How to define the system in social life cycle assessments? A critical review of the state of the art and identification of needed developments
- 452 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCut-off Sensitivity analysis SLCA Social LCA System boundaries System description
- Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, UNEP, NairobiGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization of Standardization, LondonGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization of Standardization, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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