Advertisement

Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA

  • Catherine Benoît-Norris
  • Gina Vickery-Niederman
  • Sonia Valdivia
  • Juliane Franze
  • Marzia Traverso
  • Andreas Ciroth
  • Bernard Mazijn
SOCIETAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Abstract

Purpose

In May 2009, the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (the Guidelines) were launched at the occasion of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 (Social Responsibility) meeting in Quebec City, Canada. Developed by a United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (“UNEP/SETAC”) Life Cycle Initiative project group on Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), the Guidelines provide a framework to assess social impacts across product life cycles. A year later, the Methodological Sheets for the Subcategories of Social LCA (“the Methodological Sheets”) are being made available to support practitioners engaging in the field. The Methodological Sheets provide practical guidance for conducting S-LCA case studies by offering consistent, yet flexible assistance.

Aim and scope

A Methodological Sheet was developed for each of the 31 subcategories of assessment outlined in the Guidelines. Each sheet includes a subcategory definition tailored to S-LCA, an explanation of how the subcategory relates to sustainable development, information on data assessment, including examples of inventory indicators, units of measurement, and data sources, along with a reference section that points the user to further information. The data assessment section is intended to provide adaptable guidance to LCA practitioners by offering examples and does not prescribe comprehensive procedures. The Methodological Sheets do not provide guidance on aggregating subcategory indicators or characterization models, nor do they discuss interpretation of results. The sheets are focused on the inventory analysis phase of S-LCA. This article will detail the development process of this unique resource, its content and future development, and how it compares to other types of documents, such as the GRI G3, ISO 26000 guidelines on Social Responsibility and the Global Social Compliance reference code.

Conclusions

The Methodological Sheets support the framework of S-LCA offered in the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines. They provide consistent guidance to assist LCA practitioners in case studies. At the same time, they have been designed to encourage context-specific application. Content of the Methodological Sheets will continue to evolve. Over time, and when relevant, characterization and interpretation models will be added to the Methodological Sheets. The Methodological Sheets are currently under public review and available on the Life Cycle Initiative website. A finalized version will be available in 2011, integrating comments from the review process.

Keywords

Business Methodological sheets Methodology Social impacts Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) Social responsibility Socio-economic Stakeholders Supply chain Sustainability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The completed set of methodological sheets is an achievement that would not have been possible without the vision of Bernard Mazijn; the early work of Catherine Benoît, Julie Hébert, and Sophie Spillemaeckers; the guidance, support, and determination of Sonia Valdivia; the hard work and dynamism of Andreas Manhart, Siddhart Prakash, Asa Moberg, Cassia Ugaya, Julie Parent, and Carmela Cucuzella; the reflectivity of Bo Weidema, Greg Norris, and Andreas Ciroth; the participation of Ulrike Bos, Tabea Beck, Leif Barthel, and Pierre Mazeau; and finally, the commitment and exceptional work of Gina Vickery, Marzia Traverso, Juliane Franze, and Catherine Benoît. The work has also been strongly supported by the contribution of all the members of the Social LCA project group over the years and especially, Andrée-Lise Méthot, former co-chair, Jean-Pierre Revéret, and Véronique Jampierre.

References

  1. Benoît C, Norris G, Valdivia S, Ciroth A et al (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burdge R (2004) The concepts, process and methods of SIA. The Social Ecology Press, Middleton, WIGoogle Scholar
  3. Ciroth A, Franze J (2009) Social life cycle assessment of roses—a comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Life Cycle Assessment Conference Boston IX, September 29–October 2, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook: consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. GreenDeltaTC GmbH, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Donaldson T, Preston L (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):65–91Google Scholar
  6. Dreyer LC, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2010a) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA part 1: development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyer LC, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2010b) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA part 2: implementation in six company case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman R (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC et al (2006) Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. Oko-Institut, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones T, Wicks A, Freeman RE (2002) Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. In: Bowie N (ed) The Blackwell Guide to business ethics. Blackwell Publishing, U.K., pp 19–37Google Scholar
  11. Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2007) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jørgensen A, Lai L, Hauschild M (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Max-Neef M (1992) Development and human needs. In: Ekins P, Max-Neef M (eds) Real-life economics: understanding wealth creation. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 15:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Remmen A, Jensen A, Frydendal J (2007) Life cycle management: a business guide to sustainability. United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  17. Sen A (1993) Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum (ed) The quality of life. Oxford scholarship online monographs, Oxford, pp 30–54Google Scholar
  18. Udo de Haes H, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. Weidema BP (2006) Social impact categories, indicators, characterisation and damage modelling. Presentation for the 29th Swiss LCA Discussion ForumGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Benoît-Norris
    • 1
  • Gina Vickery-Niederman
    • 2
  • Sonia Valdivia
    • 3
  • Juliane Franze
    • 4
  • Marzia Traverso
    • 5
  • Andreas Ciroth
    • 5
  • Bernard Mazijn
    • 6
  1. 1.New Earth, Sustainability ConsortiumUniversity of New HampshireYorkUSA
  2. 2.Environmental DynamicsUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  3. 3.Sustainable Consumption and Production BranchUNEP DTIEParisFrance
  4. 4.GreenDeltaTCBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Institute for Environmental EngineeringTechnical University BerlinBerlinGermany
  6. 6.Faculty of Political and Social SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations