This paper’s intent is to explore the environmental gap analysis tool, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), as it pertains to the decision-making process.
As LCA is more frequently utilized as a measurement of environmental impact, it is prudent
to understand the historical and potential impact that LCA has had or can have on its inclusion in public policy domain - specifically as it intersects the anticipatory governance framework and the supporting decision-making precautionary principle framework. For that purpose, LCA will be examined in partnership with the Precautionary Principle in order to establish practical
application.
LCA and Precautionary Principle have been used together in multiple functions. In two
case studies, the California Green Chemistry Initiative and in Nanotechnology uncertainty, there is a notion that these practices can create value for one another when addressing complex issues.
The recommendations presented in this paper are ones that recognize the current
dynamics of the LCA field along with the different sectors of decision makers. For effective
catalytic initiatives, adoptions of these recommendations are best initially leveraged by
government entities to lead by example. The proposed recommendations are summarized into
the following categories and explored in further detail later in the paper:
1. Improvement in data sharing capabilities for LCA purposes.
2. Common consensus on standards and technical aspects of LCA structure.
3. Increased investment of resource allocation for LCA use and development.
The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.