René F, Levang P, Morrissens P, Lazard J (2008). Guide to the co-construction of sustainable development indicators in aquaculture. © Cirad, Ifremer, INRA, IRD, Université Montpellier 1. Diffusion Cirad-Montpellier, 144 ppGoogle Scholar
- Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a fremwork for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 25:3–29Google Scholar
- Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Press, Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Williamson O (1990) The firm as a nexus of treaties. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar