62
3 Outlook
To paraphrase Nilsson-Linden et al. ( 2014 ): “many normative prescriptions of what
LCM is, indicate in fact what ought to be considered, including what tools, methods, and approaches to use”. Indeed further research is needed at several levels.
The authors are confi dent that organizations should not wait to take up social
responsibility by using the approach as outlined here above. However, they consider
that there are needs for research and practice, inter alia:
• Collaboration between the world of (C)SR and LC(S)A: researchers and practitioners should learn to interact with each other, in particular on the issues “materiality”, “due diligence”, “value chain”, “life cycle”
• Streamlining of the approach of “due diligence” in the different international
standards (ISO 26000, GRI, OECD MNE Guidelines, UN GC)
• Incorporation of stakeholder involvement practice in (C)SR into LCSA and LCM
• (Better) integration of three LCA-techniques under the over-arching LCSA;
details regarding methodological issues have already been identifi ed: see e.g.
Benoit and Mazijn ( 2009 ) and Valdivia et al. ( 2011 )
• Design LCSA for due diligence within the context of social responsibility of
(different) organizations (incl. enterprises)
• Implementation of LCM in various realities considering this adoption as a strategic change in management
It should be emphasized that this list is not exhaustive and that progress can be
based on research as well as best practices. The Social LC Alliance ( www.socialLCA.org ), in which the authors take part, aims to contribute in meeting these
challenges.
References
Balkau F, Sonnemann G (2010) Managing sustainability performance through the value chain,
Corporate Governance. Int J Bus Soc 10(1):46–58
Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products – a social
and socio-economic LCA code of practice complementing environmental LCA and life cycle
costing, contributing to the full assessment of goods and services within the context of sustainable development. UNEP-DTIE, Paris
Bowen HR (1953) Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper and Brothers, New York
Bozeman B (2007) La publicitude normative: comment conciliar valeurs publiques et valeurs du
marché. Politiques et Management Public 24(4):179–196
Capron M (2013) La RSE: Un danger ou un atout pour la démocratie. In: Gendron C, Girard B
(eds) Repenser la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise. L’école de Montréal, Armand Colin
Recherches, Paris, pp 123–134
Capron M, Quairel-Lanoizelée F (2012) La responsabilité sociale d’entreprise, Coll. ‘Repères. La
découverte, Paris
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
B. Mazijn and J.-P. Revéret
3 Outlook
To paraphrase Nilsson-Linden et al. ( 2014 ): “many normative prescriptions of what
LCM is, indicate in fact what ought to be considered, including what tools, methods, and approaches to use”. Indeed further research is needed at several levels.
The authors are confi dent that organizations should not wait to take up social
responsibility by using the approach as outlined here above. However, they consider
that there are needs for research and practice, inter alia:
• Collaboration between the world of (C)SR and LC(S)A: researchers and practitioners should learn to interact with each other, in particular on the issues “materiality”, “due diligence”, “value chain”, “life cycle”
• Streamlining of the approach of “due diligence” in the different international
standards (ISO 26000, GRI, OECD MNE Guidelines, UN GC)
• Incorporation of stakeholder involvement practice in (C)SR into LCSA and LCM
• (Better) integration of three LCA-techniques under the over-arching LCSA;
details regarding methodological issues have already been identifi ed: see e.g.
Benoit and Mazijn ( 2009 ) and Valdivia et al. ( 2011 )
• Design LCSA for due diligence within the context of social responsibility of
(different) organizations (incl. enterprises)
• Implementation of LCM in various realities considering this adoption as a strategic change in management
It should be emphasized that this list is not exhaustive and that progress can be
based on research as well as best practices. The Social LC Alliance ( www.socialLCA.org ), in which the authors take part, aims to contribute in meeting these
challenges.
References
Balkau F, Sonnemann G (2010) Managing sustainability performance through the value chain,
Corporate Governance. Int J Bus Soc 10(1):46–58
Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products – a social
and socio-economic LCA code of practice complementing environmental LCA and life cycle
costing, contributing to the full assessment of goods and services within the context of sustainable development. UNEP-DTIE, Paris
Bowen HR (1953) Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper and Brothers, New York
Bozeman B (2007) La publicitude normative: comment conciliar valeurs publiques et valeurs du
marché. Politiques et Management Public 24(4):179–196
Capron M (2013) La RSE: Un danger ou un atout pour la démocratie. In: Gendron C, Girard B
(eds) Repenser la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise. L’école de Montréal, Armand Colin
Recherches, Paris, pp 123–134
Capron M, Quairel-Lanoizelée F (2012) La responsabilité sociale d’entreprise, Coll. ‘Repères. La
découverte, Paris
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
B. Mazijn and J.-P. Revéret