Advertisement

A Review of Social Life Cycle Assessment Methodologies

  • Yi Fan
  • Ruqun Wu
  • Jiquan Chen
  • Defne Apul
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes book series (EFEPP)

Abstract

Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is emerging as a powerful and necessary tool in sustainability science. With its great flexibility, SLCA can be applied toward quantifying social impacts on a system. However, the literature lacks a review of the current methods that hinder its applicability. This chapter provides an overview of the popular methods in SCLA, including process identifications and quantifications. Specifically, we review the four methods of Dreyer, Norris, Hunkeler, and Weidema. We found that the definition of human well-being seems to be the basis for all SLCAs. The SLCA method can effectively measure social impacts and provide a sound basis for decision-making. Case studies are included in the chapter to illustrate the applications.

Keywords

SLCA Tutorial Quantification Measurement Social indicator 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the National Science Foundation (NSF) Sustainable Energy Pathways Program for their financial support of our sustainability research in the production of thin-film solar cells from earth-abundant, environmentally benign materials. The fund is under CHE—1230246 to Yanfa Yan and others at the University of Toledo.

References

  1. Aparcana, S., & Salhofer, S. (2013). Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(5), 1106–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M., & Merli, R. (2013). Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: Methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability, 5(8), 3275–3287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bare, J. C., Hofstetter, P., Pennington, D. W., & De Haes, H. A. U. (2000). Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5(6), 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann, H., & Tillman, A. M. (2004). The Hitch Hiker’s guide to LCA, an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Sweden: Baltic University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bloch, A. (2003). Murphy’s Law. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Charles, D. (1999). Aristotle on Well-Being and Intellectual Contemplation: David Charles. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 73(1), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M., & Schierbeck, J. (2006). A framework for social life cycle impact assessment (10 pp). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M., & Schierbeck, J. (2010). Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(4), 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fava, J.A., & Society of Toxicology and Chemistry (1993). A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact asessment: February 1–7, 1992. Sandestin: SETAC.Google Scholar
  10. Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2013). Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Freudenburg, W. R. (1986). Social impact assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 451–478.Google Scholar
  13. Goedkoop, M., & Spriensma, R. (1999). The Eco-indicator 99, methodology report. A damage oriented LCIA method.” The Hague: VROM.Google Scholar
  14. Grießhammer, R., Benoît, C., Dreyer, L., Flysjö, A., Manhart, A., Mazijn, B., Méthot, L., Weidema, B. (2006). “Feasibility study: Integration of social aspects into LCA”. Retrieved September 11, https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=512499&fileOId=633083.pdf.
  15. Hunkeler, D. (2006). Societal LCA methodology and case study (12 pp). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(6), 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jørgensen, A., Bocq, A., Nazarkina, L., & Hauschild, M. (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jørgensen, A., Dreyer, L., & Wangel, A. (2012). Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(6), 828–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kraut, R. (2002). Aristotle: Political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Manik, Y., Leahy, J., & Halog, A. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(7), 1386–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norris, G. (2006). Social impacts in product life cycles—towards life cycle attribute assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(1), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Springer-Heinze, A., Hartwich, F., Henderson, J. S., Horton, D., & Minde, I. (2003). Impact pathway analysis: an approach to strengthening the impact orientation of agricultural research. Agricultural Systems, 78(2), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weidema, B. P. (2006a). The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(1), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weidema, BP (2006b). Social Impact Categories, Indicators, Characterisation and Damage Modelling. Presentation for the 29th Swiss LCA Discussion Forum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations