Analysis of the main elements affecting social LCA applications: challenges for the automotive sector

  • Laura ZanchiEmail author
  • Massimo Delogu
  • Alessandra Zamagni
  • Marco Pierini



Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) applications have been growing during the last years. Most of the scientific articles published so far have addressed the applicability of S-LCA, focusing on selecting suitable indicators, and only recently, the developments in the area of impact pathway are increasing. However, a critical analysis of how to set an S-LCA study, in particular the goal and scope and inventory phase, is missing. This article critically analyses the most important elements affecting the goal and scope and inventory phase of S-LCA, with a focus on the automotive sector, with the ultimate goal of developing a structured approach to guide practitioners in the critical application of S-LCA.


The literature review covers 67 publications from 2006 to 2015, including all the case studies published so far, to the best knowledge of the authors, in several sectors and the automotive one. The reviewed works have been structured along the key elements affecting the goal and scope and inventory phases of the S-LCA.

Results and discussion

The methodological and practical issues affecting S-LCA have been organized into a conceptual map, in which all the elements are sequentially placed. This sequence is an orderly procedure consisting of several nodes representing crucial points where a decision needs to be taken or a further reflection is necessary. The case studies of the automotive sector and the corporate-related documents have been used also for the discussion of the conceptual map nodes to identify which aspects are already covered by the literature and which ones need further research.


Facing the inventory phase of S-LCA needs also to set specific elements of the goal and scope phase which are fundamental for approaching coherently the product system at hand and for supporting the selection of stakeholders, indicators, and data. Moreover, in order to foster S-LCA applications and make it a robust decision-support tool, the authors suggest to re-define its framework and approach according to the organizational perspective, as laid down in the recent Organisation Environmental Footprint and Organizational LCA. This implies that social aspects will be evaluated both in relation to the organization behavior and to the basket of products, thus reconciling the need to keep together the conduct-of-a-company perspective, typical of social evaluations, and the product-oriented approach, inherent to the life cycle and in particular to the functional unit concept.


Automotive sector Case studies Conceptual map Organizational LCA Product LCA Social LCA 


  1. ACEA (2015a) Statistics | ACEA - European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. Accessed 16 Jul 2015
  2. ACEA (2015b) Automotive OEMs launch joint sustainability self-assessment for suppliers - ACEA - European Automobile Manufacturer’s Association. Accessed 7 May 2015
  3. Alves C, Ferrão PMC, Silva AJ, et al. (2010) Ecodesign of automotive components making use of natural jute fiber composites. J Clean Prod 18:313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? J IndEcol 17:517–527Google Scholar
  5. Beaulieu L, Russo-Garrido S, Hamaide F, Revéret J-P (2014) From potential hotspots identification to social issues prioritization. Proceedings of the 4th Int.Semin. Soc. LCA, 19–21 November Montpellier, France,pp 115–122Google Scholar
  6. Bein T, Mayer D, Hagebeuker L, Bachinger A, Bassan D, Pluymers, B, Delogu M (2016) Enhanced Lightweight Design – First Results of the FP7 Project ENLIGHT. Proceedings of 6th Transport Research Arena, 18-21 April,Warsaw, PolandGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoît Norris C, Ausilio D, Hallisey-Kepka C, et al (2012) Social Scoping Prototype Report Product Category 7 Strawberry YogurtGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoît Norris C, Norris GA (2014) Can conducting a social LCA helps meeting major social responsibility standards requirements? Proceedings of the 4th Int.Semin. Soc. LCA, 19- 21November, Montpellier, France, pp 81–89Google Scholar
  9. Berzi L, Delogu M, Giorgetti A, Pierini M (2013) On-field investigation and process modelling of end-of-life vehicles treatment in the context of Italian craft-type authorized treatment facilities. Waste Manag 33:892–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berzi L, Delogu M, Pierini M, Romoli F (2016) Evaluation of the end-of-life performance of a hybrid scooter with the application of recyclability and recoverability assessment methods. Resour Conserv Recycl 108:140–155. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.013
  11. Blok K, Huijbregts M, Roes L et al (2013) A novel methodology for the sustainability impact assessment of new technologies. Report prepared within the EC 7th framework project. ProsuiteGoogle Scholar
  12. Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to socially assess biofuels: a case study of the UNEP/SETAC Code of Practice for social-economical LCAGoogle Scholar
  13. Blume T, Walther M (2013) The end-of-life vehicle ordinance in the German automotive industry—corporate sense making illustrated. J Clean Prod 56:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. BMW Group (2014) Sustainable value report. Accessed 7 May 2015
  15. Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret J-P (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Braithwaite, P (2001) Sustainability Assessment of the Development of the New X-TYPE Jaguar. SAE Technical Paper 2001–01-3767. doi: 10.4271/2001-01-3767
  17. Busset G, Belaud J-P, Montréjaud-Vignoles M, Sablayrolles C (2014) Integration of social LCA with sustainability LCA: a case study on virgin olive oil production. Proceedings of the 4th Int.Semin. Soc. LCA, 19–21 November, Montpellier, France, pp 73–80Google Scholar
  18. Capitano C, Traverso M, Rizzo G, Finkbeiner M (2010) Life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to marble products. Proceeding of Life Cycle Management Conference, 28–31 August, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Chamon M, Mauro P, Okawa Y (2008) Mass car ownership in the emerging market giants. Econ Policy 23:244–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chang Y-J, Sproesser G, Neugebauer S, et al. (2015) Environmental and social life cycle assessment of welding technologies. Procedia CIRP 26:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chatzinikolaou SD, Ventikos NP (2015) Holistic framework for studying ship air emissions in a life cycle perspective. Ocean Eng. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.05.042 Google Scholar
  22. Cichowicz J, Theotokatos G, Vassalos D (2015) Dynamic energy modelling for ship life-cycle performance assessment. Ocean Eng. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.05.041 Google Scholar
  23. Daimler (2014) Sustainability Report. Accessed 25 May 2015
  24. Dattilo CA, Delogu M, Berzi L, Pierini M (2016) A sustainability analysis for electric vehicles batteries including aging phenomena. Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering, 7–10 June, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  25. De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A, et al. (2015) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11:383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Del Duce A, Egede P, Öhlschläger G, Dettmer T, Althaus HJ, Bütler T, Szczechowicz E (2013) eLCAr Guidelines for the LCA of electric vehicles. Deliverable: D2.1 Guidebook for LCA studies in the context of e-mobilityGoogle Scholar
  27. Del Pero F, Delogu M, Pierini M, Bonaffini D (2015) Life cycle assessment of a heavy metro train. J Clean Prod 87:787–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Delogu M, Del Pero F, Romoli F, Pierini M (2015) Life cycle assessment of a plastic air intake manifold. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1429–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Delogu M, Zanchi L, Maltese S, Bonoli A, Pierini M (2016) Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of a lightweight solution for an automotive component: a comparison between talc-filled and hollow glass microspheres-reinforced polymer composites. (submitted to Journal of Cleaner Production)Google Scholar
  30. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2005) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment (10 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. EC - European Commission (2013) COM (2013) 196 final. Communication from the commission to the European parliament and the Council. Building the Single Market for Green Products Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations Building the Single Market for Green Products Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisationsGoogle Scholar
  33. EC- European Commission (2011) COM (2011) 681. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility.Google Scholar
  34. EC- European Commission (2014a) COM (2014) 14 final. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. For a European Industrial RenaissanceGoogle Scholar
  35. EC - European Commission (2014b) Directive 2014/95/EU of the European parliament and of the council - of 22 October 2014 - amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groupsGoogle Scholar
  36. Edwards KL (2004) Strategic substitution of new materials for old: applications in automotive product development. Mater Des 25:529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 18:127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G (2014) Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energ Policy 73:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Elghali L, Clift R, Sinclair P, et al. (2007) Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energ Policy 35:6075–6083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) (2015) Accessed 22 December 2015
  41. Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, et al. (2012) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. FIAT (2013) Sustainability Report at 31 december 2013. Accessed 6 Jul 2015
  43. Finkbeiner M, Hoffmann R (2006) Application of life cycle assessment for the environmental certificate of the Mercedes-Benz S-class. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:240–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322Google Scholar
  45. 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 18:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ford Motor Company (2013) Sustainability Report 2013/14. Accessed 8 June 2015
  47. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Garrido SR, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Revéret J-P (2016) A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1067-z Google Scholar
  49. Global Reporting Initiative (2015) Accessed 7 May 2015
  50. Global Reporting Initiative (2013) GRIG4 Part2 Implementation Manual. Accessed 6 July 2015
  51. GM (2014) A Drive Force, Sustainability Report 2014. Accessed 6 July 2015
  52. Golinska P, Kosacka M (2014) Environmental friendly practices in the automotive industry. In: Golinska P (ed) Environmental issues in automotive industry. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hofstetter P, Norris GA (2003) Why and how should we assess occupational health impacts in integrated product policy? Environ Sci Tech 37(10):2025–2035Google Scholar
  54. Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2013) Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:620–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jørgensen A, Dreyer LC, Wangel A (2012) Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:828–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2009) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kim HC, Wallington TJ (2013) Life cycle assessment of vehicle lightweighting: a physics-based model of mass-induced fuel consumption. Environ Sci Technol 47:14358–14366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kim I, Hur T (2009) Integration of working environment into life cycle assessment framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:290–301Google Scholar
  59. Koplin J, Seuring S, Mesterharm M (2007) Incorporating sustainability into supply management in the automotive industry—the case of the Volkswagen AG. J Clean Prod 15:1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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 14:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lagarde V, Macombe C (2013) Designing the social life cycle of products from the systematic competitive model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Larson ED (2006) A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the transport sector. Energy Sustain Dev 10:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Macombe, C (2014) Searching for social peace: a theory of justice to determine the nature of impacts in social LCA. Proceedings of the 4th Int.Semin. Soc LCA, 19- 21November, Montpellier, France, pp 56–62Google Scholar
  64. Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R (2013) Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod 52:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mancini L, Benini L, Sala S (2016) Characterization of raw materials based on supply risk indicators for Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1137-2 Google Scholar
  66. 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 18:1386–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, et al. (2014) Application challenges for the social life cycle assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Martinuzzi A, Kudlak R, Faber C, Wiman A (2011) CSR Activities and Impacts of the Automotive Sector. Res Inst Manag Sustain RIMAS Vienna Univ Econ Bus Franz Klein Gasse 1–1190 Vienna Austria 1–31Google Scholar
  69. Masoni P, Zamagni A (2011) Guidance document for performing LCA on fuel cells. Deliverable D3.3–Final guidance documentGoogle Scholar
  70. Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the S-LCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mathieux F, Froelich D, Moszkowicz P (2008) ReSICLED: a new recovery-conscious design method for complex products based on a multicriteria assessment of the recoverability. J Clean Prod 16:277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mayyas A, Qattawi A, Omar M, Shan D (2012) Design for sustainability in automotive industry: a comprehensive review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:1845–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Neugebauer S, Blanco JM, Scheumann R, Finkbeiner M (2015) Enhancing the practical implementation of life cycle sustainability assessment - proposal of a tiered approach. J Clean Prod 102:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, et al. (2014) Impact pathways to address social well-being and social justice in SLCA—fair wage and level of education. Sustainability 6:4839–4857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. NISSAN Motor Corporation (2014) Sistainability Report 2014. Accessed 8 June 2015
  76. Norris CB (2013) Data for social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Norris GA (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles—towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret J-P (2010) Impact assessment in S-LCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Peiró-Signes A, Payá-Martínez A, Segarra-Oña M-V, de-Miguel-Molina M (2014) What is influencing the sustainable attitude of the automobile industry? In: Golinska P (ed) Environmental issues in automotive industry. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Petti L, Ugaya CML, Di Cesare S (2014) Systematic review of Social-Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) case studies. Proceedings of the 4th Int.Semin. Soc. LCA, 19- 21November, Montpellier, France, pp 34–41Google Scholar
  81. PRé Sustainability (2014) Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment. Accessed 9 November 2015
  82. PSA Peugeot Citroen (2014) Corporate Social Responsability. Accessed 8 June 2015
  83. Raugei M, Morrey D, Hutchinson A, Winfield P (2015) A coherent life cycle assessment of a range of lightweighting strategies for compact vehicles. J Clean Prod 108(Part A):1168–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within S-LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Renault (2011) FLUENCE and FLUENCE Z.E. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT. Accessed 8 June 2015
  86. Reuter B, Schulz C, Schlagenhalft G, Lienkamp M (2014) Social risk analysis related to the material selection during an early stage of product development.Presentationat the 20thSETAC Europe LCA Case Study Symposium, 24–26 November, Novi Sad, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  87. Rugani B, Benetto E, Igos E, et al. (2014) Towards prospective life cycle sustainability analysis: exploring complementarities between social and environmental life cycle assessments for the case of Luxembourg’s energy system. Mater Tech 102:605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Salvado M, Azevedo S, Matias J, Ferreira L (2015) Proposal of a sustainability index for the automotive industry. Sustainability 7:2113–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Schau EM, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M (2012) Life cycle approach to sustainability assessment: a case study of remanufactured alternators. J Remanufacturing 2:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Simboli A, Taddeo R, Morgante A (2014) Analysing the development of industrial symbiosis in a motorcycle local industrial network: the role of contextual factors. J Clean Prod 66:372–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Singh, KR (2014) An approach for operationalization of social life cycle assessment in steel industry.Presentation at the 20thSETAC Europe LCA Case Study Symposium, 24–26 November, Novi Sad, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  92. Spielmann M, Scholz R (2004) Life cycle inventories of transport services: background data for freight transport (10 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sullivan JL, Burnham A, Wang MQ (2013) Model for the part manufacturing and vehicle assembly component of the vehicle life cycle inventory. J Ind Ecol 17:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012a) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1068–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012b) Life cycle sustainability dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16:680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Traverso M, Wagner V, Trouvay B et al (2013) A comprehensive approach of sustainability assessment of product in the automobile sector: challenges and benefits. Proceedings of the 6th International conference of the Life Cycle Management, 25–28 August Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  97. Umair S, Björklund A, Petersen EE (2015) Social impact assessment of informal recycling of electronic ICT waste in Pakistan using UNEP SETAC guidelines. Resour Conserv Recycl 95:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Accessed 9 November 2015
  99. UNEP/SETAC (2013) The methodological sheets for subcategories in social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). Accessed 9 November 2015
  100. UNEP/SETAC (2011) Towards a Life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Accessed 9 November 2015
  101. van Haaster B, Ramirez A, Ciroth A, Fontes J (2013) Practical Guidance Document for Social Assessments. PROSUITEproject. Accessed 7 May 2015
  102. Veldhuizen LJL, Berentsen PBM, Bokkers EAM, de Boer IJM (2015) Social sustainability of cod and haddock fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic: what issues are important? J Clean Prod 94:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vermeulen I, Block C, Van Caneghem J, et al. (2012) Sustainability assessment of industrial waste treatment processes: the case of automotive shredder residue. Resour Conserv Recycl 69:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, et al. (2012) Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:445–455. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Volkswagen (2014) Sustainability Report 2014. Accessed 8 June 2015
  106. Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6:4200–4226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zah R, Hischier R, Leão AL, Braun I (2007) Curauá fibers in the automobile industry—a sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 15:1032–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:596–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Zanchi L, Delogu M, Ierides M, Vasiliadis H (2016) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing as supporting tools for EVs lightweight design. In: Setchi R, Howlett RJ, Liu Y, Theobald P (eds) Sustainable design and manufacturing 2016. Springer International Publishing, pp. 335–348Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Zanchi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Massimo Delogu
    • 1
  • Alessandra Zamagni
    • 2
  • Marco Pierini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Ecoinnovazione srl, Spin-off ENEAPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations