Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches

  • Solène SureauEmail author
  • Sabrina Neugebauer
  • Wouter M. J. Achten



In social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), we can distinguish two main types of impact assessment (LCIA): type I can be seen as a reporting approach with the use of performance reference points and type II aims at including cause-effect chains or impact pathways in the analysis. Given the heterogeneity of those type II approaches, this review provides a classification of existing type II approaches.


We reviewed a total of 28 articles against the background of their main purpose, the method used, the issues covered and the origin of data (observation/characterization/ measurement). We checked the articles against (i) the reflection of an impact pathway, (ii) the availability of so-called inventory and impact indicators, and (iii) the presence of characterization models or factors translating correlations or causality.

Results and discussion

The analysis reveals three main paths to include impact pathways in S-LCA, which differ in authors’ intentions: (1) some studies identify and propose variables composing impact pathways, or frameworks gathering several pathways; (2) other studies investigate or test known pathways empirically, and until now seek mainly to link income data with health impacts at a macro scale, and (3) a last batch applies known and already quantified characterization models or factors from other research works in case studies. Until now, these case studies focus mainly on income-related social effects or on health impacts. Further, each path is further characterized and classified under nine approaches. Our findings highlight not only the heterogeneous nature of approaches, but also their common denominator which is to not consider phenomena or impacts in isolation but to consider them in relation to their sources or further impacts. It should be noted that type II studies are not only limited to quantitative approaches and variables, but can also use more qualitative variables and methods.


The presented classification may be used as a guidance tool for authors to make their methodological choices. Also, our findings indicate the opportunity of extending future type II S-LCA research to variables tackled in type I studies (e.g., safe and fair employment and working conditions), beyond pathways including incomes and health impacts. This can be done by using theories from social sciences for the identification of impact pathways. Those could then further be investigated through statistical approaches or in the framework of S-LCA case studies, with specific data and potentially more qualitative methods to analyze causality or social mechanisms.


Impact pathway Literature review S-LCA SLCA S-LCIA Social and socioeconomic impacts Social life cycle analysis Social life cycle assessment Type II 


Funding information

This research was financially funded by a Mini-ARC PhD scholarship of the Université libre de Bruxelles.

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1693_MOESM1_ESM.docx (62 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 62 kb)


  1. Arvidsson R, Baumann H, Hildenbrand J (2014) On the scientific justification of the use of working hours, child labour and property rights in social life cycle assessment: three topical reviews. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvidsson R, Hildenbrand J, Baumann H, Islam KMN, Parsmo R (2018) A method for human health impact assessment in social LCA: lessons from three case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:690–699CrossRefGoogle 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? J Ind Ecol 17:517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behaghel L (2006) Lire l’économétrie, Collection Repères. Economie ; 460. La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret J-P (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonacina De Auraujo J, Ugaya CML (2018) Development of S-LCIA models: a review of multivariate data analysis methods, in: Pre-Proceedings, Fruitrop Thema. Presented at the 6th Social LCA conference - People and places for partnerships, CIRAD, Pescara, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  8. Brent A, Labuschagne C (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2014) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17:579–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Cesare S (2016) Farmworkers’ pesticides exposition assessment: the Wesseling pathwayGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2005) A Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 11:88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feschet P (2014) Analyse du Cycle de Vie Sociale. Pour un nouveau cadre conceptuel et théorique. Université de Montpellier 1, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  13. Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Saez AR, Benhmad F (2012) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gorton WA (2019) The Philosophy of Social Science. Internet Encycl PhilosGoogle Scholar
  15. Grubert E (2018) Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofstetter P, Norris GA (2003) Why and how should we assess occupational health impacts in integrated product policy? Environ Sci Technol 37:2025–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang L, Ernstoff A, Fantke P, Csiszar SA, Jolliet O (2017) A review of models for near-field exposure pathways of chemicals in consumer products. Sci Total Environ 574:1182–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA Methodology and Case Study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutchins MJ, Sutherland JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod Sustain Supply Chain Manage 16:1688–1698Google Scholar
  20. Iofrida N, Luca AID, Strano A, Gulisano G (2018) Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:464–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Silveri F, Falcone G, Stillitano T, Gulisano G, Strano A (2019) Psychosocial risk factors’ impact pathway for social life cycle assessment: an application to citrus life cycles in South Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:767–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO (n.d.) ISO 26000 Social responsibility [WWW Document]. ISO. URL (accessed 4.29.19)
  23. Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2009) 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
  24. Jørgensen A, Jørgensen MS, Finkbeiner M, Hauschild MZ (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight CR, Winship C (2013) The causal implications of mechanistic thinking: identification using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). In: Morgan SL (ed) Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 275–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lagarde V, Macombe C (2012) Designing the social life cycle of products from the systematic competitive model. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 18:172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macombe C (2013) How can one predict social effects and impacts?, in: Social LCAs - Socio-Economic Effects in Value Chains, Fruitrop Thema. CIRAD/IRSTEAGoogle Scholar
  28. Menikpura SNM, Gheewala SH, Bonnet S (2012) Framework for life cycle sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management systems with an application to a case study in Thailand. Waste Manag Res 30:708–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moriizumi Y, Matsui N, Hondo H (2010) Simplified life cycle sustainability assessment of mangrove management: a case of plantation on wastelands in Thailand. J Clean Prod 18(16-17):1629–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Musaazi MK, Mechtenberg AR, Nakibuule J, Sensenig R, Miyingo E, Makanda JV, Hakimian A, Eckelman MJ (2015) Quantification of social equity in life cycle assessment for increased sustainable production of sanitary products in Uganda. J Clean Prod 96:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neugebauer S (2016) Enhancing life cycle sustainability assessment tiered approach and new characterization models for social life cycle assessment and life cycle costing. Technischen Universität Berlin, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang Y-J, Wolf K, Finkbeiner M (2014) Impact pathways to address social well-being and social justice in SLCA—fair wage and level of education. Sustainability 6:4839–4857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neugebauer S, Emara Y, Hellerström C, Finkbeiner M (2017) Calculation of fair wage potentials along products’ life cycle – Introduction of a new midpoint impact category for social life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 143:1221–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norris GA (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles—towards life cycle Attribute Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret J-P (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Revéret J-P (2018) A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:432–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silveri F (2016) Anticipating psychosocial factors effects in the agri-food sector: the Siegrist’s pathwayGoogle Scholar
  38. Sureau S, Achten WMJ (2018) Including governance and economic aspects to assess and explain social impacts: a methodological proposal for S-LCA, in: Pre-Proceedings, Fruitrop Thema. Presented at the 6th Social LCA conference - People and places for partnerships, Pescara, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  39. Sureau S, Mazijn B, Garrido SR, Achten WMJ (2018) Social life-cycle assessment frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:904–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Touceda MI, Neila FJ, Degrez M (2018) Modeling socioeconomic pathways to assess sustainability: a tailored development for housing retrofit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:710–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weidema BP (2006) The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weidema BP (2018a) Towards a taxonomy for social impact pathway indicators, in: Pre-Proceedings, Fruitrop Thema. Presented at the 6th Social LCA conference—People and places for partnerships, CIRAD, Pescara, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  43. Weidema BP (2018b) The social footprint—a practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6:4200–4226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu SR, Chen J, Apul D, Fan P, Yan Y, Fan Y, Zhou P (2015) Causality in social life cycle impact assessment (SLCIA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1312–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Environmental Management and Land-use Planning (IGEAT)Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Institut für Nachhaltigkeit im Bauwesen (INaB)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations