Advertisement

Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials

  • Md. Uzzal Hossain
  • Chi Sun Poon
  • Ya Hong Dong
  • Irene M. C. Lo
  • Jack C. P. Cheng
SOCIETAL LCA

Abstract

Purpose

Sustainability analysis should include the assessment of the environmental, social, and economic impacts throughout the life cycle of a product. However, the social sustainability performance assessment is seldom carried out during materials selection due to its complex nature and the lack of a social life cycle assessment tool. This study presents a single score-based social life cycle assessment methodology, namely social sustainability grading model, for assessing and comparing the social sustainability performance of construction materials using a case study on recycled and natural construction materials.

Methods

The proposed method is developed based on the methodological framework provided by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry guidelines published in 2009 and the methodological sheets published in 2013, the indicators and sustainability reporting guidelines provided by the Global Reporting Initiatives and ISO 26000 for social responsibility of products, and the indicators provided by the Hong Kong Business Environment Council Limited for construction sustainability. A twofold research approach is proposed in this model: the first one is the qualitative research based on expert interviews to identify, select, and prioritize the relevant subcategories and indicators, and the second one is the operational research based on the case-specific survey to collect the required data. A social sustainability index was proposed for the interpretation of the results effectively. A case study on construction materials was conducted to illustrate the implementation of the method using case-specific first-hand data.

Results and discussion

The major outcome of this study is the systematic development of a social sustainability assessment tool based on the established standards and guidelines. The case study showed that four subcategories are crucial social concerns for construction materials (i.e., health and safety issues of the materials, health and safety of workers, company’s commitment to sustainability, and company’s policies on energy and water consumption). Based on the sustainability index proposed, using recycled aggregates from locally generated waste materials scored higher (about 31–34%) social sustainability than using imported natural aggregates. In addition, recycled aggregates and natural aggregates achieved “sustainable” and “neutral” rating sustainability levels, respectively. However, several subcategories (e.g., health and safety, working hour, forced work, training and social benefits of workers, and quality of the materials and information disclosing to public) are still needed to improve the social sustainability performance of recycled aggregates.

Conclusions

An integrated social life cycle assessment method is presented in this study for assessing the social sustainability of construction materials. In addition, the reported case study in this paper is one of the first attempts for social sustainability assessment of recycled construction materials, and the method can be applied to other recycled materials/products for comparative analysis. However, several critical factors, such as integration in other life cycle methods and software, sensitivity analysis, and more case studies, are still needed for further improvement of the developed method.

Keywords

Construction materials Recycled materials Social life cycle assessment SSG model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the stakeholders who participated in this research project and also to The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Project of Strategic Importance) for funding support.

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1373_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

