The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1581–1592 | Cite as

Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA)

  • Annekatrin Lehmann
  • Eva Zschieschang
  • Marzia Traverso
  • Matthias Finkbeiner
  • Liselotte Schebek



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.


Comparative 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.


  1. 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
  2. Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carrera DG, Mack A (2010) Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: result of a survey among European energy experts. Energ Policy 38:1030–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christian DE (1974) International social indicators: the OECD experience. Soc Indic Res 1:169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011a) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011b) Social and environmental LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Presentation, LCM 2011, 28–31 August, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellpap C (2009) Quality and performance test of PICO PV-Systems, Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Available at Accessed 28 July 2011
  12. Hutchins MJ, Sutherland JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Cleaner Prod 16:1688–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. International Standard Organisation (2006) ISO14044:2006. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. IWRM (2011) BMBF-Verbundprojekt IWRM Indonesien (joint research project IWRM Indonesia). Available at http://www.iwrm-indonesien and Accessed 28 July 2011
  16. Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild MZ (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jørgensen A, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen MS, Hauschild MZ (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jørgensen A, Dreyer L, Wrangel A (2012) Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:828–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Lehmann A, Russi D, Bala A, Finkbeiner M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2011a) Integration of social aspects in decision support, based on life cycle thinking. Sustainability 3(4):562–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Long ND, Ogunlana S, Quang T, Lam KC (2004) Large construction projects in developing countries: a case study from Vietnam. Int J Project Management 22(7):553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Meadows DH (1998) Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. The Sustainable Institute, Hartland Four CornersGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Nieuwenhout FDJ, van Dijk A, Lasschuit PE, van Roekel G, van Dijk VAP, Hirsch D, Arriaza H, Hankins M, Sharma BD, Wade H (2001) Experience with solar home systems in developing countries: a review. Prog Photovolt: Res Appl 9:455–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Oxford (2012) Oxford dictionaries. Available at Accessed 1 November 2012
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Renn O, Jaeger A, Deuschle J, Weimler-Jehle W (2009) A normative-functional concept of sustainability and its indicators. Int J Global Env 9(4):291–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Sahay S, Avgerou C (2002) Introducing the special issue on information and communication technologies in developing countries. Inf Soc 18:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saleth RM, Dinar A (1999) Evaluating water institutions and water sector performance. World Bank Technical Paper No. 447. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Schultz J, Brand F, Kopfmueller J, Ott K (2009) Building a ‘theory of sustainable development’: two salient conceptions within the German discourse. Int J Environ Sustainable Dev 7(4):465–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SHDB (2009) Social Hotspot Database. New Earth/Social Hotspots Database project. Available at
  41. 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
  42. Tébar-Less C, McMillan S (2005) Achieving the successful transfer of environmentally sound technologies: trade-related aspects. OECD Working Paper No. 2005-02Google Scholar
  43. Ugaya C (2012) S-LCA of cocoa soap. Workshop: Practical Aspects of Social Life Cycle Assessment, Berlin, 25 MayGoogle Scholar
  44. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Druk in de weer, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  45. UNEP/SETAC (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. Making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  46. Vanclay F (2002) Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess 22:183–211Google Scholar
  47. Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annekatrin Lehmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eva Zschieschang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marzia Traverso
    • 1
  • Matthias Finkbeiner
    • 1
  • Liselotte Schebek
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Technology, Chair of Sustainable EngineeringTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Industrial Ecology (INEC)HS-PforzheimPforzheimGermany
  4. 4.Institute IWAR, Industrial Material CyclesTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations