Back to basics—the school lunch

SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS

Abstract

Purpose

The effort to develop social life cycle assessment (Social LCA) along the same principles and procedural steps as LCA has met serious challenges when characterizing social impacts as originating from product life cycles and attributing them to unit processes. This article puts the resulting life cycle CSR and its focus on the production phase on hold. It suggests a research design to support consumers in choosing between, e.g. alternative school lunch scenarios, according to their subjective social and cultural values.

Methods

Inspired by Reverse LCA, the focus of life cycle CSR on the production phase is shifted to the consumer need. Reverse LCA claims that starting with the need will point to alternative innovative systems of products and services to fulfil that need. The assessment to identify the system with the minimal environmental impact can then be established in reverse. The concept of foodscape captures the school lunch as a specific configuration of food products, social practices and values. The concept of human well-being defined by Amartya Sen and elaborated by Martha C. Nussbaum helps to characterize the needs involved in the school lunch. The assessment is performed as action research by the community of stakeholders involved and using an interactive scenario analysis.

Results and discussion

As a first step, the outline research design acknowledges that schools embody a distinct and articulate stakeholder community advocating multidimensional needs, the fulfilment of which is continuously evaluated for prioritization and optimization. Second, three preliminary school lunch scenarios are identified. The concept of foodscape is introduced to clarify and characterize dimensions, assumptions and fundamental choices for each scenario. As a third step, stakeholders evaluate and profile each scenario in terms of valuable functionings for human well-being. Furthermore, stakeholders review documentation on environmental and social impacts throughout the earlier stages of the product life cycles involved. The targeted outcome of stakeholders’ negotiation is a decision on a particular configuration, for which an action plan detailing the pathway to the desired school lunch scenario is adopted.

Conclusions

The introduction of the concepts of foodscape and human well-being supports the argument that social LCA needs a strong foundation in social theory for the specific domain to be assessed and for the overall conceptualization of social impacts. Dialogues with social scientists are needed, especially with those who apply a life cycle perspective.

Keywords

Consumption scenarios Foodscapes Human well-being Reverse LCA Social life cycle assessment 

References

  1. Arvidsson R, Baumann H, Hildenbrand J (2015) On the scientific justification of the use of working hours, child labour and property rights in social life cycle assessment: three topical reviews. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(2):161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baungaard Rasmussen L (2011) Facilitating Change: Using Interactive Methods in Organizations, Communities and Networks. Kgs. Lyngby, Polyteknisk ForlagGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoît NC, Revéret J-P (2015) Partial Organization and Social LCA Development: The Creation and Expansion of an Epistemic Community, Social life cycle assessment: An insight. ed. Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoît C, Mazijn B, Stuart ES, United Nations Environment Programme (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, Social and socio-economic LCA guidelines complementing environmental LCA and life cycle costing, contributing to the full assessment of goods and services within the context of sustainable development. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  5. Brent AC, Labuschagne C (2007) An appraisal of social aspects in project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 18(4):413–26Google Scholar
  6. Clift R (2014) Social life cycle assessment: What are we trying to do? Proceedings from the 4th International seminar in Social LCA. Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. Comim F, Qizilbash M, Alkire S (2008) The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graedel TE (1997) Designing the perfect green product: SLCA in reverse. Paper presented at Electronics and the Environment, 1997. Proceedings of the 1997 I.E. International SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  9. Grießhammer R, Benoit C, Dreyer LC, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Methot A-L, Weidema B (2006) Feasibility Study: Integration of Social Aspects into LCA”. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen, Mette Weinreich, and Heine Kristensen, Niels. 2013. The Institutional Foodscapes as a Sensemaking Approach towards School Food. Making sense of consumption: selections from the 2nd Nordic Conference on Consumer Research 2012, 299–312Google Scholar
  11. Jæger B, Andersen I-A (2002) Danish participatory models scenario workshops and consensus conferences. Pantaneto Forum, Pantaneto Forum 6Google Scholar
  12. Jørgensen A (2013) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jungk R, Müllert N (1987) Institute for Social Inventions, Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. Institute for Social Inventions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Macombe C (2013) Social LCAs: Socio-Economic effects in Value Chains. Cirad, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  15. Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Loeillet D (2010) Reporting the Social Indicators to the Functional Unit for Food Product, Theoretical contribution regarding the collection of relevant data. Paper presented at 7th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. Universita degli studi di Aldo Moro, Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: The SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McAloone T, Bey N (2009) Miljøstyrelsen, Environmental improvement through product development. A guide. Environmental Protection Agency, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  18. Mikkelsen BE (2011) Images of foodscapes: introduction to foodscape studies and their application in the study of healthy eating out-of-home environments. Perspect Public Heal 131(5):209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Musaazi MK, Mechtenberg AR, Nakibuule J, Sensenig R, Miyingo E, Makanda JV, Hakimian A, Eckelman MJ (2015) Quantification of social equity in life cycle assessment for increased sustainable production of sanitary products in Uganda. J Clean Prod 96:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nussbaum M (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Fem Econ 9(2–3):2–3Google Scholar
  21. Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rifkin J (2014) The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Sen A (1999) Development as Freedom. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Sen A (2004) Capabilities, lists, and public reason: continuing the conversation. Fem Econ 10(3):77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weingaertner C, Moberg Å (2014) Exploring social sustainability: learning from perspectives on urban development and companies and products. Sustain Dev 22(2):122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zamagni A (2010) Inclusion of economic mechanisms into life cycle analysis: start with “framing the question”. Integr Environ Assess Manage 6(4):780–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):596–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNEP-DTU Partnership, DTU Management EngineeringTechnical University of Denmark, UN CityCopenhagen ØDenmark

Personalised recommendations