How to define the system in social life cycle assessments? A critical review of the state of the art and identification of needed developments

  • Ana-Maria Dubois-Iorgulescu
  • Anna Karin Elisabeth Bernstad Saraiva
  • Rogerio Valle
  • Leonardo Mangia Rodrigues
SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS

Abstract

Purpose

This literature review aims at fostering the use of social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and improving the robustness of the method by focusing on one primordial element: system boundaries definition. Our goal is to provide an overview of methods used to create the product system and the cut-off criteria applied.

Methods

We analyse SLCA case studies from peer-reviewed journals and some academic reports published from 2009 until 2015. Amongst the 33 SLCAs identified, 9 are within an life cycle sustainability assessment. We analyse how authors conceptually define the product system and the implications of their different approaches. We also classify and describe the criteria used for cut-off and their justification.

Results and discussion

We find that two conceptual views of the system exist, and often coexist, in reviewed case studies; one technical approach, defining life cycle stages in terms of technical processes related by material or energy flows, and one description of the system in socio-economic terms, selecting organisations as system units. Those organisations are where technical processes take place or are the economic actors whose functioning is influenced through market and economic ties by the life cycle of the product (consequentially indirect sources of social impacts). Cut-off criteria are applied in 15 cases. They are mostly qualitative, have a high variability in their justifications and are distributed in four groups: social significance, empirical motivations, identical elements and significant dependency and decision relevancy. Two articles conduct a sensitivity analysis, showing radically different results depending on the conceptual view leading the design of the system. Finally, we see that the conceptual view of the system and applied cut-off criteria depend on the objectives of the assessment, the targeted audience and the methodology chosen to conduct the SLCA.

Conclusions

Differing conceptual approaches of the system and very diverse cut-off criteria used are identified in SLCA case studies. This variability allows a better adaptation of studied systems to the objectives of the assessments. Justifications for system boundaries setting is many times lacking or not systematised. A more rigorous documentation of system boundaries setting in future case studies and research is recommended.

Keywords

Cut-off Sensitivity analysis SLCA Social LCA System boundaries System description 

References

  1. Albrecht S, Brandstetter P, Beck T, Fullana-i-Palmer P, Grönman K, Baitz M, Fischer M (2013) An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(8):1549–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews E, Lesage P, Benoît C, Parent J, Norris G, Revéret JP (2009) Life cycle attribute assessment. J Ind Ecol 13(4):565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013) 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):1116–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Merli R (2013) Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability 5(8):3275–3287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basurko OC, Mesbahi E (2014) Methodology for the sustainability assessment of marine technologies. J Clean Prod 68:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 Ind Ecol 17(4):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, UNEP, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang YJ, Schau EM, Finkbeiner M (2012) Application of life cycle sustainability assessment to the bamboo and aluminum bicycles in surveying social risks of developing countries. In Proceedings from the 2nd Worls Sustainability Forum, 1-30th of November, 2012Google Scholar
  9. Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2014) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technol Environ 17(3):579–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an Ecolabeled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. Berlin: ISBN, 978–1Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Dreyer L, Hauschild M (2006) Scoping must be done in accordance with the goal definition, also in social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):87–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010a) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010b) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(4):385–402CrossRefGoogle 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(1):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G (2014) Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy 73:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekvall T, Weidema B (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Ccycle Assess 9(3):161–171Google Scholar
  19. Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Saez AR, Benhmad F (2012) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):490–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Méthot A, Weidema BP (2006) Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. Öko-Institut, FreiburgGoogle 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. ILCD (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook. General guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  25. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization of Standardization, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization of Standardization, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jørgensen A, Hauschild M, Jørgensen MS, Wangel A (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kruse SA, Flysjö A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz AJ (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lagarde V, Macombe C (2012) Designing the social life cycle of products from the systematic competitive model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laurent A, Clavreul J, Bernstad A, Bakas I, Niero M, Gentil E, ChristensenTH, Hauschild MZ (2014) Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems–Part II: Methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manag 34(3): 589–606Google Scholar
  32. Lehmann A, Russi D, Bala A, Finkbeiner M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2011) Integration of social aspects in decision support, based on life cycle thinking. Sustainability 3(4):562–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Luthe T, Kägi T, Reger J (2013) A systems approach to sustainable technical product design. J Ind Ecol 17(4):605–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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 69:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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. In Proceedings from the 7th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  39. Moriizumi Y, Matsui N, Hondo H (2010) Simplified life cycle sustainability assessment of mangrove management: a case of plantation on wastelands in Thailand. J Clean Prod 18(16):1629–1638Google Scholar
  40. Norris CB, Aulisio D, Norris GA, Hallisey-Kepka C, Overakker S, Niederman GV (2011) A social hotspot database for acquiring greater visibility in product supply chains: overview and application to orange juice. In: Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management. Springer Netherlands, pp 53–62Google Scholar
  41. Norris CB, Aulisio D, Norris GA (2012a) Working with the social hotspots database-methodology and findings from 7 social scoping assessments. In Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 581–586Google Scholar
  42. Norris CB, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012b) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4(9):1946–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Norris CB, Norris GA, Aulisio D (2014) Efficient assessment of social hotspots in the supply chains of 100 product categories using the social hotspots database. Sustainability 6(10):6973–6984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paragahawewa U, Blackett P, Small B (2009) Social life cycle analysis (S-LCA): some methodological issues and potential application to cheese production in New Zealand. Report by AgresearchGoogle Scholar
  45. 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(2):164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ren J, Manzardo A, Mazzi A, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2015) Prioritization of bioethanol production pathways in China based on life cycle sustainability assessment and multicriteria decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(6):842–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spillemaeckers S, Vanhoutte G (2004) Final report: ecological, social and economic aspects of integrated product policy—integrated product assessment and the development of the label ‘sustainable development’ for products. CP/20. Scientific support plan for a sustainable development policy (SPSD II). Belgian Science Policy, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  48. Stamford L, Azapagic A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK. Int J Energ Res 36(14):1263–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swarr TE (2009) Societal life cycle assessment—could you repeat the question? Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(4):285–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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 Recy 95:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weidema BP (2005) ISO 14044 also applies to social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):381–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valdivia S, Ugaya CM, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio + 20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1673–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Villanueva A, Wenzel H (2007) Paper waste–recycling, incineration or landfilling? A review of existing life cycle assessments. Waste Manag 27(8):S29–S46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6(7):4200–4226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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

  • Ana-Maria Dubois-Iorgulescu
    • 1
  • Anna Karin Elisabeth Bernstad Saraiva
    • 1
  • Rogerio Valle
    • 1
  • Leonardo Mangia Rodrigues
    • 1
  1. 1.SAGE/COPPE (Production Management Advanced Systems Lab)Federal University of Rio de Janeiro UFRJRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations