Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA
- 553 Downloads
Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is developing rapidly and represents a valuable complement to other life cycle methods. As methodological development continues, a growing number of case studies have noted the need for more scientific rigor in areas like data collection, allocation methods, and incorporation of values and cultural context. This work aims to identify opportunities, especially in the social sciences, to improve rigor in SLCA.
A review of existing literature and tools is based on both hand coding of the SLCA literature as represented in Web of Science’s “All Collections” database and on computer-aided review of the SLCA and other related literatures (including social impact assessment (SIA), life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), and corporate social responsibility (CSR)) using a text mining technique known as topic modeling. Rapid diagnosing of potentially valuable contributions from literatures outside of SLCA through computer-aided review led to more detailed, manual investigation of those literatures for further insight.
Results and discussion
Data collection can benefit from increased standardization and integration with social science methods, especially frameworks for surveys and interviews. Sharing examples of questionnaires and ethics committee protocols will likely improve SLCA’s accessibility. SIA and CSR also represent empirical data sources for SLCA. Impact allocation techniques can benefit from reintegration with those in ELCA, in particular by allocating (when necessary) at facility—rather than product—level. The focus on values and subjectivity in SLCA is valuable not only for SLCA but also for other methods, most notably ELCA. Further grounding in social science is likely to improve rigor in SLCA.
SLCA is increasingly robust and contributing to interdisciplinary discussions of how best to consider social impacts. This work makes three major recommendations for continued growth: first, that SLCA standardize human subject research used for data gathering; second, that SLCA adopt allocation techniques from ELCA; and third, that SLCA continue to draw on social science and other literatures to rigorously include value systems.
KeywordsLife cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) Social impact assessment (SIA) Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) Social science Values
The contributions of several anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-114747. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
- Benoît C, Mazijn B, Andrews ES (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 ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
- Blei D, Lafferty J (2006) Correlated Topic Models. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst 18:147Google Scholar
- Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022Google Scholar
- Bouzid A, Padilla M (2014) Analysis of Social Performance of the Industrial Tomatoes Food Chain in Algeria. New Medit: Mediterr J Econ, Agric Environ 13:60–65Google Scholar
- Choi BC, Pak AW (2005) A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev Chronic Dis 2:A13Google Scholar
- Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Groves RM, Fowler, FJ, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2011) Survey Methodology. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
- Hayashi K, Sato M, Darnhofer I, Grötzer M (2010) Farmers’ responses to social impact indicators for agricultural and community practices: a case study of organic rice production in Japan. 9th European IFSA Symposium, Vienna, pp 4–7Google Scholar
- Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Strano A, Gulisano G (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment in a constructivist realism perspective: a methodological proposal. In: Macombe C and Loeillet D (eds). Social LCA in progress. Pre-Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar in Social LCA. Montpellier, France, November 19–21 2014, ISNN 1256–5458Google Scholar
- ISO 14040:2006 (2006) Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles and framework. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=37456. Accessed 28 June 2015
- ISO 14044:2006 (2006) Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Requirements and guidelines. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=38498. Accessed 28 June 2015
- Jockers M (2011) The LDA Buffet Is Now Open; Or, Latent Dirichlet Allocation for English Majors. Stanford University. https://web.stanford.edu/group/ats/cgi-bin/hivetalkin/?p=2011. Accessed 26 May 2015
- Johnson TP, O’Rourke D, Burris J, Owens L (2002) Culture and survey nonresponse. Survey nonresponse 55–69Google Scholar
- Lindblom CE, Cohen DK (1979). Usable knowledge: social science and social problem solving. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
- McCallum AK (2002) MALLET: a Machine Learning for Language Toolkit. http://mallet.cs.umass.edu. Accessed 26 May 2015
- O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:97–104Google Scholar
- Sen A (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Vavra J, Bednarikova M (2013) Application of social life cycle assessment in Metallurgy. METAL 2013: 22nd International Conference on Metallurgy and MaterialsGoogle Scholar