Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 2: Reflections on a study of a complex product
- 1.2k Downloads
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.
KeywordsCase 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.
- Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) A hitch-hikers guide to life cycle assessment. Studentlitteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (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
- Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook—consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle, Berlin 2011, http://www.greendeltatc.com/uploads/media/LCA_laptop_final.pdf
- 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: www.ecoinvent.ch
- 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
- EICC/GeSi (2008) Social and environmental responsibility in metals supply to the electronic industry. GreenhouseGasMeasurement.com (GHGm), Guelph, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Finnis J, Grisez G, Boyle J (1987) Practical principles, moral truth & ultimate ends. Am J Jurisprud 32:99–151Google Scholar
- GRI (2007) Sustainability reporting guidelines. Version 3.0. Global reporting initiative. Amsterdam. http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54-4DE1-BFF2-5F735235CA44/0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdf . Accessed [9 June 20112010]
- ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
- ISO 26000 (2010) Guidance on social responsibility. International Organization for Standardization Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Jørgensen A (2010) Developing the social life cycle assessment—addressing issues of validity and usability, PhD thesis, DTU Management Engineering, Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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 : http://www.life-cycle.org/?p=413
- Manhart A, Grießhammer A (2006) Social impacts of the production of notebook PCs, Öko-Institut e.V., 2006Google Scholar
- PROSA – Product Sustainability Assessment Guideline (2007), Öko-Institut e.V. –Institute for applied ecology, Freiburg, Germany. www.prosa.org
- 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
- Social Accountability International (2008) Social accountability 8000. International Standard, SAI, SA8000®: 2008, Social Accountability International: New York. http://www.sa-intl.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/2008StdEnglishFinal.pdf
- 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
- United Nations Development Program (2000), United Nations Millennium Development Goals 2000, www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml
- US EIA (2011) The U.S. energy information administration, http://www.eia.gov/countries, Accessed 20 April 2011
- Vanclay (2003) Social impact assessment. international principles. Special Publications Series No. 2 May 2003, IAIA; Fargo, USGoogle Scholar