Part 21

Handouts

1. Summary of the method

2. Step 1: Unpacking the proposal
3. Step 2: Stakeholder analysis
4. Step 3: Fact-finding
5. Step 4: Forming a judgement
6. Step 5: Reflection

1
You can reproduce this teaching resource in order to use it for teaching but not for any commercial purposes. It
remains copyright of Professor Mike Ashby and Granta Design. Please make sure that Mike Ashby and Granta
Design are credited on any reproductions.

1 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
 Handout 1 Summary of the Method

The 5-step method. Here is summary of the five-step strategy for assessing a proposed project that claims to
contribute to sustainable development. Handouts 2 to 6 explain each of the steps in turn, with check-lists to guide
implementation.

1. Unpack the
?
2. Stakeholder
?
3. Fact-finding
?
4. Forming a 5. Reflection
proposal analysis judgement

Step 1: Unpack the proposal. Any proposed sustainable development has an underlying motive – often, to
tackle a perceived problem – that we’ll call its Objective. If the proposal is going to make a difference it must act
on a scale that is significant in comparison with that of the problem itself. Thus legislation requiring supermarkets
to provide only bio-degradable plastic bags (motive: to reduce plastic pollution) will make a difference only if
plastic bags from supermarkets constitute a significant fraction of all plastic bags. Similarly, the proposal has a
time scale. Insisting on bio-degradable bags within 12 months presupposes that the supply chain for the bio-
degradable film used to make them can cope with the resulting demand within that time. It is not possible to
judge the viability of the proposal without knowing how large it will be and how soon it should happen. The first
step, then, is to unpack the proposal, clarifying the Objective its size-scale and its time-scale. Handout 2 helps with
this.

Step 2: Identify stakeholders and their concerns. Stakeholders are individuals, groups or organizations that
are in any way affected by the proposal. Some, like the originators of the proposal in question, will wish to see it
succeed. Others may have reservations or voice outright opposition. It is important to identify the stakeholders
and their concerns. If the concerns are not addressed the proposal will face obstacles and may fail to gain
acceptance. If this happens the proposal is not sustainable. How are stakeholders identified? Handout 3
elaborates.

Step 3: Fact finding. To get further we need facts and facts need research. What sort of facts?
 Facts that establish the size and timing of the proposal and what materials and energy are required to make it
happen. Can the supply chain provide these resources? What environmental consequences might the
proposal have? Is it legal? Are there regulations with which is must comply? Is it fair and equitable? What
will it cost?

2 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
  Facts that relate to the stakeholder concerns. Are the concerns justified? What information is needed to
confirm or refute them?
 Facts relating to essential infrastructure. What products or services will have to be in place to support the
proposal if it goes ahead?
Each of these questions can be researched in an objective way using generally-available sources: books, databases,
interviews and the Internet, guided by check-lists. Handout 4 suggests relevant questions and sources of answers.

Step 4: Forming a judgement. The fourth step is one of drawing together the facts from Step 3 to form a
balanced judgment about the impacts on the three capitals. It is here that values, culture, beliefs and ethics enter
more strongly. Different individuals or groups will view perceive the facts in different ways – their final judgment
will be influenced by their underlying beliefs and values, cultural, religious and political. Unlike Step 3, which is
objective, this step is subjective, requiring debate and a willingness to understand the point of view taken by
others. It is no surprise that one set of facts can be interpreted in more than one way, making this the most
difficult step but also the one that leads to the most interesting debate. Handout 5 helps.

Step 5: Reflection. The fifth and last step is that of reflection on alternatives. Is the Prime Objective achieved? Is
it achieved on a scale that makes a significant difference? Do the benefits to the three capitals outweigh the
negative impacts? If the picture is a negative one in the short-term, might it still be productive in the long-term?
Can the analysis suggest a new, more productive, way of achieving the Prime Objective? Handout 6 suggests some
questions.

Summary as layers. Here is a summarizing diagram that presents the 5 steps in a different way – as a series of
layers. Each layer informs the one above. The overall barrel-shape suggest how the quantity of information
increases as the facts about the proposal and its stakeholders is researched then narrows again as judgments are
distilled from them culminating in a calm reflection on the completed process. It also suggests the way in which
research and debate can inform each layer while retaining the overall structure in interaction between layers in
mind.

Reflection on
options

Debate
consequences

Research
the facts

Stakeholder
analysis

Unpack the
proposal

3 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
 Handout 2 Unpacking the Proposal

Background. The growth in human population and spending-power makes increasing demands on the natural
environment, the built environment and social cohesion. Recognition of this has stimulated activities to diminish
the undesired impacts of economic growth – particularly to diminish resource consumption, emission-release and
social inequity. These activities, of which there are many examples, are presented by their proponents as
contributions to Sustainable Development. Each has a particular motivation. Here are some examples: subsidizing
electric cars to reduce the carbon emissions to atmosphere; reducing energy demand by harvesting electrical
power from waste heat; reclaiming scarce elements from cast-off mobile phones to reduce drain on natural
resources; reducing domestic electricity consumption by phasing out incandescent bulbs. We will call them
“proposals” of sustainable development.

Objective, scale and timing. Any proposal of sustainability has an underlying motive that we will call its
Objective. If the proposal is going to make a difference it must act on a scale that is significant in comparison with
that of the problem itself. Thus legislation requiring supermarkets to provide only bio-degradable plastic bags
(motive: to reduce plastic pollution) will make a difference only if plastic bags from supermarkets constitute a
significant fraction of all plastic bags. Similarly, the proposal has a time scale. Insisting on bio-degradable bags
within 12 months presupposes that the supply chain for the bio-degradable film used to make them can cope with
the resulting demand within that time. It is not possible to judge the viability of the proposal without knowing
how large it will be and how soon it should happen. It is not possible to judge the viability of the proposal without
knowing how large it will be and how soon it should happen.
We need a size scale and timing for this and any such analysis. As in this example, the original statement of a
proposal is often vague about these, yet they are always there. If they are not explicit, we will infer sensible
default values from the context.

Questions for the Fact-finding step. A large scale and a fixed timing may mean that the proposal, if
implemented, will demand resources on a correspondingly large scale and have significant economic, social and
political implications. Thus building wind turbines to provide grid-scale electrical power will contribute significantly
to reducing carbon emissions only if it provides a significant part – 5 %, say – of national or global power, but to do
this will require large quantities of materials and space. The high density of turbines needed to meet this target may
be socially unacceptable, and the investment will be large. Anticipating the consequences of the scale and timing of
a proposal on material, economic and social resources is a component in analyzing its viability as a sustainable
development. It is helpful at this point to formulate these questions, leaving the answers to the Fact-finding step.

Table 1 lists the Objectives of some national-scale proposals that are in progress or are proposed in Europe. If
the Prime Objective is not achievable on the scale and within the time envisaged, the success of the proposal is
compromised and it will need reconsideration. Thus the first step is to express the proposal as an Objective with a
defined size scale and allocated time.

4 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
Table 1. Examples of proposals, with Objective and Size and Time scales

Proposal Objective Size-scale Time-scale

Biofuel additions to Reduce dependence on 10% of all auto fuel by By 2020
conventional auto fuels fossil fuels volume
Mandatory charge for plastic Reduce plastic pollution by Applies to all By 2016
bags discarded bags supermarket purchases
Battery Directive: mandatory Reduce toxic metal All batteries, Europe- By 2020
recycling of all batteries contamination in landfill wide
Waste Electrical and Reduce waste from All electronics, Europe- Now
Electronic Equipment (WEEE) obsolete electrical wide
Directive equipment
End of Life Vehicles (EoLV) Increase recycling of old 85% of every vehicle to By 2015
Directive vehicles be recycled, Europe
wide
Feed-in tariff – a subsidy for Increase renewable Available for all For 25 years from
domestic solar power electrical power domestic solar date of
generation installations installation

Product take-back legislation
for vehicle tires
Tidal power generation in the
Swansea bay, South Wales
Shift waste-management All tires, Europe wide Now
costs from State to tire
Producers
Regional low carbon 10 km barrier harvesting By 2023
electric power generation 106 MW.hr per year

5 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
 Handout 3 Stakeholder Analysis

Who is a stakeholder? If you have interests in a particular project, then you hold a stake: you are a
stakeholder. If you wish to participate in and change that project, interest is not enough; you also need
influence. Stakeholder analysis means identifying the interested parties – the stakeholders – and their
concerns, their influence and the ways they interact. The three key stakeholder questions are:

 Who are they?

 What do they want?

 How will they try to get it?

Failure to identify, respect and involve the stakeholders in a project is likely to generate opposition that
may obstruct or defeat the purpose of the project itself.

Identifying stakeholders. Stakeholders can be both organizations and people (see Table below).
Stakeholders to identify themselves and publicize their concerns through editorials, interviews and
letters in the National Press, Radio and Television, focus-group reports, shareholder meetings,
manifestos, demonstrations, interventions and in more extreme cases, vetoes, boycotts and strikes.
Interviews, questionnaires and snowball sampling (asking known stakeholders for pointers to further
stakeholders) give additional information.

Table 1. Possible stakeholders

Local or national Government Suppliers Customers, existing and potential

Owners The public or local community Lobbyists and interest-groups
Employees Trade Unions Investors, shareholders
Health and planning authorities The Press, radio and television Managers, colleagues or team
Alliance partners Business partners The scientific community

6 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
Interest and influence. The Stakeholder Interest and Influence
matrix (Figure 1) helps clarify the position and relationships of
stakeholders. Stakeholders with little interest and little
influence (Bystanders in the figure) are unlikely to demand
attention, though it is prudent to keep them informed.
Stakeholders with great interest and great influence (Key
players) require full involvement with decision-making;
achieving their active support may require negotiation and
compromise. Stakeholders with great influence but little
interest (Context-setters) need attention; they could be drawn
in by other, less influential, stakeholders. Finally there are
stakeholders with great interest but, individually, little
influence (Concerned citizens); if marginalized, their frustration Figure 1. Stakeholder Interest and Influence.
may drive them to form alliances with each other and with
more influential groups.
Stakeholder analysis mapping. Stakeholders can be
mapped onto the interest / influence matrix. Figure 2
shows one possible scenario. The proposal is that of
promoting bio-plastics to reduce dependence on oil-based
plastics. The suppliers of feedstock (maize, corn) have
relatively little influence – they depend on the bioplastic
producers for their market. The producers of the bio-
plastic granules, in turn, depend on the plastic molders to
use their material. Greater influence rests with the plastic
molders, who are in a position to urge the most influential
but probably least interested group of all – the plastic-using
public – to choose a bioplastic rather than a conventional
plastic product. The stakeholders with less influence, such
Figure 2. A stakeholder diagram for promotion of
as the green activists, can participate only by exerting
bio-plastics. The arrows indicate influence.
pressure on other stakeholders. The arrows on the figure
show potential paths of influence.
Questions for the Fact-finding step. The greater the involvement of stakeholders, the greater is the
scope for mutual understanding. The stakeholder-analysis map forces the questions of Who? What
interests? What influence? What interactions? Are the stakeholder concerns justified? If they are, what
can be done to accommodate them? If they are not, how can they be refuted? To answer those
questions we need facts. That is the role of the Fact-finding stage.
Further reading about stakeholder analysis. There are lots of books and manuals for stakeholder
analysis. Here is one: “Stakeholder influence strategies”, by Frooman, J. (1999) Academy of
Management Review Vol. 24. No. 2, pp.191 - 205. (One of a number of good introductions to
stakeholder analysis.)

7 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
 Handout 4 Fact-finding

What facts? To form a judgement about a proposed sustainable development we need facts and facts need
research. What sort of facts?

 Facts about the proposal and the resources needed to make it happen. What environmental impact will
it have? Are there regulations with which is must comply? Is it fair and equitable? What will it cost?

 Facts that relate to the stakeholder’s concerns. Are the concerns justified? What information is needed
to confirm or refute them?

 Facts relating to essential infrastructure. What products or services will have to be in place to support
the proposal if it goes ahead?

Each of these questions can be researched in an objective way using generally-available sources: books, databases,
interviews and the Internet, guided by check-lists. They are best explored via a set of questions shown attached to
the six segments of Figure 1.

 Material availability?
 Supply-chain security?
 Ethical sourcing?
 Ethical manufacture?  Resource consumption?
 Emissions and carbon
footprint?
 Global vs local impact?
 Embodied energy?
 Use-energy?
 Energy source (Oil or Green)?
 Energy storage?  Impact on shelter, food,
water?
 Equity and fairness?
 Creation of employment?
 Regulations?
 Restricted substances?
 Toxicity?
 Conflict minerals?
 Cost breakdown of product?
 Cost vs benefits?
 Internalized vs externalized
costs?

Figure 1. The six major sectors that are involved in most proposals of sustainable development.

8 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
Finding facts: the CES EduPack Sustainability database. The CES EduPack Sustainability Database is a tool to
help with Fact-finding. It consists of a set of linked data-tables providing information about the topics suggested in
Figure 2.

The Materials data-tables document the properties and uses both of engineering materials and of the
elements, including their environmental properties, countries of origin, material-criticality status and price. The
Legislation and Regulation data-table contains summaries of legislation, regulations, taxes and incentives to
encourage or restrict the use of materials or of practices such as recycling that relate to material use. The Nations
of the World data-table contains records for the world’s 210 nations, with data for population, governance,
economic development, energy use and engagement with human rights, together with information that may bear
on security of supply and the ethical sourcing of materials. Two further data-tables provide information about
Power Generating Systems, and about Energy Storage Systems. The database includes an eco-audit tool that
allows a fast, approximate analysis of the energy requirements and the carbon emissions over the life-cycle of a
product.

Links connect records in different data-tables that are in some way related. Thus the record for cobalt in the
materials data-table is linked to records for the nations that produce it and to power-generating and energy
storage systems that use it. Environmental restrictions in the Legislation database are linked to the nations that
have enacted them and the materials affected by them. The system contains further linked data-tables (not
shown) for manufacturing processes, producers and references. A more detailed description is given in “Materials
and Sustainability”2, a text containing case studies using the methods described in these handouts.

Figure 2. The content of the CES Sustainability database. It provides information to help
with the Fact-finding step

1
Ashby M.F., Ferrer-Balas, D. and Segalas Coral, J. (2015) “Materials and Sustainable Development” Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd , Oxford.
ISBN-10: 0081001762 ISBN-13: 978-0081001769

9 www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
 Handout 5 Forming a Judgement

The three capitals. Three essential “Capitals” underpin society as we know it today (Table 1). Each capital is like
a bank balance on which we can draw and into which contributions can be made.

Table 1. The Three Capitals.

Capital What is it? Why is it What can How do you

important? damage it? measure it?
Natural
Clean atmosphere, fertile land, It is the support Loss of bio-diversity Environmental
capital fresh water, productive oceans, system for all life, and habitat, climate space, carrying
accessible material and energy today and in the change, resource capacity, ecological
resources, healthy biosphere future depletion, footprint (a)
emissions

Manufactured: Built environment, It provides the Recession, GDP (b)

Manufactured industrial capacity, materials and infrastructure for breakdown of
and financial GPI(c)
goods that contribute to the shelter, food financial system,
capital production process production armed conflict
manufacture,
Financial: a measure of ability to
transport, and
replace or expand manufactured
employment
capital

Human and
Human: health, knowledge, skills, Satisfaction with Inequity of power, GINI index (d), level
Social capital motivation, happiness life, ability to wealth, influence of literacy and
contribute to education
Social: democracy, freedom of
society
speech, social structures Satisfaction with life
scale(e)

Using the Three Capitals. The merit of the Three Capitals concept is that it provides yardsticks against which a
proposed sustainable development can be judged. A set of checklists (below) suggest questions to expose the
impact of a proposed development on each Capital. Not all can be answered - some are more relevant for some
projects, others for others. But the attempt to answer them provides the background that allows the ultimate
merit of the proposal to be debated. “Debate” is the key word here.

Footnote to Table 1
(a) The ecological footprint of a nation is a measure of the productive land area required to support one member of the
population of that nation. Industrialized nations require more land than they own to provide the resources they
consume. They respond by importing resources from other countries.
(b) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an imperfect measure of manufactured capital, widely used to report the economic
state of a nation.
(c) Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is considered to be a better economic metric of a nation than GDP. It includes the
inputs to GDP and adds other metrics such as the cost of crime, ozone depletion and resource depletion.
(d) The GINI index is a measure of the inequality of wealth distribution within an economy.
(e) The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a subjective assessment of well-being of the members of a nation.

10
www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
The nature of the debate. Fact-finding is a systematic, objective step, in the tradition of scientific exploration.
Forming a judgement is, inevitably, one that is subjective. An environmentalist might argue that the impact on
natural capital ranked most highly: after all, the natural environment is the support system of all life. A humanist
might see understanding, reason, humanity and happiness as the central pillars of a civilized society and feel that
any impact on human capital was unacceptable. To an economist, economic stability and growth of manufactured
capital could seem to be the first priority, arguing that these provide the resources needed to protect the
environment, enable innovation and support a vibrant society. Each of these groups may recognize the cases
made by the others but their final judgment will be influenced by their underlying beliefs and values, cultural,
religious and political.

Check-lists. The check-lists below help assess the impact of the proposal on the Three Capitals.

Natural capital – Planet

 Does the proposal reduce dependence on finite resources?
 Does it reduce emissions to air, water and land?
 How are biodiversity and eco-systems affected?
 Does it cause irreversible change?
 Is a rebound effect possible? (Greater efficiency causing increased consumption.)

Manufactured capital – Prosperity

 What will the proposal cost? What revenue will it generate?
 Will it increase industrial capacity?
 How will existing institutions be affected?
 Does it increase employment and livelihood?
 Is it creating new opportunities for development or innovations?

Human capital – People

 Have stakeholders been properly consulted? Have their concerns been addressed?
 How are human health, education and skills affected by the proposal?
 Will the proposal contribute to human happiness and well-being?
 Does it increase knowledge?
 Is it culturally acceptable? Does it affect cultural identity?
 Does it promote equality?
 Is it consistent with principles of freedom of information and speech, good governance and
democracy?

Further reading
Dasgupta, P. (2010) “Natures role in sustaining economic development” Phil Trans Roy Soc B, Vol. 365, pp 5 – 11. (An excellent
short introduction to the Three Capitals.)

11
www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
 Handout 6 Reflection

Why reflection? At the start of the 5-step analysis of a proposal for a sustainable development the details were
vague, the stakeholders unknown, the facts as yet investigated and their likely impact as yet unclear. Now all that
has changed and a more balanced perspective is possible. Much is now gained by a final reflection on the original
proposal of sustainable development, the obstacles to achieving it and ways it might be modified while still
meeting the sustainability objective.

Check-lists. The check-lists below provide prompts for meaningful reflection.

Reflection on the initial remit

Moderating over-ambition
 Was the initial proposal (the objective, size and time-scale) well thought out?
 Should the initial proposal be modified to enable the objective to be met with less
collateral damage?
 Is either the proposed size-scale or time-scale unrealistic?

Reflection on long versus short-term gain

“No gain without pain”
 Do the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term sacrifices?
 What infrastructure is lacking that will be needed for long-term gain?

Reflection on radically different ways to meet objective

Invoking disruptive technologies
 Could the objective be met in a totally different way?
 Have innovative technical solutions been overlooked?
 Inducing changed social behaviour to achieve the objective? (Carrots)
 Requiring change by introduction of constraining legislation? (Sticks)

12
www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com