Abstract
Background, aim and scope
A relatively broad consensus has formed that the purpose of developing and using the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is to improve the social conditions for the stakeholders affected by the assessed product’s life cycle. To create this effect, the SLCA, among other things, needs to provide valid assessments of the consequence of the decision that it is to support. The consequence of a decision to implement a life cycle of a product can be seen as the difference between the decision being implemented and ‘non-implemented’ product life cycle. This difference can to some extent be found using the consequential environmental life cycle assessment (ELCA) methodology to identify the processes that change as a consequence of the decision. However, if social impacts are understood as certain changes in the lives of the stakeholders, then social impacts are not only related to product life cycles, meaning that by only assessing impacts related to the processes that change as a consequence of a decision, not all changes in the life situations of the stakeholders will be captured by an assessment following the consequential ELCA methodology. This article seeks to identify these impacts relating to the non-implemented product life cycle and establish indicators for their assessment.
Materials and methods
A conceptual overview of the non-implemented life cycle situation is established, and the impacts which may be expected from this situation are identified, based on theories and empirical findings from relevant fields of research. Where possible, indicators are proposed for the measurement of the identified impacts.
Results
In relation to the workers in the life cycle, the non-implemented life cycle situation may lead to increased levels of unemployment. Unemployment has important social impacts on the workers; however, depending on the context, these impacts may vary significantly. The context can to some extent be identified and based on this, indicators are proposed to assess the impacts of unemployment. In relation to the product user, it was not possible to identify impacts of the non-implemented life cycle on a generic basis.
Discussion
The assessment of the non-implemented life cycle situation increases the validity of the SLCA but at the same time adds a considerable extra task when performing an SLCA. It is therefore discussed to what extent its assessment could be avoided. It is argued that this depends on whether the assessment will still meet the minimum criterion for validity of the assessment, that the assessment should be better than random in indicating the decision alternative with the most favourable social impacts.
Conclusions
Based on this, it is concluded that the assessment of the non-implemented life cycle cannot be avoided since an assessment not taking into account the impacts of the non-implemented life cycle will not fulfil this minimum criterion.
Recommendations and perspectives
To mitigate the task of assessing the impacts of the non-implemented life cycle, new research areas are suggested, relating to simpler ways of performing the assessment as well as to investigations of whether the effect of SLCA can be created through other and potentially simpler assessments than providing an assessment of the consequences of a decision as addressed here.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For earlier work on social aspects in LCA, see Benoît and Mazijn (2009), Klöpffer and Udo de Haes (2008), Jørgensen et al. (2008, 2009a, b), Dreyer et al. (2006), Hunkeler (2006), Labuschagne and Brent (2006), Norris (2006), Weidema (2006), Gauthier (2005), Hunkeler and Rebitzer (2005), Schmidt et al. (2004), and Klöpffer (2003). The reader may also refer to the following sources: Earthster (2009), Flysjö (2006), Grießhammer et al. (2006), Manhart and Grießhammer (2006), Nazarkina and Le Bocq (2006), Barthel et al. (2005), Méthot (2005), and Spillemaeckers et al. (2004).
In general, three different stakeholder groups are considered in the SLCA, being the workers throughout the life cycle, the society in which the life cycle is embedded and the product users (Jørgensen et al. 2008). Grießhammer et al. (2006) and Benoît and Mazijn (2009), however, divide this classification even further.
Validity here refers to the degree of correspondence between reality and our perception of it. In line with this, an SLCA is defined as valid if it assesses what we intend it to assess, in this case the true social consequences of a decision. Validity is not to be confused with ‘reliability’, which ‘merely’ relates to reproducibility or the degree to which the result will always be the same if the assessment method is applied on the same situation. An assessment method can thereby be highly reliable without being valid, whereas the opposite is not possible (Carmines and Zeller 1979).
It could be argued that the more indirect effect of SLCA mentioned above should also be accounted for as a consequence a decision may have. Assessing the consequences would therefore also include the assessment of these more indirect effects of SLCA, and the distinction introduced here will therefore be misleading. But, due to the potential complexity of identifying the indirect effects, it seems somewhat unrealistic that an assessment including these could be made.
A word of caution, which should also be mentioned in this respect, is that all studies referred here were performed in the USA, Australia and EU countries. To our knowledge, no African or Asian studies have been made on the above issues. In SLCA, the assessed life cycle will often involve productions on these continents, which raises the question about the possibility of generalising the above results to these continents. Such concerns seem highly relevant, but for now, we will consider the above results as a best guess, also when it comes to countries or continents not covered by the underlying research.
For the assessment to be better than ’no assessment’, it has to show the best of two alternatives more than 50% of the time. The best or right decision is the one causing the most favourable social impacts for now and within a timely limited future. The assessment has to be limited timewise, because for an assessment to show the best alternative, more than 50% of the time in a case with infinite time horizon and therefore also infinite consequences would call for an infinitely complex, and therefore also unrealisable, assessment.
References
Barthel L, Wolf MA, Eyerer P (2005) Methodology of life cycle sustainability for sustainability assessments. Presentation on the 11th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference (AISDRC), 6th–8th of June 2005, Helsinki, Finland
Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Druk in de weer, Belgium
Carlsson M, Eriksson S, Gottfries N (2006) Testing theories of job creation: does supply create its own demand? Sveriges Riksbank Working Paper Series No. 194. http://www.tinbergen.nl/cost/london/eriksson.pdf
Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment: reliability and validity assessments. Sage, Beverly Hills
Chiricos TG (1987) Rates of crime and unemployment: an analysis of aggregate research evidence. Soc Probl 34(2):187–212
Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment (10 pp). Int J LCA 11(2):88–97
Earthster (2009). www.earthster.org
Fineman S (1987) In: Fineman S (ed) Unemployment: personal and social consequences. Tavistock, London
Flysjö A (2006) Indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—a case study of salmon. Presentation held 17th of June 2006 in Lausanne
Freeman RB (1999) The economics of crime. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, volume 3, chapter 52. Elsevier Science, New York
Gauthier C (2005) Measuring corporate social and environmental performance: the extended life-cycle assessment. J Bus Ethics 59(1–2):199–206
Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Méthot A, Weidema BP, (2006) Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. Discussion paper from UNEP-SETAC Task Force Integration of Social Aspects in LCA meetings in Bologna (January 2005), Lille (May 2005) and Brussels (November 2005). Freiburg, Germany
Hakim C (1982) The social consequences of high unemployment. J Soc Policy 11(4):433–467
Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study (12 pp). Int J LCA 11(6):371–382
Hunkeler D, Rebitzer G (2005) The future of life cycle assessment. Int J LCA 10(5):305–308
Jørgensen A, Le-Boqc A, Nazakina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J LCA 13(2):96–103
Jørgensen A, Hauschild M, Jørgensen MS, Wangel A (2009a) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):204–214
Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild M (2009b) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):5–16
Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J LCA 8(3):157–159
Klöpffer W, Udo de Haes H (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with Comments by Helias A. Udo De Haes). Int J LCA 13(2):89–95
Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J LCA 11(1):3–15
Lund-Thomsen P (2008) The global sourcing and codes of conduct debate: five myths and five recommendations. Dev Change 39(6):1005–1018
Manhart A, Grießhammer R (2006) Social impacts of the production of notebook PCs—contribution to the development of a Product Sustainability Assessment (PROSA). Öko-Institut e.V., Freiburg
Mclean C, Carmona C, Francis S, Wohlgemuth C, Mulvihill C (2005) Worklessness and health—what do we know about the causal relationship? Evidence review. Health Development Agency. http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/documents/worklessness_health.pdf
Méthot A (2005) FIDD: a green and socially responsible venture capital fund. Presentation on the Life Cycle Approaches for Green Investment - 26th LCA Swiss Discussion Forum, 2005, Lausanne, Switzerland
Nazarkina L, Le Bocq A (2006) Social aspects of Sustainability assessment: feasibility of Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). EDF, Moret-sur-Loing, France
Norris GR (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles—towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J LCA 11(1 special issue):97–104
Öster A, Agell J (2007) Crime and unemployment in turbulent times. J Eur Econ Assoc 5(4):752–775
Schmidt I, Meurer M, Saling P, Kicherer A, Reuter W, Gensch C (2004) SEEbalance—managing sustainability of products and processes with the socio-eco-efficiency analysis by BASF. Green Manag Int 45:79–94
Spillemaeckers S, Vanhoutte G, Taverniers L, Lavrysen L, van Braeckel D, Mazijn B, Rivera JD (2004) Integrated product assessment—the development of the label ‘sustainable development’ for products ecological, social and economical aspects of integrated product policy. Belgian Science Policy, Belgium
Ström S (2003) Unemployment and families: a review of research. Soc Serv Rev 77(3):399–430
Thiesen J, Christensen TS, Kristensen TG, Andersen RD, Brunoe B, Gregersen TK, Thrane M, Weidema BP (2008) Rebound effects of price differences. Int J LCA 13(2):104–114
Waddell G, Burton KA (2006) Is work good for your health and well-being? TSO, London, http://www.workingforhealth.gov.uk/documents/is-work-good-for-you.pdf
Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 11(1 special issue):89–96
Weidema BP, Ekvall T (2009) Guidelines for applications of deepened and broadened LCA. Chapter for CALCAS deliverable D18. http://www.lca-net.com/files/consequential_LCA_CALCAS_final.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Tom Swarr
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jørgensen, A., Finkbeiner, M., Jørgensen, M.S. et al. Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 376–384 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0176-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0176-3