The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!

  • Catherine BenoîtEmail author
  • Gregory A. Norris
  • Sonia Valdivia
  • Andreas Ciroth
  • Asa Moberg
  • Ulrike Bos
  • Siddharth Prakash
  • Cassia Ugaya
  • Tabea Beck



Authors of different sustainability journals, including authors of articles in past issues of the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment have acknowledged the rising interest and the pressing need for a social and socio-economic life cycle assessment methodology and identified challenges in its development and implementation. Social life cycle assessment (LCA) allows identification of key issues, assessing, and telling the story of social conditions in the production, use, and disposal of products. In this article, the United Nations Environment Programme/The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products will be presented.

Aim and scope

The guidelines demystifies the assessment of product life cycle social impacts and presents an effective framework representing the consensus of an international group of experts leading research in this field. The guidelines complement those for environmental life cycle assessment and life cycle costing, and by doing so contribute to the full assessment of goods and services within the context of sustainable development. They enable a larger group of stakeholders to engage. Key aspects of the framework and the research needs identified in the guidelines will be summarized.


In a globalized world where transparency and information occupies a predominant place and where consumers and companies reach out to shed light on both the brightest and the darkest side of the economy and, when applicable, transform its condition, social LCA brings strong value. At a moment where major companies and initiatives are going forward with using LCA and are trying to track and communicate about the social impacts of their products they are increasingly held accountable for the guidelines for social life cycle assessment arrive just in time to inform their efforts.


Business Guidelines Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) Social responsibility Socioeconomic Supply chain Sustainability 



The authors of this article wish to thank the other co-authors of the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, in particular the chair of the project group and co-editor Bernard Mazijn, and the sponsors of the publication.


  1. Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of ProductsGoogle Scholar
  2. Benoît C et al (2008) Development of the Social Life Cycle Assessment Code of Practice: an international effort within the Life Cycle Initiative, Second International Seminar on Society and Materials. SAM2, NantesGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoît C, Parent J, Kuenzi I, Revéret J-P (2007) Presentation: developing a methodology for social life cycle assessment: the North American tomato’s CSR case, 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, August 27-29, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle 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. Master’s thesis in cooperation with the Division of Quality and Environmental Management at Luleå University of Technology, commissioned by Enact Sustainable Strategies in Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  5. 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(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casado Cañeque F (2002) Evaluación de la situación laboral de empresas: El análisis del ciclo de vida como herramienta para el desarrollo sostenible. PhD Thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, Divisió de Ciències Juridíques, Economiques i Socials, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Fava J, Consoli F, Denson R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B (1993) A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. Workshop Report, Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC. Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klöpffer W, de HH Udo (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo De Haes). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). Int J LCA 1(4):231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Norris G (2003) Life cycle approach to sustainable consumption: conceptual design of a methodological framework. Final report. The Society of Non-Traditional Technology (AIST), TokyoGoogle Scholar
  16. Norris G (2004) Life cycle sustainable consumption analysis: evaluating the health impacts of income changes and development in life cycle assessments. Final report. The Society of Non-Traditional Technology (AIST), TokyoGoogle Scholar
  17. Norris G (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles: towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Swarr T (2009) Societal life cycle assessment—could you repeat the question? Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(4):285–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weidema BP (2006) Social impact categories, indicators, characterisation and damage modelling. Presentation for the 29th Swiss LCA Discussion ForumGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Benoît
    • 1
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregory A. Norris
    • 2
  • Sonia Valdivia
    • 3
  • Andreas Ciroth
    • 4
  • Asa Moberg
    • 5
  • Ulrike Bos
    • 6
  • Siddharth Prakash
    • 7
  • Cassia Ugaya
    • 8
  • Tabea Beck
    • 6
  1. 1.Sylvatica, University of New Hampshire, UQAM/CIRAIGYorkUSA
  2. 2.Sylvativa, Harvard School of Public HealthUniversity of ArkansasYorkUSA
  3. 3.UNEP DTIE, United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and EconomicsSustainable Consumption and Production BranchParis Cedex 09France
  4. 4.GreenDelta TCBerlinGermany
  5. 5.KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Kungl Tekniska HögskolanStockholmSweden
  6. 6.Department of Life Cycle EngineeringLBP-Universität StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  7. 7.Oeko InstituteFreiburgGermany
  8. 8.UTFPR, ItapicuruCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations