Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extended community of peers and robustness of social LCA

  • SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This paper questions the robustness of social life cycle analysis (LCA), based on four social LCA case studies. To improve robustness of social LCA, it is a necessity to fight against its weaknesses. The paper addresses three questions: (1) what are its weaknesses? (2) How can they be combated? There are solutions suggested by the Conventions theory. The Conventions theory asserts that people are capable of adopting conventions (agreements between members of a group) to define what is fair and what is not, depending on the problem. The suggested solution consists in creating a new group (which has been called “extended community of peers”), which will define a new convention adapted to each new situation. The third question is, therefore, (3) do we need to resort to an extended community of peers to combat the social LCA weaknesses?

Methods

To contribute to these debates, we discuss the classification of weaknesses defined by the Roy’s decision-making assistance methods: (1) not dealing with the lack of knowledge, (2) attributing undue preferential meaning to certain data, (3) implementing misleading models, and (4) using meaningless technical parameters. We discuss the literature about creating new conventions thanks to peer involvement. To determine whether the creation of an extended community of peers influences the robustness, we will analyse four case studies (social LCA) which we conducted in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The first ones were conducted in Southern territories, relating to various agricultural products (banana, meat, orange). Another case study comes from a northern region, with the objective of comparing direct local supply systems and large-scale supply chains of various agricultural products.

Results and discussion

About weaknesses in LCA, we highlight that environmental LCA authors have identified in their own works the same weakness points as Roy had done for other decision-making tools. We display that these weaknesses are present also in the “Guidelines for SLCA of Products” (UNEP-SETAC 2009). About fighting these weaknesses, building an extended community of peers may be a solution, but a conditional one. We cannot draw a general conclusion from such a small number of cases. However, in both case studies where a real community of peers was formed, the initial convention changed, and many weaknesses were mitigated. These changes did not occur in the other two cases, where no community of peers was mobilised. In particular, a relevant and plausible impact assessment was provided in the former two cases, while this was impossible in the latter two. The community of peers seems to function by comparison of a variety of viewpoints. Nevertheless, peer involvement is not the ultimate weapon against the weaknesses of social LCA, as we experienced it. These difficulties highlight the importance of the role of the consultants/researchers conducting the study. It is up to them to distinguish the situations which will lead to failure, from those which are manageable. It is up to them to generate the evaluative question, provide facts and negotiate.

Conclusions

The creation of a community of peers does not guarantee that problems will be solved. The consultants and researchers have a particular responsibility in decrypting the power games and unfounded beliefs. Introducing the extended community of peers into the LCA landscape goes against the quest for standardisation. But specifying which convention was chosen does not impair the genericity of the method. On the contrary, the researcher’s critique of their own methods is an integral part of the scientific approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, in the case of Preston’s pathway connecting added value generated and improving life expectancy, a condition will be that at least 60% of this added value be distributed in the form of direct and indirect remuneration.

  2. If we choose the commercial convention for example, the natural uncertainties will be lifted by knowledge of the prices and quality of the merchandise. Yet, the critical uncertainties which could arise from equity of distribution of goods, or respect for natural beauty, will not be lifted without agreeing on another convention, possibly compromising with the commercial convention.

  3. The central values of this convention are usefulness and effectiveness.

  4. Approximation is an inaccurate representation while keeping a close link with the quantity or the object approximation stands for.

  5. The zones of ignorance are knowledge or experience shortage about one given domain.

  6. Another process is possible: to capture impacts first (Feschet et al. 2012) and then to turn back to the few data necessary to calculate the impacts.

  7. Huijbregts et al. (2000) however wondered about the sources of uncertainty in calculating toxicity potentials (a quantitative representation of potential impacts per unit emission of a toxic substance), and conclude that they may still suffer from large uncertainties

  8. EF is presented as the future consensual method of environmental life cycle analysis of the European Commission.

  9. Other Social LCA methods (Macombe 2013) include relating of impacts to FU.

  10. The attempt to encode the values of the stakeholders “may well be the effect of a call for greater standardisation of LCA methodology (where this pertains to value-laden aspects) and a drive towards endpoint modelling which denies stakeholders an opportunity to explore their values and preferences and examine the effects of these on the decisions to be made” (Basson and Petrie 2007, p. 175).

  11. The term “system uncertainties” means that the problem is not the discovery of one fact, but the comprehension or management of a reality.

  12. Because this is a compromise between conventions, it will “manage” uncertainties, without being able to eliminate them.

  13. The study showed that other techniques (defoliation) were effective, without endangering the financial balance of the farm.

  14. Fallow is an unharvested crop grown between two harvested crops demanding in terms of fertiliser, which allows the soil to rest and regain nutrients. Its duration varies (from a few months to a few years) depending on the condition of the soil, the main crops, etc.

  15. “Where LCA is used to support decision making, provision for diversity with regard to value-laden aspects is thus required” (Basson and Petrie 2007, p. 175)

References

  • Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B (1988b) A quoi tient le succès des innovations? part 2 : Le choix des porte-parole. Ann Mines 12:14–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B (1988a) A quoi tient le succès des innovations? part 1 : L’art de l’intéressement. Ann Mines 11:4–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardvisson R, Baumann H, Hildenbrand J (2015) On the scientific justification of the use of working hours, child labour and property rights in social life cycle assessment: three topical reviews. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basson L, Petrie JG (2007) An integrated approach for the consideration of uncertainty in decision making supported by life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 22:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batifoulier P (2001) Théorie des Conventions. Economica, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22:739–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benetto E, Dujet C, Rousseaux P (2006) Possibility theory: a new approach to uncertainty analysis? Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):114–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijlsma RM, Bots PWG, Wolters HA, Hoekstra AY (2011) An empirical analysis of stakeholders’ influence on policy development: the role of uncertainty handling. Ecol Soc 16(1):51 URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijlsma RM Wolters HA, de Kok JL, Hoekstra AY (2007) A methodology to determine the contribution of stakeholders to the robustness of environmental policy decisions. International Conference on Adaptive & Integrated Water Management, Coping with complexity and Uncertainty. http://www.newater.uni-osnabrueck.de/caiwa/data/paperssessionG.Vol.3.2007

  • Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret JP (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles, No. JLCA-D-14-00162R1, 20:405--417

  • Boltanski L, Thévenot L (1991) De la Justification-Les Economies de la Grandeur, nrf essais. Gallimard, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheyns E (2014) Making “minority voices” heard in transnational roundtables: the role of local NGOs in reintroducing justice and attachments. Agric Human Values 31(3):439–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheyns E, Riisgaard L (2014) Introduction to the symposium: the exercise of power through multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture and its inclusion and exclusion outcomes. Agric Human Values 31(3):409–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A (2004) Uncertainties in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):141–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demou E, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2011) An occupational chemical priority list for future life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 19:1339–1346

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and eco-indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:191–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Benhmad F, Rolo Saez A (2012) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston Pathway- The case of banana industry in Cameroon, Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0490-z

  • Finkbeiner M (2014) Product environmental footprint-breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1991) A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In: Costanza R (ed) Ecological economics: the science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 137–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ Toxicol Chem 13(12):1881–1885

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Galatola M, Pant R (2014) Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint-breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Prof. Finkbeiner (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):266-271). Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1356–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts J, Joldersma C (2001) Methodology for participatory policy analysis. Eur J Oper Res 128:300–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillet C, Loeillet D (2013) Social life cycle value chain analysis practices, chapter 6, in Macombe (coord.) Social LCAs, Socio-economic effects in value chains, Théma- FruiTrop, CIRAD, Montpellier, pp 120–139

