Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment

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

Abstract

Purpose

The main purpose of this review is to investigate the methodology of social life cycle assessment (SLCA) through its application to case studies. In addition, the following research aims to define the trends related to the SLCA by researchers and consultants. This study will help to map the current situation and to highlight the hot spots and weaknesses of the application of the SLCA theory.

Methods

The SLCA could be considered as a useful methodology to provide decision support in order to compare products and/or improve the social effects of the life cycle of a product. Furthermore, the results of the case studies analyzed may influence decision makers significantly. For this reason, a systematic literature review of case studies was carried out in which SLCA was applied in order to analyze closely the application of the stages of this methodology. In this study, the major phases of the technical framework for a SLCA were analyzed. Specific attention was paid to detect the positive impacts that emerged in the case studies, which were also studied by administering a questionnaire to the authors of the analyzed case studies and to a number of experts in the field of SLCA.

Results and discussion

The 35 case studies examined in this paper, even though they do not deviate from the 40 identified by the previous processing, are still significantly different in terms of outcome produced. It is important to clarify that the authors who developed the case studies considered the steps defined in the SETAC/SETAC guidelines, borrowed from the ISO 14044 standard.

Conclusions

The data resulting from this analysis could help both practitioners and researchers to understand what the issues are, on which it is still necessary to investigate and work, in order to solidify the SLCA methodology and define its role in the context of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA).

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Farace and Frantzen (2005), grey literature regards “information produced on all levels of government, academia, business, and industry in electronic and print formats not controlled by commercial publishing, i.e., where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body” and includes the following documents: technical and project reports, working papers, discussion papers, technical manuals, information sheets, conference papers, and theses.

  2. “Type I” IA method assesses social impacts on the base of a score that is attributed by using performance reference points, taken from international and national standards and best practices. Also, internationally accepted minimum performance levels are taken as a reference (e.g., those contained in ILO conventions, ISO 26,000 guidelines, and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises) (Parent et al. 2010). “Type II,” closer to E-LCA, assesses social impacts identifying the relations between cause and effect, called pathways, including an easily observed variable and the effect or impact related to it. Pathways are formulated on the basis of scientific evidence (Parent et al. 2010; Chhipi-Shrestha et al. 2015).

  3. “Social impacts” are caused by changes in the context, which originate effects related to changes in life expectancy, health, social status, etc. Because of the difficulty of the authors to obtain all data useful for calculations, they stopped at an intermediate point, therefore neglecting the evaluation of a part of the impacts. To acknowledge the inability to calculate the true social impact when this concern is relevant, the term “social effect” instead of “social impact” will be used. “‘Social performances’ are neither social effects nor social impacts of changes. Social performances are […] features of a situation in a relevant organization (or features of the value chain of organizations shaping the life cycle), referring more or less to social issues” (Macombe et al. 2013, p. 205).

  4. Can be defined as “methodology” a guideline for solving problems, through specific components (e.g., phases, tasks, methods, techniques, and tools) (Robson 1997).

  5. Jørgensen et al. (2010) consider the child labor indicator as a context-related positive impact, given that it can be considered as a positive impact in some situations (e.g., helping children to develop discipline, responsibility, self-confidence, and independence; teaching them how to manage money; and providing them with working skills) (Di Cesare et al. 2016).

  6. Footprint is defined as the sum of “all the negative impacts of pollution released and resources consumed over the entire supply chain and life cycle of the product” (Norris 2013, p. 125).

References

  • Albrecht S, Brandstetter P, Beck T et al (2013) An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1549–1567

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013a) Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1106–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013b) Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling systems in low income countries: three Peruvian case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1116–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcese G, Lucchetti M, Merli R (2013) Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability 5:3275–3287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? Opting for an empirically based approach to social life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 17:517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4:1946–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît-Norris C, Traverso M, Valdivia S et al (2013) The methodological sheets for sub-categories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). http://bit.ly/1Ma98vt. Accessed. 28 May 2015

  • Bouzid A, Padilla M (2014) Analysis of social performance of the industrial tomatoes food chain in Algeria. New Medit 1:60–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Busset G, Belaud J-P, Montréjaud-Vignoles M et al (2014) Integration of social LCA with sustainability LCA: a case study on virgin olive oil production. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Pre-proceedings of the 4th International Seminar in Social LCA. FruiTrop Thema, pp 73–80

  • Chang Y-J, Sproesser G, Neugebauer S et al (2015) Environmental and social life cycle assessment of welding technologies. Procedia CIRP 293–298

  • Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) “Socializing” sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17:579–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi HS (2015) How can SLCA influence change to a product’s life cycle and who listens to the impacts of an SLCA? Environ Dev Sustain. doi:10.1007/s10668-015.9662-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. http://bit.ly/1M3mA3w. 25 May 2015

  • Clift R (2014) Social life cycle assessment: what are we trying to do. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (2014) Pre-proceedings of the 4th international seminar in social LCA. 19th-21st November. FruitropThema, Montpellier, France, pp 11–16

  • Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2013) Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. http://bit.ly/1Hup87n. Accessed 13 April 2015

  • De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A et al (2015) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Cesare S, Silveri F, Petti L (2014) The role of indicators in social life cycle assessment : results from a literature review. http://bit.ly/1O9gf5F. Accessed 30 May 2015

  • Di Cesare S, Silveri F, Sala S et al. (2016) Positive impacts in social life cycle assessment: state of the art and the way forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue–under review)

  • Ekener-Petersen E (2013) Tracking down social impacts of products with social life cycle assessment. Dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology

  • 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 18:127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekener-Petersen E, Moberg Å (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 2: reflections on a study of a complex product. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G (2014) Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy 73:416–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farace DJ, Frantzen J (2005) Sixth international conference on grey literature: work on grey in progress, GL 2004 Conference Proceedings, New York, 6–7 December 2004, TextRelease, Amsterdam

  • Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M et al (2013) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway: the case of banana industry in Cameroon. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun RK, Ramjeawon T (2013) Life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Environ Dev Sustain 15:783–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:155–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 19:620–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu M, Kleijn R, Bozhilova-Kisheva KP, Di Maio F (2013) An approach to LCSA: the case of concrete recycling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1793–1803

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jesson J, Lacey F (2006) How to do (or not to do) a critical literature review. Pharm Educ 6:139–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A (2013) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:296–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde V, Macombe C (2013) Designing the social life cycle of products from the systematic competitive model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:171–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Traverso M et al (2013) Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1581–1592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339. doi: b2700. 10.1136/bmj.b2700

  • Luthe T, Kägi T, Reger J (2013) A systems approach to sustainable technical product design. J Ind Ecol 17:605–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) (2014) Pre-proceedings of the 4th International Seminar in Social LCA. FruiTrop Thema, Montpellier

    Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Loeillet D (2011) 2nd International Seminar in Social Life Cycle Assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:940–943. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0331-5

  • 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 

  • Manhart A, Grießhammer R (2006) Social impacts of the production of notebook PCs. http://bit.ly/1jhqh9a. Accessed 4 June 2015

  • Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1386–1392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P et al (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 

  • Mattioda RA, Mazzi A, Canciglieri O Jr, Scipioni A (2015) Determining the principal references of the social life cycle assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1155–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriizumi Y, Matsui N, Hondo H (2010) Simplified life cycle sustainability assessment of mangrove management: a case of plantation on wastelands in Thailand. J Clean Prod 18:1629–1638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthu SS (ed) (2015) Social life cycle assessment—an insight. Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemarumane T, Mbohwa C (2015) Social impact assessment of sugar production operations in South Africa: a social life cycle assessment perspective. In: Muthu SS (ed) Social life cycle assessment—an insight. Springer, Singapore, pp 71–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris GA (2013) The new requirement for social leadership: healing. In: Groschl S (ed) Uncertainty, diversity and the common good: changing norms and new leadership paradigms. Gower Publ, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret J-P (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petti L, Ugaya CML, Di Cesare S (2014) Systematic review of social-life cycle assessment (S-LCA) case studies impact assessment method. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Pre-proceedings of the 4th International Seminar in Social LCA. FruiTrop Thema, pp 34–41

  • Ren J, Manzardo A, Mazzi A et al (2015) Prioritization of bioethanol production pathways in China based on life cycle sustainability assessment and multicriteria decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:842–853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Revéret J-P, Couture J-M, Parent J (2015) Socioeconomic LCA of milk production in Canada. In: Muthu SS (ed) Social life cycle assessment—an insight. Springer, Singapore, pp 25–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson W (1997) Strategic management and information systems: an integrated approach. Pitman Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugani B, Benetto E, Igos E et al (2014) Towards prospective life cycle sustainability analysis: exploring complementarities between social and environmental life cycle assessments for the case of Luxembourg’s energy system. Matériaux & Techniques, p 102

  • Shau EM, Traverso M, Lehmann A et al (2011) Life cycle costing in sustainability assessment—a case study of remanufactured alternators. Sustainability 3:2268–2288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1068–1079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Umair S, Björklund A, Ekener-Petersen E (2015) Social impact assessment of informal recycling of electronic ICT waste in Pakistan using SETAC SETAC guidelines. Resour Conserv Recycl 95:46–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN (2014) World economic situation and prospects 2014. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wesp2014_en.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2016

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. http://bit.ly/1L54IpB. Accessed 18 January 2015

  • UNEP/SETAC (2013) The Methodological Sheets For Subcategories In Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2015

  • Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J et al (2012) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio + 20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1673–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C et al (2013) Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:445–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weldegiorgis FS, Franks DM (2014) Social dimensions of energy supply alternatives in steelmaking: comparison of biomass and coal production scenarios in Australia. J Clean Prod 84:281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm M, Hutchins M, Mars C, Benoit-Norris C (2015) An overview of social impacts and their corresponding improvement implications: a mobile phone case study. J Clean Prod 102:302–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6:4200–4226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu M, Halog A (2015) Solar photovoltaic development in Australia—a life cycle sustainability assessment study. Sustainability 7:1213–1247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:373–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buttol P et al (2012) Finding life cycle assessment research direction with the aid of meta-analysis. J Ind Ecol 16:S39–S52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumsteg JM, Cooper JS, Noon MS (2012) Systematic review checklist. J Ind Ecol 16:12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economic Studies, “G. D’Annunzio” University, Viale Pindaro 42, 65127, Pescara, Italy

    Luigia Petti, Monica Serreli & Silvia Di Cesare

  2. CIRAD, UPR GECO, Boulevard de la Lironde, 34398, Montpellier Cedex 5, France

    Silvia Di Cesare

Authors
  1. Luigia Petti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monica Serreli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Di Cesare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigia Petti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petti, L., Serreli, M. & Di Cesare, S. Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 422–431 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation