Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework

  • Paola Karina Sanchez Ramirez
  • Luigia Petti
  • Nara Tudela Haberland
  • Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya



The aim of this work is to propose an objective method for evaluating subcategories in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA). Methods for assessing subcategories have been available since 2006, but a number of these either fail to include all the subcategories envisaged in the guidelines for S-LCA (UNEP/SETAC 2009) or are subjective in their assessment of each subcategory.


The methodology is characterized by four steps: (i) the use of the organization as unit process, in which it was decided to assess the social profile of the organization responsible for the processes involved in the product life cycle, (ii) definition of the basic requirement to assess each subcategory, (iii) definition of levels based on the environment context or organizational practice and the data availability and (iv) assignment of a quantitative value.

Results and discussion

The result of the method applied was the development of the subcategory assessment method (SAM). SAM is a characterization model that evaluates subcategories during the impact assessment phase. This method is based on the behaviour of organizations responsible for the processes along the product life cycle, thereby enabling a social performance evaluation. The method, thus, presents levels for each subcategory assessment. Level A indicates that the organization exhibits proactive behaviour by promoting basic requirement (BR) practices along the value chain. Level B means that the organization fulfils the BR. Levels C and D are assigned to organizations that do not meet the BR and are differentiated by their context. The greatest difficulty when developing SAM was the definition of the BR to be used in the evaluation of the subcategories, though many indications were present in the methodological sheets.


SAM makes it possible to go from inventory to subcategory assessment. The method supports evaluation across life cycle products, thereby ensuring a more objective evaluation of the social behaviour of organizations and applicable in different countries.


When using SAM, it is advisable to update the data for the context environment. The method might be improved by using data for the social context that would consider not only the country, but also the region, sector and product concerned. A further improvement could be a subdivision of the levels to better encompass differences between organizations. It is advisable to test SAM by applying it to a case study.


Characterization model SAM Social impact assessment Social life cycle assessment Stakeholders Subcategory assessment method 



We would like to thank Fabien Brones and anonymous reviewers who, by providing valuable comments, helped improve this paper, as well the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES) for their financial support.

Supplementary material

11367_2014_761_MOESM1_ESM.doc (80 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 80 kb)
11367_2014_761_MOESM2_ESM.doc (174 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 174 kb)


  1. Ciroth A, Franze J (2009) Social life cycle assessment of roses—a comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands, presentation, life cycle assessment conference Boston IX, 29 September - 2 October, 2009Google Scholar
  2. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook—consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Couture J, Parent J, Lafontaine M, Revéret J (2012) Lessons learned from integrated environmental and socioeconomic life cycle assessments. 8th international conference on life cycle assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 October 2012. Saint-Malo, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. Dreyer LC, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010a) Characterization of social impacts in LCA. Part 1: development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010b) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(4):385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DTI (2013) Consumer Protection Act. Accessed 6 Aug 2013
  8. Gipmans M, Schöneboom J, Achatz B, Storck T, Prüfe M, Knauer M, Saling P (2012) Comparison of the sustainability of different potato production systems: use of AgBalance methodology to identify strengths and weaknesses of organic, conventional and genetically modified disease resistant potato cultivation 8th Int. Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, 1–4 Oct, 2012Google Scholar
  9. Greendelta (2013) S-LCA databases. Accessed 11 Feb 2014.
  10. GRI (2006) Sustainability reporting guidelines G3.1 – Reference Sheet. Accessed 10 Oct 2011
  11. Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Méthot AL, Weidema B (2006) Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. Öko-Institut, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  12. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ILOLEX database of international labour standards (2012) Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  14. ISO (2010) ISO 26000: Guidance on social responsibility. ISO copyright office, Geneva, p 106Google Scholar
  15. Key Indicator of the Labour Market - KILM (2012) Employment to population ratio. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  16. Norris G (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles: towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parent J, Cucuzzela C, Reveret J (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):1642010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Population Reference Bureau (2011) Population handbook. Accessed 10 Jul 2012
  19. Privacy International (2007) Privacy international. Accessed 18 Nov 2011
  20. Rio + 20 Corporate Sustainability Forum (2012) Overview and outcomes: summary report. Accessed 2 Aug 2013
  21. Stiftung B (2012) BTI scores. Accessed 10 Jul 2012
  22. UDHR (2007) The universal declaration of human rights. Accessed 18 Nov 2011
  23. UNDP (2010) Human development reports: human development report 2010. The real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development. Accessed 18 Nov 2011
  24. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  25. UNEP/SETAC (2010) Methodological sheets of sub-categories of impact for a social LCA. Accessed 18 Nov 2011
  26. UNESCO (2012) List of world heritage in danger. Accessed 10 Jul 2012
  27. WEF (2010). The global competitiveness report 2010–2011. Accessed 10 Jul 2012
  28. Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. WHO (2012) Age standardized disability-adjusted life year (DALY) rate (per 100 000 population). Accessed 10 Jan 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paola Karina Sanchez Ramirez
    • 1
  • Luigia Petti
    • 1
  • Nara Tudela Haberland
    • 2
  • Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economic Studies (DEC)“Gabriele d’Annunzio” UniversityPescaraItaly
  2. 2.Graduate School of Mechanical Engineering and Materials (PPGEM)Federal University of Technology–ParanaCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations