Denis Loeillet

Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway

PurposeThe purpose of the social Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method is to predict the social impacts on people caused by the changes in the functioning of one product chain throughout its life cycle. Changes in health status are very important experiences for people. The aim of this paper is to build a pathway between changes in economic activity generated by the functioning of a product chain and the changes in health status of the population in the country where the economic activity takes place.MethodsEmpirical and historical factors suggest that increased economic activity through growth in income leads to improvements in the health of a country’s population. This empirical relationship is well known in economics as the Preston curve. Using this relationship, we design a pathway for social LCA impact assessment. This pathway may be used to explain or predict the potential impact caused by the modification of one product sector upon the health of a population. The Preston relationship usually is calculated for a cross section of countries. We assess whether the Preston relationship is valid when a single country is considered alone. Drawing from scientific literature regarding development, we define the context where the use of the Preston relationship is justified. We describe the general design of the Preston pathway, using a recalculated (panel based) relationship, and specify the conditions for its use. We apply it to the case of company B, a banana industry in Cameroon, for the period between 2010 and 2030.ResultsWe highlight that the panel calculation of the Preston relationship remains significant when a country is considered alone. We suggest that the following conditions are required for the pathway to be used: (1) the activity is set within countries where the GDP per capita in purchasing power parity is less than

Extended community of peers and robustness of social LCA

10,000 at the start of the period, (2) the assessed activity accounts for a significant part of the annual GDP and/or demonstrates obvious signs that it represents a huge stake in the country’s economy, (3) the duration of the assessed activity is regular and long enough, and (4) the added value created by the activity is shared within the country. We found that the future activity of company B would improve the potential LEX of the entire population of Cameroon by 5xa0days over 20xa0years, based on 200,000xa0t of bananas exported annually (in comparison with no activity).ConclusionsWhen the four conditions for use are met, and provided results are interpreted by comparing them with other situations or countries, the recalculated panel-based relationship may be used to explain or predict a change in potential life expectancy generated by a change in economic activity. The Preston pathway may be useful for impact assessment in social LCA. The assessment is valid only when used for a comparative analysis and must be done within a multi-criteria framework. Complementary pathways therefore need to be designed. We suggest that the conditions for use and other research issues be discussed and fine-tuned further. Moreover, we welcome comments and criticisms.

Agri-Chains and Evaluation of Sustainability

PurposeThis 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?MethodsTo 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 discussionAbout 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Instruments to Assess the Social Impacts of Value Chains

This chapter concludes the part 4 of this book on Agrichains and Evaluation of Sustainability by highlighting the main messages and issues to consider for future research and design of evaluation methods.

Why and How to Assess the Contribution of an Agri-Chain to Sustainable Development?

The methods described in this chapter are designed to assess a relatively large number of social impacts caused by an action that influences the value chain. Some methods assess a single impact in a relatively accurate, fast, and generic manner; others assess several impacts, but are time-consuming and lack genericity. The methods are presented here based on the period (relative to the action) in which they occur (before, during, or after). There are four groups of methods for carrying out an ex-ante social impact assessment of an action: we can ask actors to state their expectations; we can extrapolate trends observed in the past; we can use figures obtained from environmental life cycle assessments; or we can rely on a combination of these different sources. The in itinere assessment methods are based on monitoring performance criteria. Either they are developed ad hoc for a particular case, or they rely on a dashboard of indicators that can either be general or specific to a sector, such as the agrifood sector. Methods for ex-post assessment, which assess the impacts of a completed action, differ based on whether or not they were subject to prior monitoring. The advantages and disadvantages of these different methods are reviewed, as are their optimal conditions for use. While CIRAD is currently working on all the methods mentioned here, it is focusing in particular on methods for predicting social impacts because they are best able to contribute to the design – or redesign – of agri-chains.

2nd International Seminar in Social Life Cycle Assessment-recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles

The first tools to assess agri-chains focused on their economic aspects. Following requests from professionals from different agri-chains, CIRAD undertakes original research to develop methods for the environmental and social assessment of agri-chains. Indeed, although the production of food consumes resources and causes pollution, thus leading to various types of externalities, it remains an essential activity. It also generates positive or adverse social effects. Even though some large multinational companies wish to reduce their environmental impacts or improve their social impact, their desire or willingness is not sufficient. It is necessary to evaluate the environmental and social consequences of their actions in the most relevant manner possible. This chapter focuses on life cycle assessment methods because they are suitable for a chain-based reasoning and, due to their design, are the only methods that take the transfer of impacts into account. Since the pollution emitted by an agri-chain (or areas of consumption of non-renewable resources) can be spread out over several sites, the life cycle assessment method replaces the direct measurement of emissions. These are indirect assessment methods based on benchmarks stored in databases. Several configurations are possible in order to define boundaries (at least the spatial and temporal boundaries, but also that of affected actors in the case of a social life cycle assessment) of the system that will be studied by this type of analysis. The extent of change (marginal or extensive which modifies the system’s structure itself) also influences the determination of the system’s boundaries. The variety and sophistication of tools available for this type of assessment reflects the strong and ever increasing societal demand. The assessment addresses four key requirements: strengthening one’s market power, adjusting one’s action plan, acquiring knowledge in order to decide, and the need for self-assurance.