Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—part 1: methodology

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

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to develop a new framework of social life cycle impact assessment (SLCIA) method based on the United Nations Environment Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) Guidelines for analyzing the social impact in Taiwan, particularly in the electronics industry.

Methods

After reviewing the literature on social life cycle assessment (SLCA), we analyzed existing case studies and developed SLCIA methods based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines. We thereafter identified stakeholders, subcategories, and indicators in accordance with the current status of SLCA case studies and opinions from ten experts in the Taiwanese electronics industry. Both quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators were subsequently proposed to assess the social impact of workers in the Taiwanese electronics sector. Each indicator was given the score of 1 to 5 by classifying the social impact percentage of nine scales. To formulate an analytic framework for SLCIA, the weighting values of each subcategory and indicator were determined using the consistent fuzzy preference relations (CFPR) method.

Results and discussion

Seven subcategories and 19 qualitative and quantitative indicators of worker stakeholders for the electronics sector were identified based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines. A score of 1 to 5 is assigned to each quantitative indicator by classifying the social impact percentage of nine scales. The data obtained from companies for each quantitative indicator were subsequently transformed into social impact percentage in terms of the statistical data on social situations at the country or industry level. With regard to semi-quantitative indicators, three implementation levels of management efforts on social performance within five elements were identified. The CFPR method was then employed to determine the weights of each indicator by ten experts. Results indicated that preventing forced work practices, protecting children from having to work, and providing minimum and fair wages for workers are the three most important indicators for assessing social impact.

Conclusions

A new SLCIA method that incorporates both quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators was proposed for assessing social impact in the electronics sector in Taiwan. Nine quantitative indicators can be easily organized using available social data from government statistics as performance reference points (PRPs) to determine the social impact exerted by companies. The relative weights were determined to allow for an impact assessment and thus solve the limitation of their currently assumed equal weights. The proposed framework is examined to analyze the social impact of three production sites for semiconductor packaging and manufacturing in Taiwan.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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(5):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(5):1116–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf. Accessed May 2012

  • Benoît C, Norris G, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg Å, 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, Aulisio-Cavan D, 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 

  • Chan J, Pun N (2010) Suicide as protest for the new generation of Chinese migrant workers: Foxconn, Global Capital, and the State. The Asia-Pacific Journal. Available at: http://japanfocus.org/-Jenny-Chan/3408

  • Chang TH, Wang TC (2009) Measuring the success possibility of implementing advanced manufacturing technology by utilizing the consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 36:4313–4320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang TH, Hsu SC, Wang TC (2013) A proposed model for measuring the aggregative risk degree of implementing an RFID digital campus system with the consistent fuzzy preference relations. Appl Math Model 37:2605–2622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen YH, Chao RJ (2012) Supplier selection using consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 39:3233–3240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabelled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. http://www.greendeltatc.com/uploads/media/LCA_laptop_final.pdf. Accessed Dec 2011

  • Connors J (2012) Industry approach to the conflict minerals legislation. 23th Annual Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference (ASMC). SEMI, IEEE 268–271

  • De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A, Falcone G, Gulisano G (2015) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11(3):383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 M, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterization of social impacts in LCA. Part 1: development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eagan P, Weinberg L (1999) Application of analytic hierarchy process techniques to streamlined life-cycle analysis of two anodizing processes. Environ Sci Technol 33:1495–1500

    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(8):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(1):144–154

    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(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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann BG, Kroeze C, Jawjit W (2007) Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators. J Clean Prod 15:1787–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154:98–109

    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(3):620–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu CW, Hu AH (2009) Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. J Clean Prod 17(2):255–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu TH, Hung LC, Tang JW (2012) An analytical model for building brand equity in hospitality firms. Ann Oper Res 195(1):355–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins MJ, Robinson S, Dornfeld D (2013) Understanding life cycle social impacts in manufacturing: a processed-based approach. J Manuf Syst 32(4):536–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Hauschild MZ, Jørgensen MS, Wangel A (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):204–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W (2006) The role of SETAC in the definition of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):116–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo YC, Lu ST (2013) Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. Int J Project Manage 31:602–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipušček I, Bohanec M, Oblak L, Stirn LZ (2010) A multi-criteria decision-making model for classifying wood products with respect to their impact on environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(4):359–367

    Article  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(9):940–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(7):1386–1392

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nef (2004) Measuring social impact: the foundation of social return on investment (SROI). http://sroi.london.edu/Measuring-Social-Impact.pdf. Accessed July 2004

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pineda-Henson R, Culaba AB, Mendoza GA (2002) Evaluating environmental performance of pulp and paper manufacturing using the analytic hierarchy process and life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 6:15–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raj-Reichert G (2013) Safeguarding labour in distant factories: health and safety governance in an electronics global production network. Geoforum 44:23–31

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New Year

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth R, Qian X, Nielsen I, Kaempfer I (2013) Working hours in supply chain Chinese and Thai factories: evidence from the Fair Labor Association’s “Soccer Project”. Br J Ind Relat 51(2):382–408

    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(8):1068–1079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • TSC (2013) The sustainability measurement and reporting system SMRS. http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/smrs/. Accessed July 2013

  • UNEP (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP-SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J, Gasol CM (2013) Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):445–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang TC, Chen YH (2007) Applying consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership selection. Omega 35:384–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Feschet P, De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Buttol P (2015) Social life cycle assessment: methodologies and practice, Sustainability Assessment of Renewables-Based Products: Methods and Case Studies, pp 229–240

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan for financially supporting this research under grant MOST 101-2221-E-236-002-MY3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institutes of Engineering Technology, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

    Sheng-Wen Wang

  2. National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Sheng-Wen Wang

  3. Department of Travel and Eco-tourism, Tungnan University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Chia-Wei Hsu

  4. Department of Business Administration, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

    Chia-Wei Hsu

  5. Institute of Environmental Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

    Allen H. Hu

Authors
  1. Sheng-Wen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chia-Wei Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allen H. Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chia-Wei Hsu.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 36 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, SW., Hsu, CW. & Hu, A.H. An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—part 1: methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21, 1514–1528 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1114-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1114-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation