A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit

  • Sara Russo Garrido
  • Julie Parent
  • Luce Beaulieu
  • Jean-Pierre Revéret
SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS

Abstract

Purpose

The Social Life Cycle Assessment guidelines (UNEP-SETAC 2009) distinguish two different SLCA approaches, type I and type II. Few comprehensive and analytical reviews have been undertaken to examine the multiplicity of approaches that have been developed within type I SLCA. This paper takes on the task of exploring the evaluation methods used in type I SLCA methods.

Methods

In order to tackle this work, a critical literature review was undertaken, covering a total of 32 reviewed articles, ranging from 2006 to 2015. Those articles have been selected for they make explicit reference to type I, performance reference points (PRPs), corporate behavior assessment, and social performance assessment or if their assessment methods generated a result located at the same point as the inventory data, with regards to the impact pathway. The selected articles were analyzed with a focus on the inventory data used, the aggregation of inventory data on the functional unit, and the type of characterization and weighting methods used. This analysis allowed to make explicit the often implicit logic underlying the evaluation methods and to identify the common denominators of type I SLCA.

Results and discussion

The analysis highlighted the multiplicity of approaches that are comprised within type I SLCA today, both in terms of the data collected (in particular, its positioning along the impact pathway); the presence of some optional steps, such as the scaling of inventory data on the functional unit (FU); and in terms of the different characterization and weighting steps. With regards to data collection, this review has highlighted that the furthest indicators are positioned along the impact pathway, the hardest it is to justify the link between them and the activities of companies in the product system. The analysis also suggested that an important differentiating factor among type I SLCA methods lies in “what the inventory data is assessed against” at the characterization step and how it is ultimately weighted. To illustrate this, a typology of six characterization methods and five types of weighting methods was presented.

Conclusions

It is interesting to identify which approaches are most appropriate to respond to the various questions that SLCA aims to respond to. A question that arises is what approaches are most likely to tell us anything about the impact of a product system on social well-being? This question is particularly relevant in the absence of well-documented impact pathways between activities within product systems and impact on social well-being.

Keywords

Characterization methods Literature review Social LCA Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) Social impact assessment methods Social performance assessment Socio-economic impact assessment Type I Well-being 

References

  1. Agéco (2013) Environmental and socioeconomic life cycle assessment of the Quebec auto parts recycling sector Montreal, L’Association des recycleurs de pièces d’autos et de camions inc (ARPAC). 187 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews E, Lesage P, Benoît C, Parent J, Noris G, Revéret J-P (2009) Life cycle attribute assessment. J Ind Ecol 12(4):565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013) Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):1106–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaulieu L, Russo Garrido S, Hamaide F, Revéret J-P (2014) From potential hotspots identification to social issues prioritization. Social LCA in progress. C. Macombe et D. Loeillet. Montpellier, CIRAD, p 115–122Google Scholar
  5. Benoît Norris C, Norris GS, Aulisio Cavan D (2013) Social hotspots database—supporting documentation. New Earth, 81 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Benoît C, Cavan DA, Norris GA (2012) Strawberry yogurt social scoping prototype—report product category 7, Arizona State University and University of ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoît-Norris C (2014) Data for social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:261–265Google Scholar
  8. Blok K, Huijbregts M. Roes L, van Haaster B, Patel M, Hertwich E, Wood R, Hauschild MZ, Sellke P, Antunes P, Hellweg S, Ciroth A, Harmelink M (2013) Prosuite: handbook on a novel method for the sustainable impact assessment of new technologies. Brussles, Report prepared within the EC 7th framework project PROSUITE (Development and application of a standardized methodology for the PROspective SUstaInability assessment of TEchnologies), 62 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouzid A, Padilla M (2014) Analysis of social performance of the industrial tomatoes food chain in Algeria. Mediterranean journal of economics, agriculture and environment. Rev Méditerr Économie, Agric Environ 13(1):p60–p65Google Scholar
  10. 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 Envir 17(3):579–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CIRAIG–AGÉCO (2011) Analyse du cycle de vie environnemental et social de deux options de gestion de matériel informatique en fin de vie. Recyc-Québec, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook: consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. Federal Public Planning Service Sustainable Development, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fontes J (2014) Handbook for product social impact assessment roundtable for product social metrics. 137pGoogle Scholar
  17. Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment and Social Life Cycle Assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):155–171Google Scholar
  18. Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(3):620–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kruse SA, Flysjö A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz AJ (2008) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehmann A, Russi D, Bala A, Finkbeiner M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2011) Integration of social aspects in decision support, based on life cycle thinking sustainability. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(4):562–577Google Scholar
  22. Manhart A, Griesshammer R (2006) Social impacts of the production of notebook PCs, Öko-Institute e.VGoogle Scholar
  23. Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social Life Cycle Assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(7):1386–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muňoz P, Antón A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the Social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macombe C, Lagarde V, Falque A, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Gillet C, Loeillet D (2013) Social LCAs. Socio-economic effects in value chains. FruiTrop Journal Thema Collection, published by CIRAD. 172 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Morberg Å, Picha M, Erlandsson-Segertröm B, Karagianni C, Malmodin J, Wiklund J (2009) Using a life-cycle perspective to assess potential social impacts of ICT services—a pre-study Stockholm, KTH Centre for Sustainable Communications. 44pGoogle Scholar
  27. Norris GA (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles—towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(S1):97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Reveret J-P (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parent J, Cucuzella C, Reveret J-P (2012) Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess Published online: 09 August 2012. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0485-9
  30. Prakash S, Manhart A, Amoyaw-Osei Y, Agyekum OO (2010) Socio-economic assessment and feasibility study on sustainable e-waste management in Ghana Freiburg, Öko-Institut eV in cooperation with Ghana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) & Green Advocacy Ghana, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, VROM-Inspectorate. 110 pGoogle Scholar
  31. Quantis, Agéco, Ciraig (2012) Environmental and socioeconomic life cycle analysis of Canadian milk. Montréal. 253 pGoogle Scholar
  32. Revéret J-P, Parent J (2012) L’analyse sociale et socioéconomique du cycle de vie des produits: états des lieux et défis. Développement durable et économie environnementale régionale. p 79–90Google Scholar
  33. Revéret J-P, Couture J-M, Parent J (2015) Socioeconomic LCA of milk production in Canada. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes. S.S. Muthu. Singapore, Springer Science + Business Media. p 25–69Google Scholar
  34. Sanchez Ramirez PKS, Petti L, Haberland NT, Lie Ugaya CM (2014) Subcategory assessment method for Social Life Cycle Assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1515–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsurukawa N, Prakash S, Manhart A (2011) Social impacts of artisanal cobalt mining in Katanga, Democratic Republic of Congo Freiburg, Öko-Institut eV. 75 pGoogle Scholar
  36. UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. Edited by Benoit C, Mazjin B, UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. WBCSD (2013) Measuring socio-economic impact—a guide for business. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 39 pGoogle Scholar
  38. Weldegiogis GS, Franks DM (2014) Social dimensions of energy supply alternatives in steelmaking: comparison of biomass and coal production scenarios in Australia. J Clean Prod 84:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu SR, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment revisited. Sustainability 6(7):4200–4226CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Russo Garrido
    • 1
  • Julie Parent
    • 2
  • Luce Beaulieu
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Revéret
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CIRAIG-UQAM, International Life Cycle ChairMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Groupe AGECOMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations