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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“Human well-being has several key components: the basic material needs for a good life, freedom and choice, health, good social relations, and personal security” (MEA 2005).
Ecological intensification or ecological intensity can be defined in contrast with “forcing.” Forcing may be defined as increasing yield through the use of significant artificial inputs that are external to the “local system.” Ecological intensification means obtaining a higher yield per biospheric unit for a given set of viability objectives (Griffon 2010).
References
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):64–75
Asher C, Mahoney JM, Mahoney JT (2005) Towards a property rights foundation for a stakeholder theory of the firm. J Manag Governance 9:5–32
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):269–275
Baudry B (2003) Economie de la firme. Repère. La Découverte. 128 pp
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 1-23
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):156–163
Benoit-Norris C (2014) Data for social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):261–265
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):682–690
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):184–190
Bras-Kapwijk R (2003) Procedure and tools for generating and selecting alternatives in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):266–272
Dalal-Clayton B, Bass S (2002) Sustainable development strategies. A resource book. Earthscan Publication Ltd.
Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97
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):385–402
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 78:114–127
Freebairn DM, King CA (2003) Reflections on collectively working toward sustainability: indicators for indicators! Aust J Exp Agric 43:223–238
Freeman ER (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach, Pitaman, Boston
Fréry F (1997) la chaine et le réseau. In Besson P. (coord.) Dedans, dehors, les nouvelles frontières de l'organisation, Vuibert, pp 23–52
Geibler J, Liedtke C, Wallbaum H, Schaller S (2006) Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: experiences from the biotechnology industry. Bus Strateg Environ 15:334–346
Gafsi M (2006) Exploitations agricoles et agriculture durable. Agric Cah Etudes Rech Francoph 15(6):491–497
Griffon M (2010) Pour une agriculture écologiquement intensive des territoires à haute valeur environnementale et de nouvelles politiques agricoles. Editions de l’Aubes. 141 pp
Hunkeler D (2006) Social LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382
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):151–157
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):204–214
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):8–18
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):3–15
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):940–943
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):659–673
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):468–476
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC
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):853–886
Norris GA (2006) Social impacts in products life cycles. Towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess (Suppl 1) 11(1):97–104
Paterman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. The University Press, Cambridge, England
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):209–300
Reitinger C, Matthias D, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):380–388
Renn O, Webler T, Rakel H, Dienel P, Johnson B (1993) Public decision in decision making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sci 26:189–214
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 pp
Rosenström U, Kyllönen S (2007) Impacts of a participatory approach to developing national level sustainable development indicators in Finland. J Environ Manag 84:282–298
Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a fremwork for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 25:3–29
Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Press, Oxford University
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):325–333
Swarr T (2011) A capability framework for managing social and environmental concerns. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):593–595
Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(1):89–96
Williamson O (1990) The firm as a nexus of treaties. Sage Publications, London
Winjberg NM (2000) Normative stakeholders theory and Aristotle : the link between ethics and politics. J Bus Ethics 25:329–342
Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):596–598
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Andreas Moltesen
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mathe, S. Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 1506–1514 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0758-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0758-6