The main challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA) to support the social impacts analysis of product-service systems

  • Thayla T. Sousa-Zomer
  • Paulo A. Cauchick Miguel
SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to investigate the applicability of social life cycle assessment (SLCA) to the social impacts analysis of product-service systems (PSS). The purpose is to discuss the main challenges for this approach to comparing PSS business model alternatives and analyzing the social consequences of PSS introduction into the market.

Methods

Two PSS solutions were considered to investigate the applicability and the challenges for SLCA when applied to PSS assessment. A comparative analysis was discussed based on UNEP/SETAC guidelines. The subcategories and social indicators suggested in the guidelines were analyzed, and the indicators considered suitable for the comparison of PSS alternatives, considering the use phase, were identified. Other indicators from the PSS literature were also added to those from the guidelines. To analyze the consequences of PSS implementation, the applicability of consequential SLCA was discussed.

Results and discussion

The main results pointed out that only a few indicators in the SLCA guidelines could be used for comparative PSS analysis. This occurred because only some of the guidelines could be linked to the processes of each PSS. Other indicators identified in the PSS literature are suggested to complement the comparative analysis of PSS alternatives. Concerning the effects of PSS introduction, it can cause social impacts with regard to the company and stakeholders directly involved in the changes in addition to the effects that may occur in other products and services systems as a result of consumers’ behavior and PSS interaction in the market. The consequential modeling is suggested as appropriate for this analysis.

Conclusions

The SLCA approach can be considered suitable for PSS social issues analysis, although there are limitations for a full analysis in this study. Some major challenges for its applicability were identified. First, PSS functional unit modeling should be investigated considering all PSS elements (products and services) and the functions provided by the system. Second, only few indicators in the guidelines were considered appropriate for PSS comparative analysis before its introduction. Finally, concerning consequential SLCA, this could be explored in the context of PSS, but there is still scarce research on this subject. In short, to establish SLCA as a useful and applicable methodology to assess the social impacts of a PSS, further research is required, especially regarding the consequential SLCA.

Keywords

Social impacts Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) Social performance Sustainability Sustainability assessment Sustainable product-service systems 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the national research agencies Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the financial support of this research project (grant 478166/2012-5). We also would like to acknowledge the reviewers and the guest editors for their valuable contributions, comments, and recommendations.

References

  1. Amaya J, Lelah A, Zwolinski P (2014) Design for intensified use in product–service systems using life-cycle analysis. J Eng Des 25:280–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benoît C et al (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ceschin F (2013) Critical factors for implementing and diffusing sustainable product-service systems: insights from innovation studies and companies’ experiences. J Clean Prod 45:74–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ceschin F (2014) Sustainable product-service systems. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chou CJ, Chen CW, Conley C (2015) An approach to assessing sustainable product-service systems. J Clean Prod 86:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dias P, Bernardes AM (2015) Carbon emissions and embodied energy as tools for evaluating environmental aspects of tap water and bottled water in Brazil. Desalin Water Treat. doi: 10.1080/19443994.2015.1055815 Google Scholar
  7. Dnpm (2014) Sumário mineral 2014. Brasília (DF): Ministry of Mines and Energy. http://www.dnpm.gov.br/dnpm/sumarios/sumario-mineral-2014/. Accessed 30 May 2015
  8. Doualle B, Medini K, Boucher X, Laforest V (2015) Investigating sustainability assessment methods of product-service systems. Proc CIRP 30:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goedkoop MJ et al (1999) Product-service systems, ecological and economic Basics. Report for Dutch Ministries of Environment (VROM) and Economic Affairs (EZ)Google Scholar
  10. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment - principles and framework. International Organization of StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  11. Jørgensen A (2013) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Jørgensen A, Dreyer LC, Wangel A (2012) Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:828–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kayser GL, Amjad U, Dalcanale F, Bartram J, Bentley ME (2015) Drinking water quality governance: a comparative case study of Brazil, Ecuador, and Malawi. Environ Sci Policy 48:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee S, Geum Y, Lee H, Park Y (2012) Dynamic and multidimensional measurement of product-service system (PSS) sustainability: a triple bottom line (TBL)-based system dynamics approach. J Clean Prod 32:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehmann A, Russi D, Bala A, Finkbeiner M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2011) Integration of social aspects in decision support. Based Life Cycle Think Sustain 3(4):562–577Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Lelah A, Mathieux F, Brissaud D (2011) Contributions to eco-design of machine-to-machine product service systems: the example of waste glass collection. J Clean Prod 19:1033–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindahl M, Sakao T, Carlsson E (2014) Actor’s and system maps for integrated product service offerings—practical experience from two companies. Proc CIRP 16:320–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Antón A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the social life cycle assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mattioda RA, Mazzi A, Canciglieri O Jr, Scipioni A (2015) Determining the principal references of the social life cycle assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1155–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ministry of Health (2015) Analysis of the indicators related to water for human consumption and waterborne diseases in Brazil using the indicators matrix of the World Health Organization. http://portalsaude.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2015/marco/12/analise-indicadores-agua-10mar15-web.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2015
  23. Mont O (2002) Clarifying the concept of product-service system. J Clean Prod 10:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mont O (2004) Product-service systems: panacea or myth? Dissertation. Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. Settanni E, Newnes LB, Thenent NE, Parry G, Goh YM (2014) A through-life costing methodology for use in product-service-systems. Int J Prod Econ 153:161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SHDB (2015) Social hotspots database home page. http://socialhotspot.org/. Accessed 15 August 2015
  27. Sousa TT, Cauchick-Miguel P (2015) Product-service systems as a promising approach to sustainability: exploring the sustainable aspects of a PSS in Brazil. Proc CIRP 30:138–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trading economics. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/. Accessed: 10 August 2015
  29. Tukker A (2004) Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from suspronet. Bus Strategy Environ 13:246–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tukker A, Tischner U (2006) Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. J Clean Prod 14:1552–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UNEP (2002) Product-service systems and sustainability: opportunities for sustainable solutions. INDACO Department, Politecnico di Milano, MilanGoogle Scholar
  32. UNEP (2015) Using product-service systems to enhance sustainable public procurement. http://www.unep.org/10yfp/Portals/50150/10YFP%20SPP/3A_Technical%20report.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2015
  33. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. UNEP/SETAC (2013) The methodological sheets for subcategories in social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. Vezzoli C (2007) System design for sustainability: theory, methods and tools for a sustainable “satisfaction-system” design. Maggioli, RiminiGoogle Scholar
  36. Vezzoli C, Kohtala C, Srinivasan A, Diehl JC, Fusakul SM, Xin L, Sateesh D (2014) Product-service system design for sustainability. Greenleaf Publishing, SheffieldCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vezzoli C, Ceschin F, Diehl JC, Kohtala C (2015) New design challenges to widely implement ‘sustainable product–service systems’. J Clean Prod 97:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weidema BP (2008) Rebound effects of sustainable production. http://lca-net.com/files/rebound.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2015
  39. Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:596–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0423-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thayla T. Sousa-Zomer
    • 1
  • Paulo A. Cauchick Miguel
    • 2
  1. 1.Post-graduate Program in Production EngineeringFederal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil
  2. 2.Production and System Engineering DepartmentFederal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations