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.

Car game 2.0

Car game 2.0:

In this game, we attempt to show the process of evolution and its mechanisms of variation, reproduction & selection.

Aim of game: show how industrial evolution occurs

            -Players can follow their own strategy, create a niche and therefore create variation

            -Multiplication can occur by players following and copying successful strategies of other players

            -Natural selection occurs because the players that are not good enough in relation to the others are eliminated from the game

Number of Players: 6

Items needed: 1 Die, pen and paper

Length: 12 rounds

Start: Every player gets 10 points that he can allocate to the different categories.

	Status	Speed	Maintenance costs	Fuel efficiency	Sustainability	Design
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Player 4
Player 5
Player 6

The die is rolled.

            -If 1 is rolled…. Status is valued most by customers

            -If 2 is rolled…. Speed is valued most by customers

            -If 3 is rolled…. Maintenance costs is valued most by customers

-If 4 is rolled…. Fuel efficiency is valued most by customers

            -If 5 is rolled…. Sustainability is valued most by customers

            -If 6 is rolled…. Design is valued most by customers

The  success of companies is based on their relative advantage in the category (number of points in given category).

Best 2 companies =  get +2 points that they can re-allocate as they wish

Next company =  gets +1 points that they can re-allocate as they wish

Next company =  get -1 points that they can re-allocate as they wish

Last two companies = have to take off -2 points.

Every 3 rounds players count their total points.

1^st interval = need 11 points to advance, otherwise they will be eliminated

2^nd interval = need 13 points to advance, otherwise they will be eliminated

3^rd interval = need 15 points to advance, otherwise they will be eliminated

4^th interval = player with most points will win (if 2 winners, there will be an extra interval of 3 rounds).


Evolution is a process of change that occurs through variation, reproduction, and selection. Variation exists in this game, because there are different categories (sustainability, speed, etc.), which firms can focus on. For example, different players can set different goals and develop their categories accordingly.
Reproduction is also present in limited ways. In this game design, it is mostly present in form of transmission (imitation), since players can copy each others' strategies. An idea for further game exploration is to introduce certain coercive pressures. For example, cards could be introduced that "order" players to suddenly only develop sustainability features.
In terms of selection, I tried to include it by kicking players out of the game. The problem in my current game design is that the selection pressure only has one outcome (in or out). This part therefore needs to be better developed to fully mimic technological evolution in social systems.

Tragedy of the commons game 2.0

Harvest Game 2.0

Last week, we played the game of harvest where we failed to sustain the fish population. In our case, the problem is that the common good (fish) is rivalrous and non-excludable, which means that there is a finite amount of the resource available and that it is therefore easily overexploited. The tragedy of the commons is therefore a social dilemma, where an individual profits from selfishness, unless everyone chooses to be selfish, in which the entire group loses. As Hardin noted, freedom in the commons will bring ruin to all (i.e. lead to a depletion of the fish resource). 

The problem, that I see here, is that this social dilemma is in essence a prisoner’s dilemma. Even though it is in the best interest to cooperate, the players eventually follow their self-interest and “betray” the cooperation by fishing more than the sustainable yield. There is therefore an inherent motivation for the players to exploit the agreed-upon fairness and reap an extra benefit. Effective self-organization is therefore not possible.

In my opinion, coordination can be fostered in this game by creating external control. A government is not present and beyond the scope of this game, but creating an external entity that influences the groups is very well possible. According to Hardin, coercion can be a good way of creating temperance as long as it is mutually agreed upon by those affected.

In my opinion, this is achieved by three changes: creating total catch quotas, a new control body, and iterations that spawn cooperation (iterated prisoner’s dilemma). 

•  A total fishing quota of 25 is introduced 
• At the beginning of the first round, the groups throw a die. The group with the highest number is ranked #1. If there is a draw, the die is thrown again.
• This procedure is done every 3 rounds. 
• The catch totals are divided relative to the group ranking. 
• Group 1: 7 fish 
• Group 2: 6 fish
• Group 3: 5 fish 
• Group 4: 4 fish
• Group 5: 2 fish
• Group 6: 1 fish 

• So for every phase (for 3 rounds) x amount of fish may be taken from the ocean, depending on the ranking.
• Control council: every group has to give one member to this new council
• It is assumed that this is an independent control authority
•  Before the die is thrown again for a new ranking (after 3 rounds) the control council can go around and check the catch total of all groups
•  Any group unwilling to disclose this information will be punished 
•  If the control council discovers that a group exceeded its catch total, it will be punished 
• Possible punishments could be being disqualified for x amount of rounds
• Automatically being ranked as group 6 for a phase (3 rounds) 
• Being excluded from the game

Sources: 
Brechner, K. C. (1977). An experimental analysis of social traps. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 552-564.

Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons, Science 162(3859 , Dec. 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248. 

The case of supplier relationships at Nokia

The case of supplier relationships at Nokia: 

On the basis of DiMaggio and Powell’s mechanisms that drive isomorphic institutional change, I will show how Nokia and its Chinese supplier strive for legitimacy in different ways.

This blog post is based upon the information extracted from the movie “A Decent Factory”, which explores the way Nokia conducts its audit of a Chinese supplier in regards to corporate social responsibility.

According to DiMaggio and Powell, organizations not only compete for resources, but more importantly institutional legitimacy. In this case, the way the two parties strive for this legitimacy is quite different.

Nokia should be categorized as using mimetic isomorphism. In the past decades, the perception of the role of the firm has changed in the eyes of the consumers and society as a whole. It appears as if Western societies have formed an overriding ideal of firms that is centered around ethical conduct and corporate social responsibility. The more morally sound a firm’s actions, the better.

Just as greyhounds chase after a lure, firms strive to go above and beyond in order to approach an ideal of a responsible firm. This pressure is not instilled by another tangible organization but rather by a trend in the marketplace that forces them to adapt in order to survive. Uncertainty is an important driver of this mimetic isomorphsism. In this case, however, the role model are not successful, but rather unsuccessful firms. Ultimately, Nokia needs to have a flawless corporate social responsibility in order to ensure that it is not scrutinized for shortcomings. A firm knows that any minor mistake can cause public outcries similar to the Nike incidents in 1998, which can have tremendous adverse effects.

For the Chinese supplier, however, the case is very different. Its legitimacy is dependent on coercive isomorphism. Nokia as well as the Chinese government instill demands and rules upon them, which are supposed to guide their behavior. Interestingly enough, it appears as if legal compliance in itself is only of marginal importance to them. The representatives do not acknowledge any coercive power of the Chinese government, by openly claiming legal disobedience. As it turns out, Nokia had strong coercive power, as the supplier actually changed their behavior, following the demands of Nokia. The driver of this coercive isomorphism was the dependence of the Chinese firm on Nokia. It can be assumed that Nokia was a big customer and that they received a lot of money from them. Losing them could possibly put them in a grave financial situation. Due to their dependence on Nokia, the Chinese supplier could be coerced into changing their habits according to what was desired.

In my opinion, Nokia’s approach to diffusing sustainability is quite effective. As an external organization, they will not be able to consistently monitor the business practices within the firm. Any information acquired through audits might be skewed due to the presence of the auditors. A few possibilities to improvement could be to initially involve the government in the search for suppliers. Maybe they can make recommendations to the performance of firms in terms of legal compliance. Furthermore, Nokia could negotiate for a representative to be present in order to consistently monitor the events in the firm.

Nokia could possibly change towards a self-governance coordination mechanism. Within this special category, Nokia could enforce standards, rules and a code of conduct that would be enforced by them. Any violation would swiftly lead to severe consequences such as contract termination. As long as these rules are communicated clearly to the supplier, Nokia could improve its coercive power. 

Source: 

 DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.

Comments added to other blogs

Comments to other posts:

Week 1:

Joan Wildenberg:
I can see that you put a lot of thought and effort into this segment. I really like the way you explain the model. By providing the reader with definitions, you make it easy for everyone to understand the correlation and to relate to what you are trying to say.
Overall, the puzzle is well chosen and you do a very good job of providing the reader with well chosen explanations. Well done.
Side note:
-A puzzle (not an puzzle) → use an only if it is followed by a word that begins with a vowel
-If something increases it is a growth in demand, not a grow

Business (profits):
-In general, I like the short, poignant blog post. In terms of structure, I would maybe rearrange the paragraphs in order to give them more structure.
-Now you start with:
-Business may also have personal goals → not only profit
-Business is there to provide for society
-Sustainable character
Why don’t you start with the last two paragraphs and then use the last paragraph to close the blog entry? I like the idea of putting in your personal motivations. I do believe though that you should start more generally and then maybe end with your personal motivations.
Also (some short notes):
Maybe it would be helpful to have an example of a business that makes “the overall good” of society their mission and also makes high profits with that?! That way you make a bridge between the CSR aspect and that businesses can still exist. Maybe use B-corporations?!

Raissa:

In general, I really like your writing style. It is concise, to the point and is very convincing.

Business of business:

-Sentence: Thus, after all, no matter what?! Rework, missing word!

-So you’re arguing in favor of the statement?

            -The way I understand it, you’re in favor. Profit = Revenue – Costs

-since efficiency is a cost reduction, it is also a method of profit maximization.

-If you add a final concluding sentence in which you voice your opinion, your post will be much easier to understand. As a reader, I just had the feeling that it needed to be wrapped up better.

Puzzle:

I really like your puzzle and the explanations that you were able to provide for them. I believe that they are well thought of. Especially your last argument is very plausible and convincing. I personally don’t think that you have to change anything about this part of your blog entry. Good job.

Week 2:

Suzanne:

Hi Suzanne,

This is concerning your post about the IS in Iraq. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood our assignment as explaining a decision from a viewpoint of full rationality and bounded rationality. The way that I read your post, makes it seem as if you are merely analyzing the decision and then drawing conclusions on the rationale behind it. So, maybe take a second look at that.

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would structure the post a bit better by using more paragraphs etc. Other than that I think you outline the problem swiftly and accurately. Content wise I would only maybe like for you to hear maybe how the decision is also boundedly rational. Do we really have all the information? Do we know what the outcome of our actions are? Maybe comparing it to past conflicts in the region isn't a bad idea.

Thank you though for an enjoyable read. Well done. If you have any further questions, let me know!

Best,

Carl 

Cenyang:

Hi, first of all. Make sure to follow English grammar and spelling rules. You were already informed by the other comments. Make sure to change these mistakes, they divert the intention away from your content.
Regarding content, I would appreciate it if there were more information. Outline in a brief case description, where it is located, who us in charge of the project, when it was constructed, what were the alternatives, why was the decision made to locate it where it was. Try to use these questions as the skeleton of your post. Go through it step by step.
You do a nice job of explaining what the theory is, but I would like a better application. Make sure to really explain how and why the decision is made.

In case you have troubles with writing, don't worry. No one is perfect! I would suggest reading through the posts of the others, get a feeling for how they structure their posts and then go from there. Good luck! If you want any feedback on changes that you made, let me know!

Best,

Carl

Week 3:

Koen:

Dear Koen,

1^st part:

You frame your post very well by meticulously outlining the problem that you are focusing on and giving boundaries to your analysis. That way the reader can follow your argumentation better. In your analysis, you refer back to the idea of self-organization, which is in line with the text from Ostrom. After reading through your post I actually feel like I have to go back in order to change mine again, so thanks.
Maybe it would be helpful to outline self-organization and its hallmarks again for the reader to fully understand your criteria. I would recommend of course either the Ostrom paper or the one by Boons on “Self-organizing and Sustainability”. Furthermore, I felt that you could possibly talk about the problem of self-organization in your example by referring your argumentation to the paper of Hardin. I think the tragedy of the commons could be used very well in your argumentation and could even further solidify your point.
Otherwise, I have to say that I really enjoyed reading this post. It is clearly structured and very easy to follow. Good and solid argumentation.

2^nd part:

Good argumentation. By referring to Friedman, you give your analysis more depth. Your argumentation is logical and in my opinion needs no further improvement.

Best,

Carl

Weiwen:

Dear Weiwen,

For the assignment on the SES, in general, I like your case. It is not a very usual example. In terms of the structure, I would maybe try to really identify the actors, the problem and the system. That way you would give your post more structure. Right now, you dive directly into the different subsystems (RS6, etc) without first identifying the main actor groups.
Furthermore, I think that we had to relate this also to self-organization and how that can be attained within the system. I have also made that mistake of not centering my blogpost around that idea. Take a look at the post of Koen, I think he does a very good job of incorporating that premise into his post!

Lastly, I was a bit confused because I didn’t find the additional question about Friedman. Make sure to look into that and add that.

Best,

Carl

Week 4:

Ozkan:

Dear Ozkan,

You review the movie very well and in general make it easy for the reader to imagine what happened in the movie. Also, I appreciated the several summaries within the text that help direct the reader and create structure.

If I remember correctly, the supplier was actually a German company producing in China. Shouldn’t then their company “ethos” as you call it be more western as well?

The rhetorical questions that you pose are all interesting, but it is hard to come up on a sound judgment. Maybe you could go back to the Powell paper and outline the different kinds of ways that legitimacy can be obtained. I think that doing that would give your post more direction and would make it more substantive.

The part about power has good thoughts in it. I would maybe like some more substantive argumentation. Again, the paper will be a valuable resource for that.

Best,

Carl

Elke:

No post available - 30.12.2014


Week 5:

Stephany Lie:

Dear Stephany,

I think that you apply the theory very well to the case. Your outline of the network lays a strong foundation for your following analysis and helps, especially in the resource dependency part of your blog. In general, I find your writing style very clear and would tend to agree with your use of Gordon's classification. Nothing else to add.

Best,

Carl

Anne van Bruggen:

Dear Anne,

your analysis is very in-depth and rigourous. Your application of the theory is on point and very clear. I have no ideas for changes on this blog post concerning the Maasvlakte network.

Best,

Carl

Week 6:

Jason Kiem:
Dear Jason,

Strong introduction. By giving the reader an outline of the problem and setting the context with the case example of overfishing in the Ijsselmeer you visualize the tragedy of the commons and what its impact is. Also, you did a good job of summarizing the original game. Nevertheless, I miss concrete game rules. You describe the problem well and also how it could be solved in theory, however, I would appreciate concrete game rules. I still have to go back to my own game design to come up with concrete rules, so I know that this is not particularly easy. Nevertheless, I think that your ideas would gain clarity by doing so. I hope that this helps!

Best,

Carl

Kjell Wansleeben
Dear Kjell,

I have to say that I am very impressed with the amount of thought and insight that has gone into your post. You reflected well upon the game and what its problems were when we played it. Furthermore, you offer three concrete changes to what should be done to solve the tragedy of the commons. Nevertheless, I miss concrete game rules where you outline exactly how the new organization will be structured and what rules for punishment there will be. In general, it would be great if you could also provide actual game rules (just like in risk or monopoly). That way you could go even further in-depth and add to the ideas that you already had. Good luck!

Best,

Carl

Week 7:

Hans-Peter:

Dear Hans-Peter,

Good idea for the game. I can see that you put some thought into the game and how it could possibly help explain the creation of industrial symbiosis. In general, I find the instructions to be very well structured. You explain everything in a crisp and clear manner so that the instructions actually read like an actual game manual. The two phases are very well thought out, but I think a slightly more detailed "step by step" outline will help users actually play the game. Nevertheless though, well done!

Best,

Carl

Bob Dubbeldam:

30.12.2014 - No post available