Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 2: Reflections on a study of a complex product

  • Elisabeth Ekener-PetersenEmail author
  • Åsa Moberg



We present experiences and reflections from social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) case study, the aim of which was to identify social hotspots, test and evaluate the methodology and propose improvements. This paper discusses the usability and applicability of the methodology used based on our experiences from the study. The main issues considered are whether the gathering of data and other information is feasible and straightforward to perform, whether the method provides added value and relevant results and how these can be presented.


We have conducted a generic hotspot assessment on a laptop computer according to the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (Benoît and Mazijn 2009). The experiences presented were gathered throughout the case study. The supply chain of the laptop was simplified, and we focused on a limited number of materials. The impacts were assessed in relation to the area of protection on human well-being and to affected stakeholders. Social impacts from the actual use of the product were not included. Methodological sheets were used for guidance on inventory indicators and data sources for data collection. Country-specific data were collected and entered into a spreadsheet. The process has been guided by regular meetings in a reference group, composed of representatives of all stakeholder groups.

Results and discussion

The data collection process was impaired by a lack of data and low data quality. In order to relate the data collected to the product assessed, each country's share of the activity performed in each phase was determined, and the activity percentage was calculated. In order to consider and relate all the phases in the product system, we used an estimated activity variable due to the lack of data. We developed a new approach to impact assessment. By determining the combination of the most extensive activity, as well as the most negative in the range of possible values for involved countries, we identified the hotspots. The results were not further aggregated in order to promote transparency.


We found the S-LCA methodology to be feasible and useful. By handling all relevant issues within one study using a systems perspective on the product life cycle, knowledge can be gained. However, there are still some major challenges. The definition of relevant indicators, data availability, impact pathways, activity variables, results presentation and possible aggregation, the handling of stakeholder context and the restricted assessment of the use phase were identified as major issues to deal with in further studies. Communication, and hence use of the results, is a crucial issue to enable the outcome of a study to result in actions that actually improve human well-being.


Case study Generic assessment hotspot Impact assessment Laptop computer S-LCA Social LCA Social life cycle assessment 



Financial support from Vinnova and other partners of the Centre for Sustainable Communications at KTH Royal Institute of Technology is gratefully acknowledged. We want to thank the participants in our internal and external reference groups for constructive and interesting discussions and also Professor Göran Finnveden for valuable comments.


  1. Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) A hitch-hikers guide to life cycle assessment. Studentlitteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
  2. Benoît-Norris C, Aulisio D, Norris, GA, Hallisey-Kepka C, Overakker S, Vickery Niederman G (2011a) A social hotspot database for acquiring greater visibility in product supply chains: overview and application to orange juice. In: M. Finkbeiner (ed) Towards life cycle sustainablity management, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1899-9_6, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
  3. Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011b) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.
  5. Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U et al (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook—consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle, Berlin 2011,
  7. Classen M, Althaus HJ, Blaser S, Tuchschmid M, Jungbluth N, Doka G, Faist Emmenegger M, Scharnhorst W (2009) Life cycle inventories of metals. Final report ecoinvent data v2, No 10. EMPA Dübendorf, Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH. Online-Version under:
  8. Dreux-Gerphagnon B, Haoues N (2011) Considering the social dimension in environmental design, in glocalized solutions for sustainability in manufacturing. In: Hesselbach J., Herrmann C. (eds) Proceedings of the 18th CIRP international 130 conference on life cycle engineering, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, 2–4 May 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19692-8_23
  9. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA–part 1: Development of indicators for labour rights. Int Life Cycle Assess 15:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EICC/GeSi (2008) Social and environmental responsibility in metals supply to the electronic industry. (GHGm), Guelph, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2012) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 1: A case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0442-7
  13. European Commission (2005) DG TREN, Preparatory studies for eco-design requirements of EuPs Lot 3, Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and Computer Monitors, Final Report (Task 1-8)Google Scholar
  14. Finnis J, Grisez G, Boyle J (1987) Practical principles, moral truth & ultimate ends. Am J Jurisprud 32:99–151Google Scholar
  15. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GRI (2007) Sustainability reporting guidelines. Version 3.0. Global reporting initiative. Amsterdam. . Accessed [9 June 20112010]
  17. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO 26000 (2010) Guidance on social responsibility. International Organization for Standardization Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Jørgensen A (2010) Developing the social life cycle assessment—addressing issues of validity and usability, PhD thesis, DTU Management Engineering, Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  21. 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):204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kölsch D (2009) Sozioökonomische Bewertung von Chemikalien unter REACh. In: Feifel S et al (eds) Ökobilanzierung 2009—Ansätze und Weiterentwicklungen zur Operationalisierung von Nachhaltigkeit. KIT Scientific Publishing, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  24. Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Loeillet D (2010) Reporting the social indicators to the functional unit for food product. Theoretical contribution regarding the collection of relevant data. Author produced version of the paper presented at LCAfood 2010 VII, International conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. Available at :
  25. 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 16:940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manhart A, Grießhammer A (2006) Social impacts of the production of notebook PCs, Öko-Institut e.V., 2006Google Scholar
  27. PROSA – Product Sustainability Assessment Guideline (2007), Öko-Institut e.V. –Institute for applied ecology, Freiburg, Germany.
  28. Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Resolve (2010) Tracing a path forward: a study of the challenges of the supply chain for target metals used in electronics, 2010. Resolve, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Social Accountability International (2008) Social accountability 8000. International Standard, SAI, SA8000®: 2008, Social Accountability International: New York.
  31. Finnwatch & Swedwatch (2010) Make IT fair, voice from the inside: local views on mining reform in eastern DR Congo, 2010. Finnwatch, & Swedwatch, Helsinki/StockholmGoogle Scholar
  32. United Nations Development Program (2000), United Nations Millennium Development Goals 2000,
  33. US EIA (2011) The U.S. energy information administration,, Accessed 20 April 2011
  34. Vanclay (2003) Social impact assessment. international principles. Special Publications Series No. 2 May 2003, IAIA; Fargo, USGoogle Scholar
  35. Weidema B (2005) ISO 14044 also applies to social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):596–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Department of Urban Planning and Environment, Division of Environmental Strategies ResearchKTH–Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Sustainable CommunicationsKTH–Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations