Advertisement

Ecological modernization, techno-politics and social life cycle assessment: a view from human geography

  • Kersty Hobson
  • Nicholas Lynch
SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS

Abstract

Purpose

Although Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is a growing field of inquiry and intervention, to date, there has been a dearth of engagement between this field and critical social scientists interested in questions of the societal impacts of goods and services. In response, this paper is written from the perspectives of two human geographers, new to the field of SLCA. Our aim is to offer an ‘outsiders’ perspective of, and commentary on, the growing field of SLCA, which we frame as a form of political intervention that seeks to have real-world impacts on the lives and futures of diverse peoples and places.

Methods

To address these questions, we explore SLCA’s underpinning assumptions by critically reviewing the worldviews that inform its methods, including debates in the literature about sustainable development and corporate social responsibility.

Results and discussion

SLCA’s normative and practical applications resonate strongly with an ecological modernization framework. This framework forwards social change via incremental and institutional interventions that promotes continued development, and privileges objectivity, impartiality and the search for a totalizing knowledge of the impacts of good and services.

Conclusions

Exploring SLCA’s epistemological foundations illuminates, and in turn, can help to address some of the key challenges SLCA currently faces. Drawing attention to SLCA’s inheren raison d’etre encourages more debate about the overall intentions and limits of the field, and represents not a weakness but rather its inherent quality of exploring the complex world of social impacts.

Keywords

Ecological modernization Social life cycle assessment Sustainable development Techno-politics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant EP/K026380/1 ‘Closed Loop Emotionally Valuable E-waste Recovery (CLEVER)’.

References

  1. Bair J (2008) Analyzing economic organization: embedded networks and global chains compared. Econ Soc 37(3):339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee SB (2003) Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Org Stud 24:143–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee SB (2008) Corporate social responsibility: the good, the bad and the ugly. Crit Soc 34(1):51–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barry J (2012) The politics of actually existing unsustainability: human flourishing in a climate-changed, carbon constrained world. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beloe S, Elkington J, Prakash-Mani K, Thorpe J, Zollinger P (2004) Gearing up: from corporate responsibility to good governance and scalable solutions, Global Compact. Retrieved June 2015 from www.ibram.org.br/sites/1300/1382/00000768.pdf
  6. Benoit C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoit C, Norris G, Valdvivia 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 15:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bumpus A, Liverman D (2008) Accumulation by decarbonisation and the governance of carbon offsets. Econ Geogr 84:127–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carbo J, Langella I, Viet D, Haase S (2014) Breaking the ties that bind: from corporate sustainability to socially sustainable systems. Bus Soc 119:175–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castree N (2005) The epistemology of particulars: human geography, case studies and ‘context’. Geoforum 36(5):541–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper C (2013) Physics envy: why energy policy is more art than science. J World Energy Law Bus 6(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curran AM (2014) Strengths and limitations of life cycle assessment. In: Klöpffer W (ed) Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment. Springer, New York and London, pp 189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denzin NK (2009) The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qual Res 9(2):139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dikeç M (2005) Space, politics, and the political. Environ Plan D 23:171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drexhage J, Murphy D (2010) Sustainable Development: from Brundtland to Rio 2012. United Nations, Background Paper, Retrieved June 2015 from http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/GSP1-6_Background%20on%20Sustainable%20Devt.pdf
  16. Ebrahim A (2003) Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Manag and Leadership 14(2):191–212Google Scholar
  17. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2005) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Escobar A (1992) Imagining a post-development era: critical thought, development and social movements. Soc Text 31/32:20–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fava J, Consoli F, Denison R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B (1993) A conceptual framework for life cycle impact assessment, workshop report society of environmental toxicology and chemistry (SETAC). Foundation for Environmental Education, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher DR, Freudenburg WR (2001) Ecological modernization and its critics: assessing the past and looking toward the future. Soc Nat Resour 14(8):701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flint C (2003) Dying for a "P"? Some questions facing contemporary political geography. Poli Geogr 22:617–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foster JB (2012) The planetary rift and the new human exemptionalism a political-economic critique of ecological modernization theory. Org Environ 25(3):211–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freidberg S (2013) Calculating sustainability in supply chain capitalism. Econ Soc 42(4):571–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freidberg S (2014) Footprint technopolitics. Geoforum 55:178–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freidberg S (2015) From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0879-6 Google Scholar
  27. Hajer M (1995) The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernisation and the policy process. Clarendon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamilton C, Gemenne F, Bonneuil C (2015) The anthropocene and the global environmental crisis: rethinking modernity in a new epoch. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud 14(3):575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harvey D (1996) Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Harvey D (2014) Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Hobson K (2013) ‘Weak’ or ‘strong’ sustainable consumption? Efficiency, de-growth and the 10 year framework programme. Environ Plan C 31(6):1082–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Jørgensen A (2013) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klöpffer W (2014) Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Macombe C, Lagarde V, Falque A, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Gillet C, Loeillet D (2013) Social LCAs: socio-economic effects in value chains. Fruitrop Thema, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright PM (2006) Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Manag Stud 42:1–19Google Scholar
  41. Mol AP, Spaargaren G (2000) Ecological modernisation theory in debate: a review. Environ Polit 9(1):17–49Google Scholar
  42. Mylan J (2015) Understanding the diffusion of sustainable product-service systems: insights from the sociology of consumption and practice theory. J Clean Prod 97:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Orlitzky M, Siegel DS, Waldman DA (2011) Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Bus Soc 50:6–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ormond J (2015) New regimes of reponsibilization: practicing product carbon footprinting in the new carbon economy. Econ Geogr. doi: 10.1111/ecge.12095 Google Scholar
  45. Parent J, Cucuzella C, Reveret JP (2013) Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1642–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parr A (2014) The wrath of capital: neoliberalism and climate change. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Redclift M (1987) Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. Methuen, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robbins P (2004) Political ecology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose G (1997) Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Prog Hum Geogr 21(3):305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schor JB (2010) Plenitude: the new economics of true wealth. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Shanteau J, Weiss DJ (2013) Physics envy: trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Behav Brain Sci 36(3):306–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simons H (2009) Case study research in practice. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Sneddon C, Howarth RB, Norgaard RB (2006) Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecol Econ 57:253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spaargaren G, Mol AP (1992) Sociology, environment, and modernity: ecological modernization as a theory of social change. Soc Nat Resour 5(4):323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spaargaren G, Van Vliet B (2000) Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: the ecological modernization of domestic consumption. Environ Pollut 9(1):50–76Google Scholar
  56. Sutton PW (2007) The environment: a sociological introduction. Polity Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. UNEP (2013) Greening the Economy through Life Cycle Thinking, United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved June 2015, from http://www.unep.fr/scp/publications/details.asp?id=DTI/1536/PA
  58. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilkinson RG, Pickett K (2011) The spirit level. Tantor Media, Inc., ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  60. York R, Rosa E, Dietz T (2010) Ecological modernization theory: theoretical and empirical challenges. In: Redclift M, Woodgate G (eds) The international handbook of environmental sociology. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, pp 77–90Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geography and EnvironmentThe University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations