Advertisement

An integrated social life cycle assessment of freight transport systems

  • Jose Luis Osorio-TejadaEmail author
  • Eva Llera-Sastresa
  • Sabina Scaperllini
  • Ahmad Hariza Hashim
SOCIETAL LCA
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The climate change concerns have generated the need to develop strategies to reduce the oil dependency in transport sector. Many of these strategies have not achieved the proposed objectives by the scant emphasis on social and socio-economic aspects of the life cycle of the transport system components. Therefore, an approach for the integrated social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of freight transport services is proposed in this paper.

Methods

The proposed S-LCA approach was developed based on the UNEP/SETAC guidelines (2009). Twenty-six social impact subcategories were selected, and a systemic definition of the transport system boundaries was introduced. A multilevel inventory analysis method was proposed, including a list of generic and specific indicators for each social impact subcategory, based on secondary and primary sources. For the impact assessment phase, a multilevel valuation scale method was applied to obtain social performance indexes (SPI) of the companies in the supply chain for five social impact categories and five stakeholders. In addition, bearing in mind the stakeholders’ perceptions, an aggregated SPI of the system in a scale of 1 to 5 was calculated for the case study in a freight company in Malaysia.

Results and discussion

The most relevant impact categories for the interviewed stakeholders were workers’ and human rights. Results exposed that freedom of association, working hours, health and safety, and equal opportunities were the most critical issues in the supply chain. Technological development, corruption, and transparency in social and environmental issues were other critical aspects. The impact assessment method did not analyze the social impacts generated due to the social conducts of companies, but provided information about the priorities that should be considered to improve the supply chain social performance. The aggregation of results in SPI made difficult to identify the aspects with the best or worst performance, being more useful for comparison purposes or for giving a quick landscape of the analyzed service.

Conclusions

This approach contributes in the purpose of analyzing services, with a broader view, by integrating different components in the supply chain. The methods for inventory analysis and impact assessment allow including upstream activities, which can be applied in different sectors. The multilevel valuation scale method allows weighting different inventory analyses results and including stakeholders’ perceptions, reducing biases from some information sources and in the result characterization. However, improvement is needed in the design of weighting factors of activities for reducing uncertainties in the performance indexes.

Keywords

Developing countries Freight transport Fuels Impact assessment method S-LCA Social life cycle assessment Roads Vehicles 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors want to acknowledge the collaboration of Asian Trucker Media, Malaysian Container Truckers, Dr. Sanath Kumaran and the interviewed stakeholders in the data collection process.

Funding information

This work was based on the Ph.D. thesis by Jose Luis Osorio granted by Colciencias call 646/2014. Part of this study was developed with the support of the CIRCE Institute and the aids of the Aragon Government (T46_17R and S33_17R).

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1692_MOESM1_ESM.docx (47 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 47 kb)
11367_2019_1692_MOESM2_ESM.docx (63 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 63 kb)
11367_2019_1692_MOESM3_ESM.docx (83 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 83 kb)

References

  1. Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013) Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling systems in low income countries: Three Peruvian case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1116–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benoît-Norris C, Parent J, Kuenzi I, Revéret J-P (2007) Developing a Methodology for Social Life Cycle Assessment: The North American Tomato’s CSR case. In: 3rd International Conference on Life cycle management. Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: Overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4:1946–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to Socially Assess Biofuels - A Case Study of the UNEP/SETAC Code of Practice for social- economical LCA. Luleå University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities (2001) White paper. European policy for 2010: time to decide. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. den Boer E, Brouwer F, Schroten A, van Essen H (2009) Are trucks taking their toll ? The environmental, safety and congestion impacts of lorries in the EU. DelftGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EEGFTF (2011) Future Transport Fuels, Report of the European Expert Group on Future Transport. Fuels, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekener E, Hansson J, Gustavsson M (2018) Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:556–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G (2014) Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy 73:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (1995) ExternE - Externalities of energy: Vol.1 - Summary. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2001) Green paper: Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2003) External Costs: Research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2013) Clean Power for Transport: A European alternative fuels strategy. COM (2013) 17 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2014) EU Transport in Figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2014. BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  16. Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M et al (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
  17. Fontes J, Alvarado C, Saling P et al (2016) Handbook for product social impact assessment 3.0. PRé Sustainability, LE AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 18:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrido J (1999) Impactos medioambientales y sociales del transporte. Geographicalia 37:37–52Google Scholar
  21. Garrigues Medio Ambiente SL (2013) Manual para la Gestión Ambiental en el Sector Transporte en AndalucíaGoogle Scholar
  22. Goedkoop MJ, Indrane D, de Beer I. (2018) Product Social Impact Assessment Handbook - 2018, 4.0. AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  23. Hossain MU, Poon CS, Dong YH et al (2018) Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1654–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA Methodology and Case Study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchins MJ, Sutherland JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod 16:1688–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International organization for standardization (2006) ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  28. Ipsos Business Consulting (2017) Market Review of Building Materials in the Construction Industry. Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  29. Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for Social Life Cycle Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jørgensen A, Dreyer L, Wangel A (2012) Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:828–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P et al (2014) Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martinez-Blanco J, Finkbeiner M, Iniba A (2015a) Guidance on Organizational Life Cycle Assessment. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  35. Martinez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang Y-J, Finkbeiner M (2015b) Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1586–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muhammad KI, Sharaai AH, Ismail MM et al (2019) Social implications of palm oil production through social life cycle perspectives in Johor, Malaysia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:935–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Norris GA (2006) Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Omokaro O (2009) Oil and gas extraction in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria: The social and environmental challenges. FOG - Freib Online Geosci 24:14–20Google Scholar
  39. Osorio-Tejada JL, Llera-Sastresa E, Scarpellini S (2017) A multi-criteria sustainability assessment for biodiesel and liquefied natural gas as alternative fuels in transport systems. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 42:169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Osorio-Tejada JL, Llera-sastresa E, Hashim AH (2018) Well-to-Wheels Approach for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Road Freight Services. Sustainability 10:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: Sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petron Corp. (2016) Petron Corporation - Final Prospectus. Mandaluyong CityGoogle Scholar
  43. Petron Corp. (2018) Petron Malaysia. In: Our profile. www.petron.com.my. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  44. Petti L, Sanchez Ramirez PK, Traverso M, Ugaya CML (2018a) An Italian tomato “Cuore di Bue” case study: challenges and benefits using subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2018b) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. PLUS Malaysia Bhd (2018) PLUS. In: Background. www.plus.com.my. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  47. Quantis, Ageco, Ciraig, Uqam (2012) Environmental and Socioeconomic Life Cycle Assessment Of Canadian Milk. MontrealGoogle Scholar
  48. Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Revéret JP (2016) A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1067-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SAI (2014) Social Accountability 8000. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanchez-Ramirez PK, 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
  51. Martin Schmied (2012) Calculating GHG emissions for freight forwarding and logistics services in accordance with EN 16258. European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (CLECAT), BernGoogle Scholar
  52. SHDB project (2016) Social Hotspots Database. http://socialhotspot.org/user-portal-2/portal-info/. Accessed 8 Feb 2016
  53. Shonnard DR, Klemetsrud B, Sacramento-Rivero J et al (2015) A Review of Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Liquid Transportation Biofuels in the Pan American Region. Environ Manag 56:1356–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Song Q, Wu Y, Li J et al (2018) Well-to-wheel GHG emissions and mitigation potential from light-duty vehicles in Macau. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1916–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tallentire CW, Edwards SA, Van Limbergen T, Kyriazakis I (2018) The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1093–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. The Walk Free Foundation (2017) The Global Slavery Index 2016Google Scholar
  57. Traverso M, Bell L, Saling P, Fontes J (2018) Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative product social impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:597–606.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1168-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UD Trucks (2018) Going the extra mile. AgeoGoogle Scholar
  59. UEM Group Bhd (2016) Sustainability report 2015-2016: 50 Years of Sustainable Value & Uniting Lives. Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  60. UNEP (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, ParisGoogle Scholar
  61. UNEP/SETAC (2013) The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment ( S-LCA ). UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  62. UNICEF (2017) UNICEF Data: Monitoring the Situation of Children and Women. In: Child Labour. http://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/child-labour/. Accessed 17 Dec 2017
  63. USDOL (2016) List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor. Washington.Google Scholar
  64. Vanclay F (2002) Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev 22:183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C et al (2013) Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. VTT (2011) Existing methods and tools for calculation of carbon footprint of transport and logistics. COFRET Deliv 2:1Google Scholar
  67. WEF (2016) The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  68. Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wu SR, Celik I, Apul D, Chen J (2019) A social impact quantification framework for the resource extraction industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01605-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group in Territorial Environmental Management -GAT-, Faculty of Environmental SciencesUniversidad Tecnológica de PereiraPereiraColombia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Accounting and FinanceUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain
  4. 4.Faculty of Human EcologyUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations