Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative product social impact assessment

  • Marzia Traverso
  • Lynn Bell
  • Peter Saling
  • João Fontes



The main goal of this paper is to present the feasibility of the quantitative method presented in the Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) handbook throughout a case study. The case study was developed to assess the social impacts of a tire throughout its entire life cycle. We carried out this case study in the context of the Roundtable for the Product Social Metrics project in which 13 companies develop two methodologies, a qualitative and a quantitative one, for assessing the social impact of product life cycle.


The quantitative methodology implemented for assessing the social impact of a Run On Flat tire mounted in a BMW 3 series consists of 26 indicators split in three groups. Each group represents a stakeholder group. Primary data of the quantitative indicators were collected along the product life cycle of the Run On Flat by involving the companies, which owned the main steps of the product life cycle. Throughout this case study, an ideal/worst-case scenario was defined for the distance-to-target approach to compare the social performances of more products when they are available.

Results and discussion

The implementation of the PSIA quantitative method to a Run On Flat illustrated the necessity to have a referencing step in order to interpret the results. This is particularly important when the results are used to support decision-making process in which no experts are involved. It frequently happens in a big company where the management level has to take often decisions on different topics. Reference values were defined using ideal or worst-case-target scenarios (Fontes et al. 2014). For those topics where it was possible, an ideal/ethical scenario was defined, e.g., 0 h of child labor per product. In other cases, we defined a worst-case scenario, e.g., 0 training hours per product. It was then possible to interpret the results using a distance-to-target approach. A matrix was developed in the case study for identifying in which step of the product life cycle data is not available; that means we need more transparency in the supply chain.


Each value of the matrix can be compared to the ideal/worst scenario to compare the step to each other and to identify along the product life cycle which step and the relative supplier that needs further measures to improve the product performance. Furthermore, a quantitative value for each indicator related to the product life cycle is calculated and compared with the ideal/worst scenario. The case study on Run On Flat represents the first implementation of the quantitative method of PSIA.


Product social impact assessment, Reference scenario, Social life cycle assessment, Stakeholder groups 


  1. Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, 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 15:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benoît-Norris C, Traverso M, Valdivia S, Vickery-Niederman G, Franze J, Azuero L, Ciroth A, Mazijn B, Aulisio D (2013) The Methodological Sheets for Social Life Cycle Assessment—a practical support to implement S-LCA of Product. Oral Presentation and proceedings of SETAC Europe 19th LCA Case Study Symposium in Rome, Italy, 11–13 November 2013Google Scholar
  3. Benoît-Norris G, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoit-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4(12):1946–1965Google Scholar
  5. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an Ecolabeled notebook—consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle, ISBN 978–1–4466-0087-0, Berlin, life cycle,, viewed March 2013
  6. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259Google Scholar
  8. Environmental management—Life Cycle Assessment—principles and framework (2006) ISO 14040. ISO, GenovaGoogle Scholar
  9. Finkbeiner M, Schau E, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2(10):3309–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fontes J, Bolhuis A, Bogaers K, Saling P, van Gelder R, Traverso M, Das Gupta J, Bosch H, Morris D, Woodyard D, Bell L, van der Merwe R, Laubscher M, Jacobs M, Challis D (2014) Handbook of Product Social Impact Assessment.
  11. Fontes et al (2006) Handbook of Product Social Impact Assessment Version 3.0 (2016). Http:// visited on 22.01.2016
  12. Goodyear Website (2016) visited on 22.01.2016
  13. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):5–16Google Scholar
  15. Klöpffer W (2003) Life-Cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159Google Scholar
  16. Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95Google Scholar
  17. 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):1581–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Antón A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69(15):34–48Google Scholar
  19. Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang J, Wolf K, Finkbeienr M (2014) Impact pathways to address social well-being and social justice in SLCA—fair wage and level of education. Sustainability 6(8):4839–4457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). Int. J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):231–237Google Scholar
  21. Ramirez P, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya C (2014) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1515–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saling P, Maisch R, Silvani M, König N (2005) Assessing the environmental-hazard potential for life cycle assessment, eco-efficiency and SEEbalance®. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012b) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1068–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012a) Life cycle sustainability dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16:680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Traverso M, Wagner V, Trouvay B, Kluge J, Geckeler F, Brattig S (2013) A comprehensive approach of sustainability assessment of product in the automobile sector: challenges and benefits. Proceeding of Life Cycle Management conference 2013, Invited as presenterGoogle Scholar
  26. Ugaya C, Brones F, Corrêa S (2011) S-LCA: preliminary results of Natura’s Cocoa soap bar. Proceedings of Life Cycle Mangement conference 2011, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  28. UNEP/SETAC (2013) The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marzia Traverso
    • 1
  • Lynn Bell
    • 2
  • Peter Saling
    • 3
  • João Fontes
    • 4
  1. 1.BMW GroupMunichGermany
  2. 2.The Goodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyAkronUS
  3. 3.BASF SE - We create chemistryLudwigshafen am RheinGermany
  4. 4.PRé SustainabilityAmersfoortNetherlands

Personalised recommendations