LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PLENARY SESSION 2: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS 8 th Int. Conference on
LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
the two techniques, their results and recommendations could not be fully integrated. While some inferences
were made, such as that behaving in a more socially responsible manner could decrease dairy farm environmental
impacts, no causal effect between socioeconomic and environmental performances could be established.
The two frameworks, however, fulfilled their intended application in a comprehensive and meaningful
way. Adjusting the SLCA framework to obtain only results that could be integrated with the ELCA, for
example using only quantitative data related to the FU, would have significantly reduced the scope and completeness
of the assessment.
As the Guidelines point out, “the ultimate objective for conducting a SLCA is to promote improvement of
social conditions and of the overall socioeconomic performance of a product throughout its life cycle for all
of its stakeholders” (UNEP/SETAC 2009; 50). This was also the project’s objective. Based on our experience,
it seems that there are important trade-offs to consider regarding the tools’ intended application to fully
integrate the ELCA and SLCA methodologies.
5. Conclusion
Conducting a joint ELCA and SLCA raises interesting challenges and opportunities, as shown by this
project. On the procedural side, there were many benefits gained from conducting them together, especially
the dialogue that took place between the ELCA and SLCA practitioners and researchers. The fact that the
three teams were composed of members of various academic backgrounds holding complementary expertise
also contributed to developing a coherent framework adapted to the client’s needs. The biggest procedural
challenges were met at the beginning of the project and related to mutual misunderstanding of each tool’s
functioning. This issue was overcome by the end of the project, each team now having a strong and lasting
understanding of both approaches. While the physical distance between the SCLA and ELCA teams was
sometimes challenging and encouraged working in silos, it did not significantly impact the conduct of the
project.
The lessons learned on the methodological side are also of significant interest. As the project’s objective
was to identify potential areas for further improving the Canadian dairy sector’s sustainability, conducting
the SLCA and ELCA together provided the sector with a comprehensive and coherent roadmap to improve
its overall environmental and socioeconomic performance. This project displayed that the intended applications
of ELCA and SLCA are indeed complementary and contribute, when conducted together, to progress
towards sustainability. Our experience shows, however, that the methodological integration required is not
simple. To fulfill each tool’s purpose, independent frameworks were needed. Working differently could have
impaired one or both assessments. This raises questions about the development of LCSA. While a stronger
integration of LCA techniques is needed to progress towards sustainability, such integration must be done in
accordance with each technique’s methodological requirements.
6. References
Ciroth, A. and Franze, J., 2011. Conducting a Social LCA. Workshop on Social Aspects of Products Over the Whole Life Cycle,
Berlin.
Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M., Schierbeck, J., 2010. Characterisation of social impacts in LCA - Part 1: Development of indicators for
labour rights. Inter. J. Life Cycle Ass., 15(3), 247-259.
Foolmaun, R. and Ramjeeawon, T., 2012. Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass., 1-17.
Hacking, T., Guthrie, P., 2007. A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and SustainabilityAssessment.
J. Env. Imp. Ass. Rev., 28(2-3), 73-89.
Lee, N. 2006. Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. J. Env. Imp. Ass. Rev., 26(1), 57-78.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006. ISO 14040, Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles
and framework.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006. ISO 14044, Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements
and guidelines.
Macombe, C., Feschet, P., Garrabé, M., Loeillet, D., 2010. Reporting the social indicators to the functional unit for food product.
Theoretical contribution regarding the collection of relevant data. 7th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the
Agri-Food Sector. Bari: Italy.
Parent J., C Cucuzella, JP Revéret, 2010. Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes in
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Published online 19-01-2010
Parent, J., C. Cucuzzella, J.P. Revéret, 2012. Reflecting on the role and the life cycle perspective in LCA and SLCA used for Sustainable
production and consumption. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Published online 09-08-2012
Eggenberger, M., Partidário, M.R., 2000. Development of a framework to assist the integration of environmental, social and economic
issues in spatial planning. Imp. Ass. And Project Appr., September 2000. 201-207.
Revéret, J.P., Sambo, C., Vincelette, M. Taillon, B., 2000. An integrated SEIA for a large mining project in South East Madagascar:
Challenges and approaches. International Association for Impact Assessment Annual Conference, Hong Kong.
231