The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 1514–1528 | Cite as

An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—part 1: methodology

  • Sheng-Wen Wang
  • Chia-Wei Hsu
  • Allen H. Hu



This study aims to develop a new framework of social life cycle impact assessment (SLCIA) method based on the United Nations Environment Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) Guidelines for analyzing the social impact in Taiwan, particularly in the electronics industry.


After reviewing the literature on social life cycle assessment (SLCA), we analyzed existing case studies and developed SLCIA methods based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines. We thereafter identified stakeholders, subcategories, and indicators in accordance with the current status of SLCA case studies and opinions from ten experts in the Taiwanese electronics industry. Both quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators were subsequently proposed to assess the social impact of workers in the Taiwanese electronics sector. Each indicator was given the score of 1 to 5 by classifying the social impact percentage of nine scales. To formulate an analytic framework for SLCIA, the weighting values of each subcategory and indicator were determined using the consistent fuzzy preference relations (CFPR) method.

Results and discussion

Seven subcategories and 19 qualitative and quantitative indicators of worker stakeholders for the electronics sector were identified based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines. A score of 1 to 5 is assigned to each quantitative indicator by classifying the social impact percentage of nine scales. The data obtained from companies for each quantitative indicator were subsequently transformed into social impact percentage in terms of the statistical data on social situations at the country or industry level. With regard to semi-quantitative indicators, three implementation levels of management efforts on social performance within five elements were identified. The CFPR method was then employed to determine the weights of each indicator by ten experts. Results indicated that preventing forced work practices, protecting children from having to work, and providing minimum and fair wages for workers are the three most important indicators for assessing social impact.


A new SLCIA method that incorporates both quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators was proposed for assessing social impact in the electronics sector in Taiwan. Nine quantitative indicators can be easily organized using available social data from government statistics as performance reference points (PRPs) to determine the social impact exerted by companies. The relative weights were determined to allow for an impact assessment and thus solve the limitation of their currently assumed equal weights. The proposed framework is examined to analyze the social impact of three production sites for semiconductor packaging and manufacturing in Taiwan.


Consistent fuzzy preference relations Electronics sector Social life cycle impact assessment Worker stakeholders 



The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan for financially supporting this research under grant MOST 101-2221-E-236-002-MY3.

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1114_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 36 kb)


  1. Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013a) Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):1106–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013b) Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling systems in low income countries: three Peruvian case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):1116–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Accessed May 2012
  4. Benoît C, Norris G, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg Å, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoît-Norris C, Aulisio-Cavan D, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4:1946–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan J, Pun N (2010) Suicide as protest for the new generation of Chinese migrant workers: Foxconn, Global Capital, and the State. The Asia-Pacific Journal. Available at:
  7. Chang TH, Wang TC (2009) Measuring the success possibility of implementing advanced manufacturing technology by utilizing the consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 36:4313–4320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang TH, Hsu SC, Wang TC (2013) A proposed model for measuring the aggregative risk degree of implementing an RFID digital campus system with the consistent fuzzy preference relations. Appl Math Model 37:2605–2622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen YH, Chao RJ (2012) Supplier selection using consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 39:3233–3240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabelled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. Accessed Dec 2011
  11. Connors J (2012) Industry approach to the conflict minerals legislation. 23th Annual Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference (ASMC). SEMI, IEEE 268–271Google Scholar
  12. De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A, Falcone G, Gulisano G (2015) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11(3):383–396CrossRefGoogle 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 M, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterization of social impacts in LCA. Part 1: development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagan P, Weinberg L (1999) Application of analytic hierarchy process techniques to streamlined life-cycle analysis of two anodizing processes. Environ Sci Technol 33:1495–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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(8):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekener-Petersen E, Moberg Å (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–part 2: reflections on a study of a complex product. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2013) Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauschild MZ, Dreyer LC, Jørgensen A (2008) Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective–lessons learned. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57:21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hermann BG, Kroeze C, Jawjit W (2007) Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators. J Clean Prod 15:1787–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Hsu CW, Hu AH (2009) Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. J Clean Prod 17(2):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hsu TH, Hung LC, Tang JW (2012) An analytical model for building brand equity in hospitality firms. Ann Oper Res 195(1):355–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchins MJ, Robinson S, Dornfeld D (2013) Understanding life cycle social impacts in manufacturing: a processed-based approach. J Manuf Syst 32(4):536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild MZ (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jørgensen A, Hauschild MZ, Jørgensen MS, Wangel A (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klöpffer W (2006) The role of SETAC in the definition of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuo YC, Lu ST (2013) Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. Int J Project Manage 31:602–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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(8):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lipušček I, Bohanec M, Oblak L, Stirn LZ (2010) A multi-criteria decision-making model for classifying wood products with respect to their impact on environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(4):359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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(9):940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Antón A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the social LCA of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nef (2004) Measuring social impact: the foundation of social return on investment (SROI). Accessed July 2004
  37. Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pineda-Henson R, Culaba AB, Mendoza GA (2002) Evaluating environmental performance of pulp and paper manufacturing using the analytic hierarchy process and life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 6:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Raj-Reichert G (2013) Safeguarding labour in distant factories: health and safety governance in an electronics global production network. Geoforum 44:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YearGoogle Scholar
  42. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Google Scholar
  43. Smyth R, Qian X, Nielsen I, Kaempfer I (2013) Working hours in supply chain Chinese and Thai factories: evidence from the Fair Labor Association’s “Soccer Project”. Br J Ind Relat 51(2):382–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1068–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. TSC (2013) The sustainability measurement and reporting system SMRS. Accessed July 2013
  46. UNEP (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP-SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, ParisGoogle Scholar
  47. Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J, Gasol CM (2013) Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang TC, Chen YH (2007) Applying consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership selection. Omega 35:384–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zamagni A, Feschet P, De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Buttol P (2015) Social life cycle assessment: methodologies and practice, Sustainability Assessment of Renewables-Based Products: Methods and Case Studies, pp 229–240Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institutes of Engineering TechnologyNational Taipei University of TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.National Science and Technology Center for Disaster ReductionNew Taipei CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Travel and Eco-tourismTungnan UniversityNew Taipei CityTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Business AdministrationNational Central UniversityTaoyuan CityTaiwan
  5. 5.Institute of Environmental Engineering and ManagementNational Taipei University of TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations