Abstract
Purpose
In social life cycle assessment (SLCA), to measure the social performance, it is necessary to consider the subcategory indicators related to each stakeholder dimension, such as workers, local community, society, consumers and value chain participants. Current methods in SLCA scientific literature consider a standard arbitrary linear score set to translate qualitative performances into a quantitative assessment for all subcategory indicators, i.e., it translate a A, B, C, D scoring into a 4, 3, 2, 1 ordinal scale. This assumption does not cover the complexity of the subcategory indicators in the social life cycle assessment phase. The aim of this paper is to set out a customized scoring and weighting approach for impact assessment in SLCA beyond the assumption of arbitrary linearity and equal weighting.
Methods
This method overcomes the linearity assumption and develops specific value functions for each subcategory indicator and an approach to establish the weighting factors between the indicators for each social dimension (workers, local community, and society). The value function and weighting factors are based on the considered opinions of SLCA experts in Québec.
Results and discussion
The results show that value functions with different shapes used to score the performance of the product within each subcategory indicator influence SLCA results and have the potential to reverse the conclusions. The customized score is more realistic than the linear score because it can better capture the complexity of the subcategory indicators based on SLCA expert judgment.
Conclusions
Our approach addresses a methodological weakness of the impact assessment phase of SLCA through a more representative performance of the potential social impacts based on the judgment of the SLCA expert rather than a simplified assumption of linearity and equal weighting among indicators. This approach may be applied to all types of product systems.
Recommendations
The value functions and weighting factors cannot be generalized for all cases and the proposed approach must be adapted for each study. We stopped at the aggregation of the subcategory indicators based on expert judgment at the stakeholder level. If a complete aggregation in a single score is required, we recommend developing a framework that accounts for the value judgment of the decision-maker rather than the SLCA expert.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Life Cycle Initiative. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_SLCA.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2015
Benoit-Norris C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Praksha S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social lifecycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:156–163
Benoit-Norris C, 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 16:682–690
Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) Socializing sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle assessment. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17:579–596
Dong YH, Thomas Ng S (2015) A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1166–1180
Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97
Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 1: development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:247–259
Ekner-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspot identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:127–143
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 19:620–645
ISO 14044 (2006) International Norm ISO 14044 – Management environnemental - Analyse de cycle de vie - Exigences et lignes directrices. ISO, Switzerland
Jolliet O, Saadé M, Crettaz P, Shaked S (2010) Analyse du cycle de vie – Comprendre et realizer un écobilan, 2nd edn. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne
Jørgensen A (2013) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:296–299
Jørgensen A, Jørgensen MS (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:376–384
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 52:205–216
Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171
Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:380–388
Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Revéret JP (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
Sanchez-Ramirez PK, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML (2014) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1515–1523
Sanchez-Ramirez PK, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML (2016) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 2: application in Natura’s cocoa soap. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:106–117
Ugaya CML (2015) The social assessment of products. In: Murray J, Mcbain D, Wiedmann T (eds) The sustainability practitioner’s guide to social analysis and assessment. Commun Group, Chicago, pp 18–27
United Nations Environnement Program – UNEP (2013) The methodological sheets for sub-categories in social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Life Cycle Initiative. http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/. Accessed 20 June 2015
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 18:445–455
Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:596–598
Acknowledgements
Financial support from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes) is gratefully acknowledged (Capes scholarship / Ciências sem Fronteiras / Process no. 0415/13-8). The authors would also like to thank the International Reference Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services (CIRAIG).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 110 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
do Carmo, B.B.T., Margni, M. & Baptiste, P. Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 2007–2017 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4