Skip to main content
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.lc-impact.eu/about-lc-impact

  2. “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).

  3. http://www4.inra.fr/piscenlit_eng/

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit-Norris C (2014) Data for social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):261–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bras-Kapwijk R (2003) Procedure and tools for generating and selecting alternatives in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):266–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freebairn DM, King CA (2003) Reflections on collectively working toward sustainability: indicators for indicators! Aust J Exp Agric 43:223–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gafsi M (2006) Exploitations agricoles et agriculture durable. Agric Cah Etudes Rech Francoph 15(6):491–497

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swarr T (2011) A capability framework for managing social and environmental concerns. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):593–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(1):89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson O (1990) The firm as a nexus of treaties. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Winjberg NM (2000) Normative stakeholders theory and Aristotle : the link between ethics and politics. J Bus Ethics 25:329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):596–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Syndhia Mathe.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Andreas Moltesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0758-6

Keywords

Navigation