References

  1. Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Merli R (2013) Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability 5:3275–3287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BECL (2013) Moving the construction sector towards sustainable development: industry engagement in developing corporate sustainability initiatives for SMEs in construction sector in Hong Kong. Business Environment Council Limited (BECL), Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoît-Norris C, Aulisio D, Norris GA (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4:1946–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit-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
  6. Blengini GA (2009) Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a case study in Turin, Italy. Build Environ 44(2:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to socially assess bio-fuels: a case study of the UNEP/SETAC Code of Practice for social-economical LCA. Master thesis, Division of Quality and Environmental Management. Lulea University of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  8. Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret JP (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozhilova-Kisheva K, Olsen SI (2011) Are recycled building materials more sustainable than the traditional ones? http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:124158/datastreams/file_93065bf1-3a65-4b96-aea2-1e17c157f37b/content. Accessed 16 June 2017
  10. Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) Socializing sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17:579–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. GreenDeltaTC GmbH, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Clift R (2014) Social life cycle assessment: what are we trying to do? In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Pre-proceedings of the 4th international seminar in social LCA. 19th–21st November. Montpellier, France, pp 11–16Google Scholar
  13. De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A, Falcone G, Gulisano G (2015) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999:1–14Google Scholar
  14. Di Cesare S, Silveri F, Petti L (2014) The role of indicators in social life cycle assessment: results from a literature review http://bit.ly/1O9gf5F. Accessed 16 June 2017
  15. Di Cesare S, Silveri F, Sala S, Petti L (2016) Positive impacts in social life cycle assessment: state of the art and the way forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1169-7
  16. do Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste P (2017a) Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4
  17. do Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste PE (2017b) Addressing uncertain scoring and weighting factors in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1275-1
  18. Dong YH, Ng ST (2014) Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1409–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dong YH, Ng ST (2015) A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1166–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ebrahim A, Behiry AE (2013) Utilization of cement treated recycled concrete aggregates as base or subbase layer in Egypt. Ain Shams Eng J 4:661–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ekener-Petersen E, Moberg A (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 2: reflections on a study of a complex product. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabe M, Loeillet D, Saez AR, Benhmad F (2013) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. The case of banana industry in Cameroon. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2(10):3309–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foolmaun R, 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 18:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Garrido SR, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Reveret JP (2016) A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1067-z
  28. GRI (2013) Sustainability reporting guidelines (G4), Reporting principles and standards disclosures. Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI), The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  29. Grubert E (2016) Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1117-6
  30. Haaster VB, Ciroth A, Fontes J, Wood R, Ramirez A (2017) Development of a methodological framework for social life-cycle assessment of novel technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 33(3):423–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hauschild MZ, Dreyer LC, Jørgensen A (2008) Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective—lessons learned. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57(1):21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henke S, Theuvsen L (2014) Social life cycle assessment: socioeconomic evaluation of biogas plants and short rotation coppices. Proceedings in food system dynamics, Proceedings in System dynamics and innovation in food networks, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  33. Hossain MU, Poon CS, Lo IMC, Cheng JCP (2016a) Evaluation of environmental friendliness of concrete paving eco-blocks using LCA approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:70–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hossain MU, Poon CS, Lo IMC, Cheng JCP (2016b) Comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin sources by LCA. Resour Conserv Recycl 109:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ISO (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework (ISO14040). Geneva, Switzerland, ISOGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines (ISO14044). Geneva, Switzerland, ISOGoogle Scholar
  39. ISO (2010) Guidance on social responsibility (ISO 26000). Geneva, Switzerland, ISOGoogle Scholar
  40. Jørgensen A, Bocq AL, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kruse SA, Flysjo A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz AJ (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Schebek L (2013) Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1581–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabe M, Loeillet D (2011) 2nd international seminar in social life cycle assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R (2013) Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod 52:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1386–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Antón A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the social LCA of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nazarkina L., Le Bocq A (2006) Social aspect of sustainability assessment: Feasibility of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Other. EDF, Moret-sur-Loing, FranceGoogle Scholar
  51. Petersen EE (2013) Tracking down social impacts of products with social life cycle assessment. PhD thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  52. Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2016) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4
  53. Petti L, Ugaya CML, Di Cesare S (2014) Systematic review of social-life cycle assessment (S-LCA) case studies impact assessment method. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Pre-proceedings of the 4th international seminar in social LCA. FruiTrop Thema, pp 34–41Google Scholar
  54. Poon CS, Chan D (2006) Feasible use of recycled concrete aggregates and crushed clay brick as unbound road sub-base. Constr Build Mater 20:578–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ramirez PKS, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML (2014) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1515–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reveret JP, Couture JM, Parent J (2015) Socioeconomic LCA of milk production in Canada. In: Muthu SS (ed) Social life cycle assessment—an insight. Springer, Singapore, pp 25–69Google Scholar
  57. Siebert A, Bezama A, O’Keeffe S, Thran D (2016) Social life cycle assessment: in pursuit of a framework for assessing wood-based products from bioeconomy regions in Germany. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1066-0
  58. Sousa-Zomer TT, Miguel PAC (2015) The main challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA) to support the social impacts analysis of product-service systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-1010-8
  59. Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Kloepffer W, Pesonen HL, Ciroth A, Brent C, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:389–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jorgensen A, Schneider L (2013) Life cycle sustainability dashboard. J Industrial Ecol 16(5):680–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEPSETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  62. UNEP/SETAC (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products. UNEP-SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  63. UNEP/SETAC (2013) The methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). UNEP-SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  64. Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1673–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vinyes E, Oliver-Sola J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J, Gasol C (2013) Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited—review. Sustainability 6:4200–4226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu Z, Shen L, Yu ATW, Zhang X (2016) A comparative analysis of waste management requirements between five green building rating systems for new residential buildings. J Clean Prod 112:895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zanchi L, Delogu M, Zamagni A, Pierini M (2016) Analysis of the main elements affecting social LCA applications: challenges for the automotive sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1176-8

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Md. Uzzal Hossain
    • 1
  • Chi Sun Poon
    • 1
  • Ya Hong Dong
    • 2
  • Irene M. C. Lo
    • 3
  • Jack C. P. Cheng
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong
  2. 2.Faculty of Science and TechnologyThe Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong KongTsing YiHong Kong
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations