Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach

SOCIETAL LCA

Abstract

Purpose

This article discusses the choice of stakeholder categories and the integration of stakeholders into participatory processes to define impact categories and select indicators.

Methods

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.

Keywords

Impact choices Participatory approach SLCA Stakeholder 

References

  1. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches to measuring passive use values: choice experiments versus contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1):64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher C, Mahoney JM, Mahoney JT (2005) Towards a property rights foundation for a stakeholder theory of the firm. J Manag Governance 9:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldo GL, Rollino S, Stimmeder G, Fieschi M (2002) The use of LCA to develop eco-label criteria for hard floor coverings on behalf of the European flower. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudry B (2003) Economie de la firme. Repère. La Découverte. 128 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Benoit C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoit-Norris C (2014) Data for social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoit-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biswas G, Clift R, Davis G, Ehrenfeld J, Förster R, Jolliet O, Knoepfel I, Luterbacher U, Russell D, Hunkeler D (1998) Econometrics. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(4):184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bras-Kapwijk R (2003) Procedure and tools for generating and selecting alternatives in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalal-Clayton B, Bass S (2002) Sustainable development strategies. A resource book. Earthscan Publication Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterization of social impacts in LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(4):385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ, Mabee WE, Reed M, McAlpine P (2006) Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J Environ Manag 78:114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freebairn DM, King CA (2003) Reflections on collectively working toward sustainability: indicators for indicators! Aust J Exp Agric 43:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman ER (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach, Pitaman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Geibler J, Liedtke C, Wallbaum H, Schaller S (2006) Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: experiences from the biotechnology industry. Bus Strateg Environ 15:334–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gafsi M (2006) Exploitations agricoles et agriculture durable. Agric Cah Etudes Rech Francoph 15(6):491–497Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Hunkeler D (2006) Social LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James KL, Grant T, Sonneveld K (2002) Stakeholder involvement in Australian paper and packing waste management LCA study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(3):151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jorgensen A, Hauschild MZ, Jorgensen MS, Wangel A (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Loeillet D (2011) 2nd International Seminar in Social Life Cycle Assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(9):940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mendoza GA, Prabhu R (2000) Development of a methodology for selecting criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management: a case study on participatory assessment. Environ Manag 26(6):659–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mettier T, Scholz RW, Tietje O (2006) Measuring preference on environmental damages in LCIA, part 1: cognitive limits in panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Norris GA (2006) Social impacts in products life cycles. Towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess (Suppl 1) 11(1):97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paterman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. The University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  33. Reap J, Roman F, Ducan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):209–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reitinger C, Matthias D, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Renn O, Webler T, Rakel H, Dienel P, Johnson B (1993) Public decision in decision making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sci 26:189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Rosenström U, Kyllönen S (2007) Impacts of a participatory approach to developing national level sustainable development indicators in Finland. J Environ Manag 84:282–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a fremwork for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 25:3–29Google Scholar
  39. Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Press, Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  40. Sonnemann GW, Solgaard A, Saur K, Udo de Haes HA, Christiansen K, Astrup Jensen A (2001) Life cycle management: UNEP-workshop—sharing experiences on LCM. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(6):325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swarr T (2011) A capability framework for managing social and environmental concerns. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):593–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(1):89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williamson O (1990) The firm as a nexus of treaties. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Winjberg NM (2000) Normative stakeholders theory and Aristotle : the link between ethics and politics. J Bus Ethics 25:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):596–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRAD, UMR InnovationMontpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.CNRS, UMR LAMETAMontpellier Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations