Hotspot identification in the clothing industry using social life cycle assessment—opportunities and challenges of input-output modelling

  • Bahareh ZamaniEmail author
  • Gustav Sandin
  • Magdalena Svanström
  • Greg M. Peters



A cradle-to-gate, input/output-based social life cycle assessment (SLCA) was conducted using the Swedish clothing consumption as a case study. The aim was to investigate the influence of the cut-off rule and the definition of “hotspots” in social hotspot assessment. A second aim was to identify social hotspots of Swedish clothing on a national level.


The case study was based on the SLCA methodology provided in the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (Benoît and Mazijn 2009). An input/output model was used to define the product system from cradle to gate. The negative social hotspots were evaluated for a set of social indicators that were selected by consumers. The impact assessment was conducted on a sector and country level by using the Social Hotspots Database. The identified sectors of the economy with high and very high levels of risk were listed for each social indicator.

Results and discussion

The results pinpointed some hotspots throughout the supply chain for Swedish clothing consumption. Some unexpected sectors such as commerce and business services in Bangladesh were identified as important hotspots as well as main sectors in the production phase such as plant fibres, textiles and garments that would be expected also on the bases of a traditional process analysis. A sensitivity analysis on different cut-off values showed the extent to which the choice of cut-off rule can directly affect the results via influence over the number of country-specific sectors (CSSs) in the product system. The influence of the hotspot definition was investigated by evaluating the working hour intensity for low- and medium-risk levels for three different indicators. The results show that for child labour, 92 % of the share of working hours was associated with low- and medium-risk levels. Therefore, the evaluation of risk levels other than high and very high can provide a more complete picture of the hotspots.


The application of input/output-based SLCA on the clothing production supply chain provided a more complete picture of the social hotspots than with traditional process-based SLCA. Some unexpected sectors related to commerce and business appeared as social hotspots in the clothing industry. The study explored some important parameters in applying an input/output-based SLCA. The results show that the cut-off values and definition of hotspots in relation to risk levels can directly influence the results.


Fashion Social Hotspot identification SHDB SLCA Social Hotspots Database Social impact 


  1. Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013) Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):1106–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azadeh-Fard N, Schuh A, Rashedi E, Camelio JA (2015) Risk assessment of occupational injuries using Accident Severity Grade. Safety Sci 76:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic?: opting for an empirically based approach to social life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 17(4):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Accessed June 2015
  5. Benoît-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspots database. Sustainability 4(12):1946–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benoît-Norris C, Norris GA, Aulisio D (2015) Efficient assessment of social hotspots in the supply chains of 100 product categories using the social hotspots database. Sustainability 6(10):6973–6984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baskaran V, Nachiappan S, Rahman S (2011) Supplier assessment based on corporate social responsibility criteria in Indian automotive and textile industry sectors. Int J Sustainable Eng 4:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskaran V, Nachiappan S, Rahman S (2012) Indian textile suppliers’ sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. Int J Prod Econ 135(2):647–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifford S. (2013) Some retailers say more about their clothing’s origins, The New York Times.
  10. De Brito MP, Carbone V, Blanquart CM (2008) Towards a sustainable fashion retail supply chain in Europe: organisation and performance. Int J Prod Econ 114:534–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Cycle Assess 2(88):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 18(1);127–143. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0442-7
  13. Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G (2014) Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energ Policy 73:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2013) Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gautam P (2011) Social life cycle assessment of solid waste management in Kathmandu City Nepal. In: Proceedings of the Life Cycle Management 2011 Conference, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Heiho A, Hondo H, Moriizumi Y (2015) Social life cycle assessment of biomass projects focusing on employment changes in regions. J Japan Inst Energ 94(2):159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:620–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hou D, Al-Tabbaa A, Guthrie P, Hellings J, Gu Q (2014) Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park. J Clean Prod 83:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jørgensen A, Be-Boqc A, Nazakina L, Hauschild MZ (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kobayashi Y, Peters G, Ashbolt N, Khan S (2015) Assessing burden of disease as disability adjusted life years in life cycle assessment. Sci Total Environ 530–531:120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Traverso M (2013) Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(8):1581–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leontief W (1986) Input–output economics. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenzen M (2000) Errors in conventional and input–output-based life-cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 4(4):127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2011) Evaluation of process- and input–output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environ Sci Technol 45(23):10170–10177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moran D, McBain D, Kanemoto K, Lenzen M, Geschke A (2014) Global supply chains of coltan. J Ind Ecol 19(3):357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rowley HV, Lundie S, Peters GM (2009) A hybrid LCA model for comparison with conventional methodologies in Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(6):508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandin G, Peters GM, Pilgård A, Svanström M, Westin M (2011) Integrating sustainability consideration into product development: a practical tool for identifying critical social sustainability indicators and experiences from real case application. In: Finkbeiner M (ed) Towards life cycle sustainability management. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shen B (2014) Sustainable fashion supply chain: lessons from H&M. Sustainability 6(9):6236–6249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Statistics Sweden (2014) Statistics database. Available at:
  35. Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weller I (2013) Sustainable consumption and production patterns in the clothing sector: is green the new black? In: Gardetti MA, Torres AL (eds) Sustainability in fashion and textiles. Greenleaf Publishing Limited, Sheffield, UK, pp 184–194Google Scholar
  37. Zamani B (2014) Towards understanding sustainable textile waste management: environmental impacts and social indicators. Chalmers University of Technology, GothenburgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bahareh Zamani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gustav Sandin
    • 2
  • Magdalena Svanström
    • 1
  • Greg M. Peters
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Chemical Environmental ScienceChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.SP Technical Research Institute of SwedenBoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations