Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA)
- 2.1k Downloads
Technologies can contribute to sustainable development (e.g., improving living conditions) and at the same time cause sustainability problems (e.g., emissions). Decisions on alternative technologies should thus ideally be based on the principle to minimize the latter. Analyzing environmental, economic, and social aspects related to technologies supports decisions by identifying the “more sustainable” technology. This paper focuses on social issues. First, it discusses the applicability of the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) guidelines for a comparative technology analysis, taking the example of two case studies in developing countries. Indicating technologies as “sustainable” also means that they are indeed operated over the expected lifetime, which, in development projects, is often not guaranteed. Consequently, social aspects related to implementation conditions should be considered in an SLCA study as well. Thus, a second focus is laid on identifying appropriate indicators to address these aspects.
First, the SLCA guidelines were examined with regard to applying this product-related approach to two real case studies (analysis of technologies/plants for water supply and for decentralized fuel production) for a comparative technology analysis. Suitable indicators are proposed. To address the second focus, a literature research on technology assessment and implementation in developing countries was conducted. Moreover, socioeconomic studies in the investigation areas of the case studies were consulted. Based on this, indicators addressing implementation conditions were identified from the SLCA guidelines and additional literature.
Results and discussion
The study shows social issues and indicators found in the SLCA guidelines and considered suitable for a comparative technology analysis in the case studies. However, for a sustainability assessment of technologies, especially in developing countries, further indicators are required to address technology implementation conditions. A set of additional social indicators like reported trust in institutions or fluctuation of personnel is proposed. Though these indicators were derived based on specific case studies, they can also be suggested to other technologies and are not necessarily limited to developing countries.
The study pointed out that an application of the SLCA guidelines considering the whole life cycle was not (yet) feasible for the case studies considered. This is mainly due to the lack of data. Regarding technology implementation, it was examined which indicators are available in this SLCA approach and which could additionally be integrated and applied. This is relevant as a potential contribution of technologies to sustainable development can only be achieved when the technologies are successfully implemented.
KeywordsComparative analysis Indicators Products Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) Sustainability assessment Technology
We would like to acknowledge the profound review of the paper by the anonymous reviewers and thank them for their useful and interesting comments and references proposed.
- Bauler T (2007) Identifying methodological challenges. In: Hák T, Moldan B, Dahl AL (eds) Sustainability indicators. A scientific assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp 49–64Google Scholar
- Ekener Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA -- part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J of Life Cycle Assess 18(1):127–143Google Scholar
- Finkbeiner M, Reimann K, Ackermann R (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) for products and processes. Paper presented at SETAC Europe 18th Annual Meeting, 25–29 May, Warsaw, PolandGoogle Scholar
- Franze J, Ciroth A (2011b) Social and environmental LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Presentation, LCM 2011, 28–31 August, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Hellpap C (2009) Quality and performance test of PICO PV-Systems, Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAFRREGTOPENERGY/Resources/717305-1264695610003/6743444-1268073515450/6.3.PicoPV.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2011
- IAIA (1994) Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-F/SPO. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), BelhavenGoogle Scholar
- International Standard Organisation (2006) ISO14044:2006. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Kloepffer W (2007) Life-cycle based sustainability assessment as part of LCM. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, 27–29 August, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Kopfmueller J, Brandl V, Joerissen J, Paetau M, Banse G, Coenen R, Grunwald A (2001) Nachhaltige Entwicklung integrativ betrachtet—Konstitutive Elemente, Regeln, Indikatoren. Global zukunftsfähige Entwicklung—Perspektiven für Deutschland, 1st edn. Sigma, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Schebek L, Finkbeiner M (2011b) Feasibility of current SLCA methodology for technology assessment. Poster presented at SETAC Europe 21st Annual Meeting, 15–19 May, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Macombe C, Feschet P, Loeillet D, Garrabé M (2011) International seminar on social LCA. Recent developments in assessing the social impacts of the product life cycles. Synthesis of the Proceedings, 5–6 May, Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Martínez Blanco J, Lehmann A, Munoz P, Anton A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2013) Social life cycle assessment of compost and mineral fertilizers use in horticulture. Challenges and recommendations for social performance in a real case study. J Cleaner Prod (in press)Google Scholar
- Meadows DH (1998) Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. The Sustainable Institute, Hartland Four CornersGoogle Scholar
- Nayono S, Lehn H, Kopfmueller J, Londong J, Lehmann A (2011) Baseline indicators to support decision making in sanitation case study: Integrated Water Resources Management project in rural karst area of Gunung Kidul, Java, Indonesia. In: Proceedings IWRM 2011 Conference, 12–13 October, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Noll HH (2004) Social indicators and quality of life research: background, achievements, and current trends. In: Genov N (ed) Advances in sociological knowledge over half a century. VS Verlag fuer Sozialwissenschaften, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
- Oertel M (2010) Konzept für Capacity Building in der Abwasserbehandlung Konzeptentwurf für Capacity Building für die Abwasserbehandlung des Krankenhauses Wonosari/Java, Indonesien. (Concept for capacity building in sanitation. Concept draft for capacity building for a sanitation in the Wonosari Hospital, Java, Indonesia). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Karlsruhe Institute for TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- Oxford (2012) Oxford dictionaries. Available at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/indicator. Accessed 1 November 2012
- Prakash S (2012) Application of S-LCA: from artisanal mining to complex products. Workshop: Practical Aspects of Social Life Cycle Assessment, Berlin, 25 MayGoogle Scholar
- Puspitasari CP (2009) Analysis of governmental institutions performance concerning Integrated Water Resources Management. Case study in Gunung Kidul, Indonesia. Karlsruhe Institut für Technologie (KIT), KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
- Renn O, Kuhn R, Sellke P (2012) Final selection of social indicators. Report prepared within the EC 7th framework project: development and application of a standardized methodology for the PROspective SUstaInability assessment of Technologies (PROSUITE), Stuttgart. Available at http://www.prosuite.org
- Saleth RM, Dinar A (1999) Evaluating water institutions and water sector performance. World Bank Technical Paper No. 447. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- SHDB (2009) Social Hotspot Database. New Earth/Social Hotspots Database project. Available at http://socialhotspot.org/
- Swarr T, Hunkeler D, Kloepffer W, Pesonen HL, Ciroth A, Brent AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. ISBN: 978-1-880611-87-6Google Scholar
- Tébar-Less C, McMillan S (2005) Achieving the successful transfer of environmentally sound technologies: trade-related aspects. OECD Working Paper No. 2005-02Google Scholar
- Ugaya C (2012) S-LCA of cocoa soap. Workshop: Practical Aspects of Social Life Cycle Assessment, Berlin, 25 MayGoogle Scholar
- UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Druk in de weer, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
- UNEP/SETAC (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. Making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
- Vanclay F (2002) Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess 22:183–211Google Scholar
- Zapf W (1977) Soziale Indikatoren—eine Zwischenbilanz. In: Krupp HJ, Zapf W (eds) Sozialpolitik und Sozialberichterstattung. Campus, Frankfurt a.M./New York, pp 231–246Google Scholar