Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social life cycle assessment: in pursuit of a framework for assessing wood-based products from bioeconomy regions in Germany

  • SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

With many policies in Germany steering towards a bioeconomy, there is a need for analytical tools that assess not only the environmental and economic implications but also the social implications of a transition to a bioeconomy. Wood is expected to become a major biomass resource in bioeconomy regions. Therefore, this paper develops a social life cycle assessment (sLCA) framework that can be applied specifically to a wood-based production system in one of Germany’s bioeconomy regions.

Methods

This paper reviews and analyses existing sLCA approaches, in terms of how applicable they are for assessing a wood-based production system in a German bioeconomy regional context. The analysis is structured according to the standard phases of environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). However, we use the term social effects rather than social impacts, to acknowledge the unknown cause–effect relationship between an organisation’s activities and its social impacts. We also consider the establishment of regional system boundaries, as well as the relationship between the social effects and the product being assessed. Additionally, an approach for the development and selection of social indicators and indices is outlined. Furthermore, we discuss data requirements and present an approach for a social life cycle impact assessment method.

Results and discussion

A new conceptual framework for a context-specific sLCA to assess wood-based products manufactured in a bioeconomy region was developed. It enables sLCA practitioners to identify “social hotspots” and “social opportunities” from a regional perspective. The location and characteristics of these social hotspots and opportunities can be analysed, in particular, for major production activities in a bioeconomy region in Germany. Therefore, according to this framework, the development of social indices and indicators, the collection of data and the approach used for characterising social effects need to relate to the geographical context of the product being assessed. The proposed framework can, thus, help to identify, monitor and evaluate the social sustainability of wood-based bioeconomy chains in a regional context.

Conclusions

This framework requires a high level of detail in the social inventory and impact assessment phase, in order to assess the regional foreground activities in a German wood-based bioeconomy region. It enables sLCA studies to identify which social hotspots and social opportunities occur and where they are located in the wood-based production system of a regional bioeconomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A forest cluster encompasses raw timber-producing forestry enterprises, processing industries of semi-finished wood, pulp and paper products, and downstream manufacturing industries that provide end consumers with various finished wood and paper products (Kies et al. 2010).

  2. Most social life cycle assessment (sLCA) studies refer to the assessment of impact categories and thus potential social impacts. However, we use the terminology of Macombe et al. (2013) who suggest using the term “social effects” in order to take into account the insufficiently modelled relationships between activities and impacts.

  3. Performance reference points (e.g. average German working week) indicates thresholds, benchmarks or objectives (UNEP-SETAC 2009) developed with regard to a production site’s geographic location and its corresponding industrial sector. (Please see Sect. 4, where we discuss the social life cycle impact assessment, for more details on the suggested PRPs.)

References

  • (BMBF) Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2011) National research strategy BioEconomy 2030. http://www.bmbf.de/pub/Natinal_Research_Strategy_BioEconomy_2030.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2015

  • (BMELV) Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (2013) Politikstrategie Bioökonomie: Nachwachsende Ressourcen und biotechnologische Verfahren als Basis für Ernährung, Industrie und Energie. http://www.bmbf.de/pubRD/Politikstrategie_Biooekonomie_barrierefrei.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2014

  • (EC) European Commission (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth. A bioeconomy for Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/201202_innovating_sustainable_growth_en.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2015

  • (GRI) Global Reporting Initiative (2011) Sustainability reporting guidelines

  • (SAI) SAI SA8000 (2008) Social accountability 8000

  • (SMUL) Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (2013) Sachsen hat Zukunft: Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie für den Freistaat Sachsen. https://www.smul.sachsen.de/smul/download/. Accessed 10 December 2014

  • Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît-Norris C, Norris GA, Aulisio D (2014) Efficient assessment of social hotspots in the supply chains of 100 product categories using the social hotspots database. Sustainability 6(10):6973–6984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brent A, Labuschagne C (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang Y, Sproesser G, Neugebauer S, Wolf K, Scheumann R, Pittner A, Rethmeier M, Finkbeiner M (2015) Environmental and social life cycle assessment of welding technologies. Procedia CIRP 26:293–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook: consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. GreenDeltaTC GmbH, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • DIN ISO 26000 (2010) Guidance on social responsibility

  • Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010a) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010b) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(4):385–402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA – part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F (2012) Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 30(1):34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feschet P, Garrabé M (2013) Social LCA and sustainable development. In: Macombe C (ed) Social LCAs: socio-economic effects in value chains. FruiTrop, Montpellier

  • Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2013) Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):155–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):366–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs M, Rauscher C, Weyh A (2014) Die regionalen Unterschiede in Deutschland sind groß. IAB-Kurzbericht

  • Halog A, Manik Y (2011) Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3(12):469–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Dreyer LC, Jørgensen A (2008) Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective—lessons learned. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57(1):21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Eco-efficiency in industry and science, vol 11. Kluwer Acad. Publ, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(3):620–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kies U, Klein D, Schulte A (2010) Germany's forest cluster: exploratory spatial data analysis of regional agglomerations and structural change in wood-based employment- primary wood processing. Forstarchiv 81(6):233–272

  • Kircher M (2012) The transition to a bio-economy: national perspectives. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 6(3):240–245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann A, Russi D, Bala A, Finkbeiner M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2011) Integration of social aspects in decision support, based on life cycle thinking. Sustainability 3(12):562–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C (ed) (2013) Social LCAs: socio-economic effects in value chains. FruiTrop, Montpellier

    Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R (2013) Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod 52:205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Antón A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the social life cycle assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1506–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller K, Knierim A (2012) Bioökonomie und der Mensch. Biol Unserer Zeit 42(2):123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe S, Majer S, Bezama A, Thrän D (2016) When considering no man is an Island - assessing bioenergy systems in a regional and LCA context: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1057-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Paragahawewa U, Blackett P, Bruce S (2009) Social life cycle analysis (S-LCA). Some methodological issues and potential application to cheese production in New Zealand

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret J (2013) Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1642–1652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petti L, Lie Ugaya CM, Di Cesare S (2014) Systematic review of social-life cycle assessment (S-LCA) case studies. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Social LCA in progress. FruiTrop, Montpellier

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez PKS, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML (2014) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1515–1523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raschka A, Carus M (2012) Stoffliche Nutzung von Biomasse: Basisdaten für Deutschland. Europa und die Welt, Hürth

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):380–388

  • Revéret J, Couture J, Parent J (2015) Socioeconomic LCA of milk production in Canada. In: Muthu SS (ed) Social life cycle assessment: an insight. Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 45th edn

  • Statistisches Bundesamt (2014) Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Deutschland Indikatorenbericht 2014. http://www.nachhaltigkeitsrat.de/uploads/media/Indikatorenbericht2014.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2015

  • Swarr TE (2009) Societal life cycle assessment—could you repeat the question? Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(4):285–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):596–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully thank the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research for their financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioenergy, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Permoserstraße 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany

    Anke Siebert, Alberto Bezama, Sinéad O’Keeffe & Daniela Thrän

  2. Bioenergy Systems Department, Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Torgauer Straße 116, 04347, Leipzig, Germany

    Daniela Thrän

Authors
  1. Anke Siebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alberto Bezama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sinéad O’Keeffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniela Thrän
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anke Siebert.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Catherine Macombe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siebert, A., Bezama, A., O’Keeffe, S. et al. Social life cycle assessment: in pursuit of a framework for assessing wood-based products from bioeconomy regions in Germany. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 651–662 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1066-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1066-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation