Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels
This paper seeks ways to address positive social impacts in social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and attempts to answer two questions: How can the SLCA methodology be improved in order to systematically identify all potential positive impacts in the supply chain? How can positive impacts be taken into consideration along with negative impacts in SLCA? In order for SLCA to be an attractive tool, it needs to provide users with the possibility to include positive impacts, not as variables stipulating lack of negative impacts but rather as fulfilment of positive potentials.
By scrutinising the social impacts addressed in the SLCA UNEP/SETAC Guidelines today and reviewing approaches for positive impacts in other research fields, a developed approach to capture and aggregate positive social impacts in SLCA is proposed. To exemplify the application, the case of vehicle fuels is used to investigate the possibilities of addressing positive impacts in SLCA. This includes a literature review on potential positive social impacts linked to vehicle fuels.
Results and discussion
The subcategories in the SLCA Guidelines are proposed to be divided into positive and negative impacts and complemented with some additional positive impacts. Related indicators are proposed. A draft approach for assessing positive impacts is developed where the proposed indicators are categorised in four different levels, from low to very high potential positive impact. The possibility to aggregate positive social impacts is discussed. Besides multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), few useful ideas for aggregating positive impacts in SLCA were found in the literature that mostly focused on surveys and monetarisation. Positive social impacts linked to vehicle fuels (fossil fuels and biofuels) are identified, and the proposed approach is schematically applied to vehicle fuels.
The SLCA methodology may be refined in order to better identify and assess positive impacts, and approaches developed for capturing and aggregating such impacts are proposed. Challenges of aggregating positive and negative social impacts still remain. The knowledge on social impacts from vehicle fuels could be improved by applying the proposed approach. However, the approach needs more development to be practically applicable.
KeywordsAggregation Life cycle assessment Positive impact Social assessment Social impact Social LCA
This publication is the result of a project within the Renewable Fuels and Systems Programme (Samverkansprogrammet Förnybara drivmedel och system), funded by the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3). The f3 Centre contributes, through knowledge based on science, to the development of environmentally, economically and socially sustainable and renewable transportation fuels, as part of a future sustainable society (see www.f3centre.se/samverkansprogram). The authors would also like to acknowledge the valuable inputs and comments from the two anonymous reviewers.
- Adeola FO (2000) Cross-National Environmental Injustice and Human Rights Issues. Rev Evid Dev World ABS 43:686–706Google Scholar
- Benoit C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: a social and socio-economic LCA code of practice. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), ParisGoogle Scholar
- Biemer J, Dixon W, Blackburn N (2013) Our environmental handprint: the good we do, 2013 I.E. Conference on Technologies for Sustainability. IEEE, Portland, pp 146–153Google Scholar
- Chevron (2014) 2014 Corporate Responsibility Report. Chevron in Nigeria. http://www.chevron.com/countries/nigeria/default.aspx
- Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Green Delta and Federal Public Planning Service Sustainable Development, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- De Vita G, Lagoke O, Adesola S (2015) Nigerian oil and gas industry local content development: A stakeholder analysis Public Policy Admin:0952076715581635Google Scholar
- Dodgson J, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips L (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. Department for Communities and Local Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
- EU (2009) European Parliament and Council, Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, 2009Google Scholar
- ILO (2015) Conventions and Recommendations. International Labour Organisation (ILO). http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/conventions-and-recommendations/lang--en/index.htm. Accessed 28 January 2016
- ISO (2000) Environmental labels and declarations – General principles - ISO 14020:2000. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Max-Neef M (1992) Development and human needs. In: Ekins P, Max-Neef M (eds) Real-Life Economics: understanding wealth creation. Routledge, London, pp 197–213Google Scholar
- Mouffe C (2005) On the political. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Ndzibah E, Ketola T, Ketola T, Salmi T (2010) Sustainability life cycle comparison of biofuels: sewage the saviour? MEQ 21:796–811Google Scholar
- Norris GA (2013) The new requirement for social leadership: healing. an introduction to handprints and handprinting. In: Groschl S (ed) Uncertainty, diversity and the common good: changing norms and new leadership paradigms. Gower Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
- OECD (2008) Biofuel support policies: an economic assessment. Organization for Economic Co- Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Petti L, Ugaya C, Di Cesare S (2014) Systematic review of Social-Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) case studies. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Social LCA in progress. Pre-Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar in Social LCA, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
- Schreckenberg K et al (2010) Social assessment of conservation initiatives. A review of rapid methodologies. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), LondonGoogle Scholar
- van der Hilst F, van Eijck J, Verstegen J, Diogo V, Batidzirai B, Faaij A (2013) Impacts of scale up of biofuel production, Case Studies: Mozambique, Argentina and Ukraine. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, UNIDO, Utrecht and ViennaGoogle Scholar