Advertisement

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 1642–1652 | Cite as

Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption

  • Julie Parent
  • Carmela Cucuzzella
  • Jean-Pierre Revéret
LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: FROM LCA TO LCSA

Abstract

Purpose

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Social Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) are tools acknowledged to have a role to play in the transition towards Sustainable Production and Consumption patterns (SPC). However, the role they play in this transition is seldom discussed, especially for SLCA. In addition, although the importance of taking a life cycle thinking (LCT) in the progression towards SPC seems indisputable, its added value is seldom made explicit. This article wishes to highlight the role of SLCA in the transition towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns and questions the relevance of LCT in this role.

Methods

To answer this question, we first identify the applications of SLCA that correspond to actions that have to be taken in the transition towards SPC based on the SPC and SLCA literature. Then, the relevance of LCT in the context of the different applications identified previously is questioned through a qualitative discursive analysis approach.

Results

The social goal of SPC is poorly discussed, and the SLCA literature can be one source of inspiration to define what this goal could be. On the basis of the UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines’ SLCA ultimate goal, SPC could be a means to improve stakeholders’ social conditions through the improvement of enterprises’ behaviours. The intended applications of SLCA for potentially supporting the improvement of enterprises’ behaviours are found to be the identification of hotspots in order to highlight areas of improvement inside the sphere of influence of the SLCA user and the guidance of purchasing and substitution choices on the basis of enterprises’ behaviours. In this article, it is suggested that, for SLCA to deserve the “LCT label”, it has to capture impact transfers along the products’ life cycle. Otherwise, an “ability-to-act-on” perspective is the proper angle to adopt in the identification of areas of improvement inside the sphere of influence and a “cradle-to-retailer”, the one to adopt when SLCA is used to guide buy/boycott.

Conclusions

Aside from revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in SPC and the raison d’être of LCT, we discuss some considerations which we believe should be taken into account when developing SLCA in the context of SPC. In conclusion, this article points to the importance of framing the use of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment tools in their context of use.

Keywords

Green economy Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) Social sustainability Sustainable Production and Consumption (SPC) Transition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Andreas Jørgensen and the two anonymous reviewers for their very inspiring ideas and comments.

References

  1. Alcott B (2008) The sufficiency strategy: would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecol Econom 64(4):770–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to socially assess biofuels—a case study of the UNEP/SETAC Code of Practice for social–economical LCA. Quality and Environmental Management. Stockhlom, Lulea University of Technology. Master's thesis, available [on line] http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1617/2009/077/. Consulted in 04/2012
  3. CEC (2001) Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy. COM(2001) 68 final. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. CEC (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Integrated Product Policy—Building on Environmental Life-Cycle Thinking. COM(2003) 302 final. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  5. Charkiewicz E (2001) Transitions to sustainable production and consumption: concepts, policies and actions. NED, Tools for Transition, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  6. CIRAIG (2008) Rapport Final-Analyse du cycle de vie comparative d'ampoules électriques: Incandescentes et fluorescentes compactes. Montréal, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur le cycle de vie des produits, procédés et services, available [on line] http://www.ciraig.org/pdf/ACV_Ampoules_Rapp_Final.pdf. Consulted in 04/2012
  7. CIRAIG-AGECO (2011) Rapport d'analyse détaillée: Analyse du cycle de vie environnementale et sociale de deux options de gestion du matériel informatique en fin de vie. Montréal, Recyc-Québec, available [on line] http://www.chaire-cycledevie.org/fr/v.php?id=12&locale=fr&year=2011&type=2. Consulted in 04/2012
  8. Clift R, Sim S et al. (2012) Sustainable Consumption and Production: quality, luxury and supply chain equity. In: Jawahir IS and Sikhdar S (eds) Treatise in sustainability science and engineering. Springer, London (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Dreyer L, Hauschild M et al (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finkbeiner M, Schau EM et al (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain 2(10):3309–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuchs DA, Lorek S (2005) Sustainable consumption governance: a history of promises and failures. J Consum Policy 28(3):261–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. GRI (2005) GRI boundary protocol. Global Reporting Initiative, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Hauschild M, Jeswiet J et al (2005) From life cycle assessment to sustainable production: status and perspectives. CIRP Annals-Manuf Technol 54(2):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heiskanen E (1999) Every product casts a shadow: but can we see it, and can we act on it? Environ Sci Policy 2(1):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 14024 (1999) Environmental labels and declarations—type I environmental labelling—principles and procedures. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 14025 (2006) Environmental labels and declarations—type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorgensen A, Hauschild M et al (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jorgensen A, Hermann I et al (2010) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(6):531–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jørgensen A, Dreyer L et al (2012) Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(6):828–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kruse S, Flysjö A et al (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macombe C, Feschet P et al. (2010) Reporting the social indicators to the functional unit for food product. Theoretical contribution regarding the collection of relevant data. 7th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  26. Maxwell D, Sheate W (2006) Enabling sustainable development through sustainable consumption and production. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 5(3):221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (1994) Oslo Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption. http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo000.html Accessed 28 Feb 2012)
  28. 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(2):164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quairel F, Auberger M-N (2007) La diffusion de la RSE par la relation fournisseurs: Injonctions paradoxales ou partenariat de progrès? Revue Internationale PME 20(3-4):69–94Google Scholar
  30. Quantis, AGECO and CIRAIG (2012) Environmental and socioeconomic life cycle analysis of milk in Canada. Quantis Canada, Montreal, pp. 35Google Scholar
  31. Rebitzer G, Ekvall T et al (2004) Life cycle assessment: part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robinson A, Strandberg C (2007) Sustainability Purchasing Trends and Drivers. Report to the Sustainability Purchasing Network (SPN); http://www.buysmartbc.com/: 64
  33. Spillemaeckers S, Vanhoutte G et al (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
  34. Swarr T, Hunkeler D et al. (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomassen M, Dalgaard R et al (2008a) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomassen MA, van Calker KJ et al (2008b) Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agr Syst 96(1–3):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UN (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  38. UNDESA and UNEP (2010) Proposed Input to CSD 18 and 19 on a 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP ON SCP), Marrakech Process SecretariatGoogle Scholar
  39. UNEP (2011a) Towards a Life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  40. UNEP (2011b) Enabling conditions supporting the transition to a global green economy. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  41. UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. C. Benoît and B. Mazijn (eds). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC): 104Google Scholar
  42. WBCSD (2000) Eco-efficiency: creating more value with less impact, World Business Council for Sustainable Development: 32Google Scholar
  43. Wrisberg N, Udo de Haes HA et al. (eds) (2002) Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a system perspective. The combined use of analytical tools. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Parent
    • 1
  • Carmela Cucuzzella
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jean-Pierre Revéret
    • 1
  1. 1.International Life Cycle Chair (CIRAIG) and Department of Strategy and Corporate Social ResponsibilityUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Department of Design and Computation Arts, Faculty of Fine ArtsConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Laboratoire d’étude de l’architecture potentielle (LEAP)École d’architecture de l’Université de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations