Sabatier's framework applied: A comprehensive LCA policy implementation

Sabatier's framework applied: A comprehensive LCA policy implementation

LCAs are a tool for assessing the environmental impact of products. Think up four ways in which governments can increase the use of LCAs through external control and setting boundary conditions. Use Sabatier’s framework to assess the potential effectiveness of external control vis-a-vis other options.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an environmental assessment tool, which takes all the environmental burdens connected to a product or service into account: from raw material extraction to end-of-life (Klöpffer, 1997). It is the primary tool associated to life cycle thinking (Heiskanen, 2002). When considering products, we now often look beyond the production stage and rather take the entire physical life cycle of a product into account (Heiskanen, 2002). Taking this approach ultimately expands the scope of responsibility of actors, and ensures that environmental burdens cannot be shifted away (Bauer et al, 2007). Burden shifting occurs when alternatives cause adverse effects on the environment at other stages of the life cycle (Bauer et al, 2007).

In this blog assignment, we will therefore examine possible options for government to stimulate the use of LCAs and finally assess them by using Sabatier’s framework. The two ways of governmental influence, which we will examine are: shaping of boundary conditions and external control.

Boundary conditions: Setting boundary conditions attempts to change the mindset of the people. They are incentives that are supposed to stimulate self-organization.

1)     Best Practice: When setting boundary conditions, I believe that governments should first of all implement it themselves. By using LCA as a decision-making tool in governance, governments can increase the use of LCAs by the private sector in several ways. Through increased governmental use, for example, further methodological improvements can be done. Also, a wide-scale governmental implementation could also offer free public access to an “LCA database”, which helps standardize information. By using LCAs, governments can therefore offer more validity to this tool and make its use more practical.

2)     Altering market conditions: Following a wide-scale implementation of LCA, governments can also set boundary conditions, by altering the market conditions. Companies that publish LCA-related information about their goods or services could be rewarded (e.g. subsidy).That way, governments could stimulate firms to use LCAs.

External control: As a means of policy implementation, external control occurs in form of controlling the elements of a social system. In doing so, governments need to set the scope of control, set the rules, and monitor the implementation.

1)     Classification system: One possibility of exerting external control is by implementing a mandatory classification system (e.g.: grades 1-10), for goods and services, based on LCA results. This would work in a similar fashion to energy classes and could improve the availability of information for consumers.

2)     Market entry boundaries: In order to complement boundary conditions, governments could, for example, set a lower boundary for the classification system. That way, only products and services with grades 4 and higher would be able to bring their products to the market.

Sabatier’s Framework:

In order to assess whether measures of external control in regards to LCA would be effective, we will apply Sabatier’s framework. For the following analysis, the statute we would examine is the large-scale implementation of LCA in order to measure the environmental impact of goods and services.

Tractability of the Problem:

The first set of separate variables, which affect the effectiveness of governmental institutions to achieve statutory objectives are aggregated into a summary index of tractability. In essence, success depends on the difficulties of measuring changes in seriousness of the problem, relating these changes back to behavioral modifications, the diversity of the target group behavior, the relation of target group size and population, and the extent of the behavioral change required.

i)                Availability of valid technical theory and technology: Availability of LCA technology is not a problem. This tool has been around for many decades now and it is theoretically clear, how it is to be used. The problem of LCAs is that it is very assumption-laden and very case-sensitive. In LCAs, researchers often face multi-functionality and allocation issues, which are solved on the grounds of personal assumptions. Since these assumptions might vary on a case-to-case basis, generalizations about best practice in LCAs are very difficult to make. This sensitivity of LCAs ultimately leads to questionable overall validity.

ii)               Diversity of target group behavior: The target group of such an LCA policy would include all goods and services producing companies in a country. It would span all types of industries. Furthermore, it would affect upstream / downstream supply chain activities that are potentially located internationally. Even though pressure opportunities may arise individually (Nokia case), it is questionable how much influence economic actors really have on other supply chain actors. The behavior and attitude of the target group is therefore highly diverse.

iii)              Target group as a percentage of the population: The target group (all producing firms) basically comprises a majority of the entire national economy of a country. Due the target group’s size and low isolatability, it is questionable whether broad political support in favor of the program can be mobilized.

iv)             Extent of behavioral change required: The behavioral change that is required is quite large. Not only would companies have to invest in having LCAs done on their supply chains, improving the identified “hot spots” will incur a lot of costs as well. Due to the great amount of required behavioral change, successful implementation may become problematic.

Ability to structure implementation:

Another set of variables, which affects the effectiveness of policy implementation, is the objective’s capacity to structure the entire implementation process. This is achieved, for example, if clear and consistent objectives are passed, if significant financial resources back it and clear decision-rules are implemented.

For the implementation of this LCA policy, the case sensitivity of LCA remains problematic. Since the assumptions and allocations vary by case, it will be difficult to formulate clear and consistent objectives. Furthermore, it will be problematic for firms to discern whether assumptions and allocations are “correct” and where they could be potentially sanctioned for wrong LCA implementation.

Lastly, I wonder about the necessary financial resources that would be necessary. While the amounts needed for an LCA might be calculated easily, there will be many unknowns related to the monitoring of LCA results and especially in regards to the implementation of changes. The government would possibly need to form a new controlling body and “consult” companies in the proper implementation. I fear that the financial resources that would be needed would quickly exceed initial calculations.

Non-statutory variables affecting implementation:

The last variables that influence the effectiveness to implement policies are non-statutory variables. In essence, a well-drafted policy should be able to withstand variations in political support and changes in public opinion. There can be, for example, exogenous variables such as changes in socio-economic conditions and attitudes of sovereigns and voter groups, which can have an effect. In essence, this element probes how well a statute can survive in the political landscape.

For the LCA policy, potential problems may arise when socio-economic conditions worsen, due to a recession, for example. Sovereigns and constituency groups might be inclined to criticize the LCA initiative, due to its large costs and its tendency to potentially “tell firms how to run their business”. When the socio-economic situation worsens, constituents might be concerned about job security and economic growth than about the environmental impact of goods and services. In essence, environmental interests might still be a “luxury”.

The public support and the media attention might be especially problematic if the LCA initiative is undertaken only by one country. Popular belief is still that environmental concerns come at a trade-off to economic performance. If a country undertakes the endeavor by itself, the public and the media might be concerned about a worsened relative competitiveness.

Conclusion:

When considering an LCA policy, one needs to take the complexity of LCA policy implementation in regards to the globalized character of the world economy, the significant costs related to implementation and the inherent lack of clarity around LCA implementation into account. I believe that an LCA policy should be a mix of boundary conditions and external control.

In the short-term, governments should use boundary conditions and experiment with the use of LCA in order to find best practice methods and isolate manners in which this tool can be properly implemented. In my opinion, this would clarify initial concerns about LCA, help quantify costs of implementation and ease firms into the adoption process. Alongside government implementation, subsidies could be given to firms for LCA use, in the hope that they would see the use as a source for future competitive advantage.

Once this is achieved, I envision an external control policy (option 1), which offers concrete LCA information to consumers. Ideally, this would occur in form of a classification system, such as the energy class system.
I believe, however, that the most important aspect concerns international coordination. Implementing an LCA factor or indicator needs to be done on an international level (by EU for example) in order to create comparability and solve potential supply chain complexities.

Sources:

Bauer, C., Buchgeister, J., Hischier, R., Poganietz, W. R., Schebek, L., & Warsen, J. (2008). Towards a framework for life cycle thinking in the assessment of nanotechnology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(8), 910-926.

Heiskanen, E. (2002). The institutional logic of life cycle thinking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(5), 427-437.

Klöpffer, W. (1997). Life cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 4(4), 223-228.

Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy sciences, 21(2-3), 129-168.