  • Guo M, Murphy RJ (2012) LCA data quality: sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Sci Total Environ 435-436:230–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen E (2002) The institutional logic of life-cycle thinking. J Clean Prod 10:427–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344:1109–1113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hilborn R (1979) Some failures and successes in applying systems analysis to ecological systems. J Appl Syst Anal 6:25–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: integrating the decision makers perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3):161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Application of uncertainties and variability in LCA. Part II: dealing with parameter uncertainty and uncertainty due to choices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):343–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Jager T, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ (2000) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part II: assessing parameter uncertainty and human variability in the calculation of toxicity potentials. Chemosphere 41:575–588

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Kuriyama K, Inaba A (2012) Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors-visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:488–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeorgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliet O, Saade M, Crettaz P (2010) Analyse du Cycle de Vie : comprendre et réaliser un écobilan. Les presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne, Suisse

  • Klöpffer W (1998) Subjective is not arbitrary. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(2):61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos I (1994) Histoire et méthodologie des sciences, Collection Bibliothèque d’histoire des sciences. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M (2006) Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments, implications for decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):189–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C (2013) Social LCAs, socio-economic effects in value chains. Théma- FruiTrop, CIRAD, Montpellier

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathé S (2014) Integrating participatory approach in social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1506–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettier T, Scholz RW, Tietje O (2006) Measuring preferences on environmental damages in LCIA. Part 1: cognitive limits in panel surveys. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1980) Beyond implementation: an analysis to the resistance to policy analysis, INFOR, vol 18, n°2, May 1980, pp 100–138

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Pant R, van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel T, de Koning A, Hauschild M, Pennington D, Olsen SI, Rosenbaum R (2004) Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):295–306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining a superior performance. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Højberg AL, Vanrolleghem PA (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process. Environ Model Softw 22:1543–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (2005) A propos de robustesse en recherche opérationnelle et aide à la décision. In: Billaut J.C., Moukrim A, Sanlaville E (sous la direction de) « Flexibilité et robustesse en ordonnancement », Lavoisier, Paris

  • Roy B (2007) La robustesse en recherché opérationnelle et aide à la décision: une préoccupation multi facettes, Annales du LAMSADE n°7, “Robustness in OR-DA”. Université Paris-Dauphine, pp:209–235

  • Schaltegger S (1997) Economics of life cycle assessment: inefficiency of the present approach. Bus Strat Environ 6:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt JH, Weidema B (2011) Response to the public consultation on a set of guidance documents of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook, 2.-0 LCA consultants

  • Shepherd A, Bowler C (1997) Beyond the requirements: improving public participation in EIA. J Environ Plann Man 40(6):725–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot L (1993) A quoi convient la théorie des conventions? Réseaux n 62, pp 137–142

  • Thévenot L (2002) Conventions of co-ordination and the framing of uncertainties. In: Fullbrook E (ed) Intersubjectivity in economics. Routledge, London, pp. 181–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiétart R-C et al (1999) Méthodes de recherche en management. Dunod, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment, United Nations

  • Von Bahr B, Steen B (2004) Reducing epistemological uncertainty in life cycle inventory. J Clean Prod 12:369–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sluijs JP (2002) A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment. Futures 34:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, special issue 11:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner F, Scholz RW (2002) Ambiguities in decision-oriented life cycle inventories: the role of mental models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(6):330–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Zolo D (2004) Globalizzazione. Una mappa dei problemi, GLF Editori Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

C. Macombe is member of ELSA research group. We thank the colleagues for their advices.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UMR ITAP, IRSTEA, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, 34196, Montpellier, France

    Catherine Macombe

  2. UR GECO, CIRAD, TA B-26 / PS4. Boulevard de la Lironde, 34398, Montpellier, Cedex 5, France

    Denis Loeillet

  3. CEP/ Epsil’Hôm, Montpellier, France

    Charles Gillet

Authors
  1. Catherine Macombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis Loeillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles Gillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Macombe.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alessandra Zamagni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macombe, C., Loeillet, D. & Gillet, C. Extended community of peers and robustness of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 492–506 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1226-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1226-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation