Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative product social impact assessment

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

Abstract

Purpose

The main goal of this paper is to present the feasibility of the quantitative method presented in the Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) handbook throughout a case study. The case study was developed to assess the social impacts of a tire throughout its entire life cycle. We carried out this case study in the context of the Roundtable for the Product Social Metrics project in which 13 companies develop two methodologies, a qualitative and a quantitative one, for assessing the social impact of product life cycle.

Methods

The quantitative methodology implemented for assessing the social impact of a Run On Flat tire mounted in a BMW 3 series consists of 26 indicators split in three groups. Each group represents a stakeholder group. Primary data of the quantitative indicators were collected along the product life cycle of the Run On Flat by involving the companies, which owned the main steps of the product life cycle. Throughout this case study, an ideal/worst-case scenario was defined for the distance-to-target approach to compare the social performances of more products when they are available.

Results and discussion

The implementation of the PSIA quantitative method to a Run On Flat illustrated the necessity to have a referencing step in order to interpret the results. This is particularly important when the results are used to support decision-making process in which no experts are involved. It frequently happens in a big company where the management level has to take often decisions on different topics. Reference values were defined using ideal or worst-case-target scenarios (Fontes et al. 2014). For those topics where it was possible, an ideal/ethical scenario was defined, e.g., 0 h of child labor per product. In other cases, we defined a worst-case scenario, e.g., 0 training hours per product. It was then possible to interpret the results using a distance-to-target approach. A matrix was developed in the case study for identifying in which step of the product life cycle data is not available; that means we need more transparency in the supply chain.

Conclusions

Each value of the matrix can be compared to the ideal/worst scenario to compare the step to each other and to identify along the product life cycle which step and the relative supplier that needs further measures to improve the product performance. Furthermore, a quantitative value for each indicator related to the product life cycle is calculated and compared with the ideal/worst scenario. The case study on Run On Flat represents the first implementation of the quantitative method of PSIA.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 15:156–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît-Norris C, Traverso M, Valdivia S, Vickery-Niederman G, Franze J, Azuero L, Ciroth A, Mazijn B, Aulisio D (2013) The Methodological Sheets for Social Life Cycle Assessment—a practical support to implement S-LCA of Product. Oral Presentation and proceedings of SETAC Europe 19th LCA Case Study Symposium in Rome, Italy, 11–13 November 2013

  • Benoît-Norris G, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):682–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4(12):1946–1965

  • Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an Ecolabeled notebook—consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle, ISBN 978–1–4466-0087-0, Berlin, life cycle, http://www.greendelta.com/uploads/media/LCA_laptop_final.pdf, viewed March 2013

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

  • Environmental management—Life Cycle Assessment—principles and framework (2006) ISO 14040. ISO, Genova

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, Schau E, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2(10):3309–3322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontes J, Bolhuis A, Bogaers K, Saling P, van Gelder R, Traverso M, Das Gupta J, Bosch H, Morris D, Woodyard D, Bell L, van der Merwe R, Laubscher M, Jacobs M, Challis D (2014) Handbook of Product Social Impact Assessment. http://product-social-impact-assessment.com

  • Fontes et al (2006) Handbook of Product Social Impact Assessment Version 3.0 (2016). Http://product-social-impact-assessment.com/ visited on 22.01.2016

  • Goodyear Website (2016) https://www.goodyear.com/en-US/tire-warranty/tread-life visited on 22.01.2016

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

    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(1):5–16

  • Klöpffer W (2003) Life-Cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159

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

  • Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Schebek L (2013) Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(8):1581–1592

    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(15):34–48

  • Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang J, Wolf K, Finkbeienr M (2014) Impact pathways to address social well-being and social justice in SLCA—fair wage and level of education. Sustainability 6(8):4839–4457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). Int. J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):231–237

  • Ramirez P, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya C (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 

  • Saling P, Maisch R, Silvani M, König N (2005) Assessing the environmental-hazard potential for life cycle assessment, eco-efficiency and SEEbalance®. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012b) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1068–1079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012a) Life cycle sustainability dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16:680–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Wagner V, Trouvay B, Kluge J, Geckeler F, Brattig S (2013) A comprehensive approach of sustainability assessment of product in the automobile sector: challenges and benefits. Proceeding of Life Cycle Management conference 2013, Invited as presenter

  • Ugaya C, Brones F, Corrêa S (2011) S-LCA: preliminary results of Natura’s Cocoa soap bar. Proceedings of Life Cycle Mangement conference 2011, Berlin

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment Programme

  • UNEP/SETAC (2013) The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment Programme

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BMW Group, Knorrstraße 147, 80788, Munich, Germany

    Marzia Traverso

  2. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Akron, OH, US

    Lynn Bell

  3. BASF SE - We create chemistry, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany

    Peter Saling

  4. PRé Sustainability, Amersfoort, Netherlands

    João Fontes

Authors
  1. Marzia Traverso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynn Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Saling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. João Fontes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marzia Traverso.

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

Traverso, M., Bell, L., Saling, P. et al. Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative product social impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 597–606 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1168-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1168-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation