Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer

  • Elisabeth Ekener-PetersenEmail author
  • Göran Finnveden



A generic hotspot assessment of social impacts from a product was conducted, using a laptop computer as a case. The aims of the case study were to identify social hotspots of the laptop and to test and evaluate the methodology.


The case study was based on the social LCA methodology described in the Guidelines for social LCA and included the product system from ‘cradle to grave’ as well as the impacts on all relevant stakeholders. We focused on a simplified list of materials and used mainly country-specific data.

Results and discussion

A new method for impact assessment of hotspots was developed. The total activity in each phase was distributed among countries. The countries were divided into groups related to the extent of activity in the product system, as well as to their performance on a subcategory. High values in both groups were highlighted and hotspots were identified.

The results revealed some hotspots, some hot countries and some hot issues, all indicating a risk of negative social impacts in the product system of a laptop. It also identified workers and the local community as the stakeholders most at risk of negative social impacts. Among the hotspots identified, the following subcategories were of importance: safe and healthy living conditions, social benefit/social security, access to material resources, involvement in areas with armed conflicts, community engagement (lack of), corruption, and access to immaterial resources.


The study showed it is possible to conduct a social LCA on a generic complex product using the Guidelines, even though data collection was impaired by lack of data and low data quality. It identified methodological issues that need further attention, for example the indicator impact pathways. Still, it is clear that new insights can be gained by social LCA, where the life cycle perspective and the systematic approach help users identify potentially important aspects that could otherwise have been neglected.


Case study Generic assessment Hotspot Impact assessment Laptop computer S-LCA Social LCA Social life cycle assessment 



Financial support from Vinnova and other partners of the Centre for Sustainable Communications at KTH Royal Institute of Technology is gratefully acknowledged. We want to thank the participants of our internal and external reference groups for constructive and interesting discussions and also Dr. Åsa Moberg for valuable contributions.

Supplementary material

11367_2012_442_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (275 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 275 kb)
11367_2012_442_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (146 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 145 kb)
11367_2012_442_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (191 kb)
ESM 3 (PDF 190 kb)
11367_2012_442_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (71 kb)
ESM 4 (PDF 70 kb)
11367_2012_442_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (34 kb)
ESM 5 (PDF 33 kb)
11367_2012_442_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (140 kb)
ESM 6 (PDF 140 kb)


  1. Ahlroth S, Finnveden G (2011) Ecovalue 08—a new valuation method for environmental systems analysis tools. J Clean Prod 19:1994–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amnesty International Human Rights reports (2011) Accessed 18 April 2011
  3. Basel Convention 1989, Ban Amendment 1995, Accessed 26 April 2011
  4. Benoît 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
  5. Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Available at
  6. Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U et al (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: Just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(2):64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (2011), Accessed 27 April 2011
  9. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook—consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle, Berlin 2011, available on
  10. COHRE Global Survey on Forced Eviction, Accessed 28 April 2011
  11. Commission E (2005) DG TREN, Preparatory studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs Lot 3, Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and Computer Monitors, Final Report (Task 1–8). IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation, Mölndal, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  12. Consumer Focus Western Australia (2011) Accessed 29 April 2011
  13. Consumer International (2011) Accessed 29 April 2011
  14. Ecoinvent (2009) Life cycle inventory of metals, v2.1 report No 10Google Scholar
  15. Ecolex (2011) Accessed 27 April 2011
  16. EICC/BSR (2010) A practical approach to greening the electronics supply chain. Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. EICC/GeSi (2008) Social and Environmental Responsibility in Metals Supply to the Electronic Industry. (GHGm), Guelph, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekener-Petersen E, Moberg A (2012) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 2: reflections on a study of a complex product. Int J Life Cycle Assess (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Europe P (2010) Plastics—the Facts 2010, an analysis of European plastics production, demand and recovery for 2009. Plastics Europe, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  20. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (2011) Accessed 19 April 2011
  21. Finnveden G (2000) On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Finnwatch & Swedwatch (2010) MakeITFair, voice from the inside; local views on mining reform in eastern DR Congo, 2010. Finnwatch, & Swedwatch, Helsinki/StockholmGoogle Scholar
  24. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friends of Nature, IPE, Green Beagle (2011) The Other Side of Apple, IT Industry Investigative Report (Phase IV), Special Edition: Apple. The Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  26. Gartner Inc, (2008), Accessed 16 September 2011
  27. Global Competition Forum (2011) Accessed 27 April 2011
  28. GRI, Organizations Sustainability Reports
  29. Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (2011) Accessed 26 April 2011
  30. Heijungs R (1998) Towards eco-efficiency with LCAs prevention principle: an Epistemological Foundation of LCA using axioms. In Klostermann, JEM and Tukker, A (Eds): Product innovation and eco-efficiency, twenty-three industry efforts to reach the factor 4. Kluwer Academic Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment. A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part I: a general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ILO Data on unemployment (2011) Accessed 18 April 2011
  34. ILO Social Expenditure Database (2011), Accessed 18 April 2011
  35. International Trade Union Confederation ITUC (2011) , Accessed 20 April 2011
  36. LabourStart (2011) Accessed 21 April 2011
  37. Living wage calculator (2011) Accessed 22 April 2011
  38. Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabé 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
  39. MadSci Network (2011), Accessed 27 April 2011
  40. Manhart A, Grießhammer R (2006) Social impacts of the production of notebook PCs. Öko-Institut e.V, Freiburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  41. Måwe I (2010) Västvärldens soptipp, Ordfront Magasin 2/2010Google Scholar
  42. MetaFacts Inc (2009), Accessed 16 September 2011
  43. Naturvårdsverket (2009) Utförsel/Export av avfall från Sverige år 2009, supplied by Ulrika Hagelin on 1 March 2011Google Scholar
  44. OECD Social institutions and Gender Index SIGI (2011) Accessed 18 April 2011
  45. Privacy International (2011) Accessed 20 April 2011
  46. Rajasthan Mineral (2011) Accessed 21 April 2011
  47. Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Resolve (2010) Tracing a path forward: a study of the challenges of the supply chain for target metals used in electronics. Resolve, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. SACOM (2011) Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour, 2011, iSlave Behind the iPhone—Foxconn Workers in Central China. Available at Accessed 24 November 2011
  50. Sweatfree (2011) Accessed 28 April 2011
  51. Transparency International (2011) Accessed 20 April 2011
  52. Tukker A (1998) Frames in the toxicity controversy. Risk assessment and policy analysis related to the Dutch chlorine debate and the Swedish PVC-Debate. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  53. UCW Understanding Children’s Work (2011) Accessed 20 April 2011
  54. UN International Migrant Stock (2011) Accessed 27 April 2011
  55. UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2009) Transnational trafficking and the rule of law in West Africa: a threat assessment, 2009Google Scholar
  56. UNESCO Urgent Safeguarding List (2011) Accessed 21 April 2011
  57. US EIA (2011) The U.S. Energy Information Administration,, Accessed 20 April 2011
  58. US Consumer Product Safety Commission (2011), Accessed 19 April 2011
  59. US Dept of Health and Human Services (2011) Accessed 26 April 2011
  60. Dept of Labour (2011) Accessed 27 April 2011
  61. US Dept of State (2011) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Accessed 21 April 2011
  62. WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment—joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Article 9Google Scholar
  63. Wikipedia (2011) Accessed 28 April 2011
  64. WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization (2011), Accessed 29 April 2011
  65. WISI (2010) Report on the World Summit on the Information Society Stocktaking 2010: Tracking Progress in follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  66. World Bank/Doing Business (2011) Accessed 27 April 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban Planning and Environment, Division of Environmental Strategies ResearchKTH—Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and the Built EnvironmentStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Sustainable CommunicationsKTH—Royal Institute of Technology, School of Computer Science and CommunicationStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations