Advertisement

Extended community of peers and robustness of social LCA

  • Catherine Macombe
  • Denis Loeillet
  • Charles Gillet
SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS

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.

Keywords

Case studies Conventions Robustness SLCA Uncertainties 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

References

  1. Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B (1988b) A quoi tient le succès des innovations? part 2 : Le choix des porte-parole. Ann Mines 12:14–29Google Scholar
  2. Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B (1988a) A quoi tient le succès des innovations? part 1 : L’art de l’intéressement. Ann Mines 11:4–17Google Scholar
  3. 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 20:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basson L, Petrie JG (2007) An integrated approach for the consideration of uncertainty in decision making supported by life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 22:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batifoulier P (2001) Théorie des Conventions. Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22:739–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benetto E, Dujet C, Rousseaux P (2006) Possibility theory: a new approach to uncertainty analysis? Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):114–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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--417Google Scholar
  11. Boltanski L, Thévenot L (1991) De la Justification-Les Economies de la Grandeur, nrf essais. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. 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):439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ciroth A (2004) Uncertainties in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):141–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Demou E, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2011) An occupational chemical priority list for future life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 19:1339–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 8:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Finkbeiner M (2014) Product environmental footprint-breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 137–152Google Scholar
  20. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ Toxicol Chem 13(12):1881–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 19:1356–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geurts J, Joldersma C (2001) Methodology for participatory policy analysis. Eur J Oper Res 128:300–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 120–139Google Scholar
  24. Guo M, Murphy RJ (2012) LCA data quality: sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Sci Total Environ 435-436:230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heiskanen E (2002) The institutional logic of life-cycle thinking. J Clean Prod 10:427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344:1109–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hilborn R (1979) Some failures and successes in applying systems analysis to ecological systems. J Appl Syst Anal 6:25–31Google Scholar
  28. 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):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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):343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 41:575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 17:488–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 15:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jolliet O, Saade M, Crettaz P (2010) Analyse du Cycle de Vie : comprendre et réaliser un écobilan. Les presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne, SuisseGoogle Scholar
  34. Klöpffer W (1998) Subjective is not arbitrary. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(2):61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lakatos I (1994) Histoire et méthodologie des sciences, Collection Bibliothèque d’histoire des sciences. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. Lenzen M (2006) Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments, implications for decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Macombe C (2013) Social LCAs, socio-economic effects in value chains. Théma- FruiTrop, CIRAD, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  38. Mathé S (2014) Integrating participatory approach in social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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):394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mintzberg H (1980) Beyond implementation: an analysis to the resistance to policy analysis, INFOR, vol 18, n°2, May 1980, pp 100–138Google Scholar
  41. 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):853–886Google Scholar
  42. 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):295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining a superior performance. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Højberg AL, Vanrolleghem PA (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process. Environ Model Softw 22:1543–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. 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:209–235Google Scholar
  47. Schaltegger S (1997) Economics of life cycle assessment: inefficiency of the present approach. Bus Strat Environ 6:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 consultantsGoogle Scholar
  49. Shepherd A, Bowler C (1997) Beyond the requirements: improving public participation in EIA. J Environ Plann Man 40(6):725–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thévenot L (1993) A quoi convient la théorie des conventions? Réseaux n 62, pp 137–142Google Scholar
  51. Thévenot L (2002) Conventions of co-ordination and the framing of uncertainties. In: Fullbrook E (ed) Intersubjectivity in economics. Routledge, London, pp. 181–197Google Scholar
  52. Thiétart R-C et al (1999) Méthodes de recherche en management. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  54. Von Bahr B, Steen B (2004) Reducing epistemological uncertainty in life cycle inventory. J Clean Prod 12:369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van der Sluijs JP (2002) A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment. Futures 34:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, special issue 11:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Werner F, Scholz RW (2002) Ambiguities in decision-oriented life cycle inventories: the role of mental models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(6):330–338Google Scholar
  58. Zolo D (2004) Globalizzazione. Una mappa dei problemi, GLF Editori Laterza, Roma-BariGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Macombe
    • 1
  • Denis Loeillet
    • 2
  • Charles Gillet
    • 3
  1. 1.UMR ITAP, IRSTEAMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.UR GECO, CIRADMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.CEP/ Epsil’HômMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations