Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment

  • Andreas Jørgensen
  • Lufanna C. H. Lai
  • Michael Z. Hauschild
SOCIETAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

Assuming that the goal of social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is to assess damage and benefits on its ‘area of protection’ (AoP) as accurately as possible, it follows that the impact pathways, describing the cause effect relationship between indicator and the AoP, should have a consistent theoretical foundation so the inventory results can be associated with a predictable damage or benefit to the AoP. This article uses two concrete examples from the work on SLCA to analyse to what extent this is the case in current practice. One considers whether indicators included in SLCA approaches can validly assess impacts on the well-being of the stakeholder, whereas the other example addresses whether the ‘incidence of child labour’ is a valid measure for impacts on the AoPs.

Materials and methods

The theoretical basis for the impact pathway between the relevant indicators and the AoPs is analysed drawing on research from relevant scientific fields.

Results

The examples show a lack of valid impact pathways in both examples. The first example shows that depending on the definition of ‘well-being’, the assessment of impacts on well-being of the stakeholder cannot be performed exclusively with the type of indicators which are presently used in SLCA approaches. The second example shows that the mere fact that a child is working tells little about how this may damage or benefit the AoPs, implying that the normally used indicator; ‘incidence of child labour’ lacks validity in relation to predicting damage or benefit on the AoPs of SLCA.

Discussion

New indicators are proposed to mitigate the problem of invalid impact pathways. However, several problems arise relating to difficulties in getting data, the usability of the new indicators in management situations, and, in relation to example one, boundary setting issues.

Conclusions

The article shows that it is possible to assess the validity of the impact pathways in SLCA. It thereby point to the possibility of utilising the same framework that underpins the environmental LCA in this regard. It also shows that in relation to both of the specific examples investigated, the validity of the impact pathways may be improved by adopting other indicators, which does, however, come with a considerable ‘price’.

Recommendations and perspectives

It is argued that there is a need for analysing impact pathways of other impact categories often included in SLCA in order to establish indicators that better reflect actual damage or benefit to the AoPs.

Keywords

AoP Area of protection Child labour Impact pathways Indicators Objective indicators SLCA Social LCA Subjective indicators Well-being 

References

  1. Amin S, Quayes S (2006) Market work and household work as deterrents to schooling in Bangladesh. World Dev 34(7):1271–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu K, Van PH (1998) The economics of child labor. Am Econ Rev 88(3):412–427Google Scholar
  4. Berger-Schmitt R, Noll H (2000) Conceptual framework and structure of a european system of social indicators’, EU Reporting Working Paper No. 9, Mannheim, Germany. http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indikatoren/eusi/paper9.pdf
  5. Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Druk in de weer, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  6. Burrell G, Morgan G (1979) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  7. Carley M (1981) Social measurement and social indicators: issues of policy and theory. G. Allen, Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment: reliability and validity assessments. Sage, Beverly Hills, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummins RA (2000) Objective and subjective quality of life: an interactive model. Soc Indic Res 52(1):55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins RA (2005) Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. J Intell Disabil Res 49(10):699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener E, Suh E (1997) Measuring quality of life: economic, social and subjective indicators. Soc Indic Res 40(1–2):189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener E, Biswas-Diener R (2002) Will money increase subjective well-being? Soc Indic Res 57(2):119–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener E, Lucas R, Oishi S (2002) Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and life satisfaction. In: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ (eds) Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Earthster (2008) www.earthster.org
  16. Edmonds EV, Pavcnik N (2003) Child labor in the global economy. J Econ Perspect 19(1):199–220Google Scholar
  17. Fassa AG, Facchini LA, Dall’Agnol MM, Christiani D (2000) Child labor and health: problems and perspectives. Int J Occup Env Heal 6(1):55–62Google Scholar
  18. Felce D, Perry J (1996) Assessment of quality of life. In: Quality of Life, Volume I: Conceptualization and measurement. American Association on Mental Retardation, Washington DC, USGoogle Scholar
  19. Flysjö A (2006) Indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment – a case study of salmon. Presentation held 17th of June 2006 in LausanneGoogle Scholar
  20. Forastieri V (2002) Children at work: health and safety risks, 2nd edn. International Labour Organisation, Genova, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Galloway S (2006) Quality of life and well-being: measuring the benefits of culture and sports: literature review and thinkpiece. Centre for Cultural Policy Research, University of Glasgow. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/13110743/0
  22. Gauthier C (2005) Measuring corporate social and environmental performance: the extended life-cycle assessment. J Bus Ethics 59(1–2):199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunkeler D, Rebitzer G (2005) The future of life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ilahi N, Orazem P, Sedlacek G (2001) The implications of child labor for adult wages, income and poverty: retrospective evidence from Brazil, Mimeo, Iowa State University, USA. http://www.grade.org.pe/Eventos/nip_conference/private/sedlacek-%20child_labor%20retros.pdf
  27. ILO (2007) Child labour wages and productivity: results from demand side surveys. International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) under the International Labour Organisation, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Jørgensen A, Le-Boqc A, Nazakina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jørgensen A, Hauschild M, Jørgensen MS, Wangel A (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klöpffer W, Udo de Haes H (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo De Haes). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levison D, Richard A, Shahid A, Sandhya B (1996) Is child labour really necessary in India’s carpet industry? Labour market papers 15. Employment Department, International Labour Organisation, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Manhart A, Grieβhammer 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, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  35. Martel JP, Dupuis G (2006) Quality of work life: theoretical and methodological problems, and presentation of a new model and measuring instrument. Soc Indic Res 77(2):333–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  37. Michalos AC (2001) Social indicators research and health-related quality of life research. Soc Indic Res 65(1):27–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nazarkina L, Le Bocq A (2006) Social aspects of sustainability assessment: feasibility of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). EDF 2006, Moret-sur-Loing, FranceGoogle Scholar
  39. Norris GR (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles—towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):97–104 (special issue)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plous S (2003) The psychology of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: an overview. In: Plous S (ed) Understanding prejudice and discrimination. McGraw-Hill, New York, USGoogle Scholar
  41. Ray R, Lancaster G (2005) The impact of children’s work on schooling: multi-country evidence. Inter Labour Rev 144(2):189–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rain JS, Irving ML, Steiner DD (1991) A current look at the job satisfaction/life satisfaction relationship: review and future considerations. Human Relat 44(2):287–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schalock RL (1996) Reconsidering the conceptualization and measurement of quality of life. Quality of life, Volume I: conceptualization and measurement. American Association on Mental Retardation, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Schalock RL, Brown I, Brown R, Cummins RA, Felce D, Matikka L, Keith KD, Parmenter T (2002) Conceptualization, measurement, and application of quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities: report of an international panel of experts. American Association on Mental Retardation 40(6):457–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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. Greener Manage Int 45:79–94Google Scholar
  46. Sirgy MJ, Michalos AC, Ferriss AL, Easterlin RA, Patrick D, Pavot W (2006) The quality-of-life (QOL) research movement: past, present, and future. Soc Indic Res 76(3):343–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  48. Staines GL (1980) Spillover versus compensation: a review of the literature on the relationship between work and nonwork. Hum Relat 33(2):111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tait M, Padgett MY, Baldwin TT (1989) Job and life satisfaction: a re-evaluation of the strength of the relationship and gender effect as a function of the date of the study. J Appl Psychol 74(3):502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96 (special issue)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. WHO (1995) The world health organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 41(10):1403–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams DR (1999) Race, socioeconomic status, and health: the added effects of racism and discrimination. An New York Acad Sci 896:173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams DR, Williams-Morris R (2000) Racism and mental health: the African-American experience. Ethnic Health 5(3–4):243–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. World Bank (1997) Expanding the measures of wealth: indicators of environmentally sustainable development. Environmentally sustainable development studies and monographs series no. 17. The World Bank, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Jørgensen
    • 1
  • Lufanna C. H. Lai
    • 2
  • Michael Z. Hauschild
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural SciencesDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations