Analysis of human well-being as the area of protection in social life cycle assessment

Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) has been developed for almost two decades for assessing the social impacts of product life cycles. Only a limited amount of research, however, considers the full range of social sustainability that is impacted by the cause-effect relationships in the impact pathway (IP) approach in S-LCA. The aim of this study is to provide guidance on the ultimate purpose of S-LCA by presenting an up-to-date overview on human well-being (HWB). Due to the broadness of the purpose of presenting and assessing an up-to-date set of HWB components, our study was designed as a qualitative literature review. The review includes core characteristics of a qualitative systematic review, a realist review, and an umbrella review. We designed the operationalised review to result in a synthesised HWB component set and guidance on its use. In order to achieve this, we searched for theoretical lenses on how HWB component sets relate to other HWB approaches, searched for HWB component sets, and identified S-LCA relevant sustainability aspects and tested these on the component sets. The component sets were found in sustainability science, philosophy, psychology, and development studies. The study resulted in a framework that contains both a HWB component set and guidance on its use. The set consists of the five components: having a healthy life; having competencies; having influence and enjoying freedom; having a meaningful life; and enjoying fair treatment. This approach is by philosophers denoted an objective goods list, containing “goods” that are seen as intrinsic parts of HWB because they so clearly can support humans in their lives. Other philosophical perspectives suggest that either desires in choice situations impacting the objective goods or the experienced mental states resulting from the goods, ultimately matters to humans. Challenges with the goods approach are how to define a good life and to relate to actual human activity. The presented updated definition of a HWB components set and guidance on it can benefit developers and practitioners of S-LCA, and in particular the IP approach, by illustrating the scope of social sustainability and the challenge of defining it. Regarding the scope, several other social sustainability aspects than health have been shown to matter. Regarding the challenge of defining social sustainability, it remains to see what the path forward is taking this challenge into account.


Introduction
Social sustainability is considered to be a vital part of sustainability.The importance is illustrated by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN 2015).Half or more of the 17 goals can be said to address social issues.In addition, several principles, methodologies, and standards that address social sustainability issues have been developed, which can be assigned to projects (Vanclay 2003), products (UNEP 2020), and businesses (GRI 2022).Regarding products, the methodology social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) addresses social impacts from activities along product life cycles (UNEP 2020).The methodology has been under consideration and development since the late 1990s (UNEP 2009).Yet, ultimate (in the sense of being final) impacts on humans have this far only been considered to a limited degree in S-LCA (Ugaya et al. 2023).
Attention has been given to challenges regarding the assessment part of S-LCA-the social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA).Already in the 2009, guidelines on the methodology identified guidance on S-LCIA as one of the main remaining S-LCA methodological issues to overcome (UNEP 2009).Since then, a substantial amount of research has been conducted to address the issue.As a result, two main approaches have crystallised in S-LCIA, the reference scale (RS) approach and the impact pathway (IP) approach (UNEP 2020).The RS approach focuses on the conduct (i.e.performance) of producers and other actors along life cycles, and the IP approach has the ambition of addressing the ultimate social impacts on humans from activities along life cycles.For both the RS and the IP approach, the broadly agreed-on goal is to contribute to the area of protection (AoP) human well-being (HWB) (UNEP 2020).HWB definitions typically cover a broad range of aspects (Alkire 2002), as exemplified by the set of HWB components presented by Grisez et al. (1987): life; knowledge and aesthetic experience; excellence in work and play; harmony between persons; inner peace; harmony among judgements, choices, and performances; and harmony with something more-than-human.
Regarding the IP approach, the pathways developed would be expected to cover impacts on HWB in a broad sense.Recent overviews of S-LCIA, however, show that the IPs so far only cover a limited scope of HWB (cf., Sureau et al. 2020;Ugaya et al. 2023).They address impacts on health (Baumann et al. 2013;Bocoum et al. 2015;Di Cesare et al. 2017;Feschet et al. 2013;Hannouf et al. 2021;Iofrida et al. 2019;Neugebauer et al. 2014;Norris 2006;Wu et al. 2015), on economically meeting basic needs (Hunkeler 2006), on the fairness of wages (Neugebauer et al. 2017), and on the affordability of products (Musaazi et al. 2015).
Scholars have expressed an interest in using a set of HWB components or a similar conception as the AoP of S-LCA (Reitinger et al. 2011;Steen and Palander 2016;Weidema 2006), but despite this interest, questions about how specific HWB definitions are relevant or not relevant to S-LCA have only received limited attention (cf., Subramanian et al. 2018).The most ambitious treatment of HWB in relation to S-LCA can be said to be Reitinger et al.'s (2011) IP framework.The framework's AoP closely resembles the abovementioned component set by Grisez et al., and is based on Alkire's (2002) comparison from 2002 of such sets in different academic disciplines.
We identify three aspects of HWB component sets that warrant further study from an S-LCA perspective.First, the theory of philosophy on HWB (Crisp 2021) can open up for S-LCA discussions on whether HWB component sets actually represent ultimate ends.Second, a renewed search for and subsequent comparison of component sets on HWB is relevant, not least because the only identified comprehensive descriptive definition of HWB in a sustainable development context (Missimer et al. 2017b) was published after the papers of Reitinger et al. and Alkire.Third, an analysis of these component sets regarding academic origin, type of research involved, and relation to sustainability assessment aspects, such as feedback loops, can assist S-LCA developers in determining the relevance and scope of these sets.Such an analysis is found to broaden and thus complement the focus of Ugaya et al. (2023), who based an S-LCA IP evaluation on environmental life cycle assessment (E-LCA) and S-LCA literature.
The aim of this article is to present an up-to-date overview of influential conceptualisations of the HWB that S-LCA is intended to support.Based on this overview, we develop a framework on a systematically derived set of components as a starting point for addressing HWB and on how these components could be used.Such a set of components can assist S-LCA users and developers in considering a broad range of important social sustainability aspects.

Background
HWB of relevance for S-LCA has been studied both within and beyond S-LCA literature.From an overarching perspective, HWB is considered in reviews in the S-LCA field, including the 2020 S-LCA guidelines (UNEP 2020), and outside of S-LCA literature in a review in development studies by Alkire (2002).In addition, several S-LCA and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) approaches provide categories within HWB and in relation to IPs.This section outlines findings from these studies on HWB of S-LCA relevance.
Overarching perspectives on HWB in S-LCA literature are found in Subramanian et al.'s (2018) review on SLCA regarding among other AoP, Soltanpour et al.'s (2019) focus on societal processes, the treatment of AoP in the 2020 S-LCA guidelines (UNEP 2020), and Ugaya et al.'s (2023) review on S-LCA IP frameworks.Subramanian et al.'s (2018) review identified a considerable interest in defining the S-LCA AoP but limited explicit mentioning of the AoP used in the studies.Soltanpour et al. (2019) conceptually suggested a focus on societal processes at macro and meso scales as an AoP, although they recognised individual HWB as the ultimate AoP in IPs.The 2020 guidelines state that the usual definition of the S-LCA AoP is social well-being or HWB (UNEP 2020).Ugaya et al. (2023) covered 14 IP frameworks with a focus on the pathways before the AoP.Two AoPs, both aggregated, were identified: social justice and well-being.An endpoint level category is also briefly presented in the paper, based on a bottom-up synthesis and with similarities to but also considerable differences from the mentioned approach by Grisez et al. (1987).The studies on overarching HWB S-LCA perspectives illustrate the centrality of including HWB in the definition of the S-LCA AoP, that other terms are also suggested as part of the AoP, and a focus on the part of the IPs that are situated prior to the AoP.Alkire (2002) compared a range of frameworks on HWB components, in the context of development studies but covering a broad range of academic disciplines.The study concluded that the mentioned approach by Grisez et al. (1987) is sufficiently close to seven other prominent frameworks for it to be used as a standard of HWB component approaches.Alkire's paper highlights the broad support for defining HWB through a list of components.
Several AoP component sets and suggestions for how to assess them have been presented in relation to S-LCA, including Weidema's (2006) quantification of HWB, Labuschagne and Brent's (2006) definition focusing on a business and government perspective, Reitinger et al.'s (2011) assessment framework based on Grisez et al. (1987), and Steen and Palander's (2016) derivation of assessment indicators using basic needs as a starting point.Weidema (2006) presented a framework with six AoP components: life and longevity; health; autonomy; safety, security, and tranquillity; equal opportunities; and participation and influence.A quantification of the components is provided, based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which is a summation of years of well-being loss, years lost due to disability, and years of life lost.The summation uses figures from the World Health Organization for mortality and non-lethal health impacts, author defined lists for some of the other components and with each list items based on sources such as the International Labour Organization, and author estimates for some components.Weidema highlighted the challenge of the full quantification.Labuschagne and Brent (2006) reviewed "current available frameworks, social impact assessment (SIA) guidelines, corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature and guidelines, and other international guidelines" (Labuschagne and Brent 2006, 4) to arrive at a life cycle context definition of social sustainability as internal human resources, external population, macro social performance, and stakeholder participation.This definition can be seen as driven by businesses and governments and this can explain the apparent combination of ends and means.Reitinger et al. (2011) presented a model for S-LCIA largely using the AoP as the mentioned component set by Grisez et al. (1987) identity; planning; and love and attachment.The remainder of their paper focuses on listing and reasoning about satisfiers for these needs, safeguard subjects for the satisfiers, and indicators for assessing the safeguard subjects.The studies on AoP component sets illustrate the interest in using HWB component sets in an S-LCA context and the challenge of critically assessing such components while constructing and testing a complete framework.The studies also show that the development of frameworks was in particular carried out in the mid-2000s and the early 2010s.

Methods
In order to assess and synthesise sets of HWB components, a qualitative literature review was performed.We outline the overarching approach regarding type of review and research techniques in Section 2.1 and present the stepwise procedure through which the review was operationalised in Section 2.2.

Overarching approach
The review was goal-oriented, and we identified the need for it to include the following: consideration of the complexities of social sustainability, critical studies leading to the identification of a set of tentative HWB components, and a synthesis of existing approaches.These requirements could be covered by combining core aspects of different established types of review: qualitative systematic review, realist review, and umbrella review (Paré et al. 2015).In a qualitative systematic review, search queries and a qualitative analysis of identified qualitative data are used.A realist review is a means for identifying a variety of aspects of complex issues, and therefore complements a systematic review.Finally, a meta-approach of synthesising already synthesised concepts is covered by an umbrella review.
The specific technique used in the review combines stepwise snowball sampling (Coyne 1997) with systematic searches (Paré et al. 2015).In snowball sampling, the researcher benefits from known and to the study closely related information sources, and follows connections to and from these sources.This focused search strategy is useful for finding publications that search queries may not identify when broad concepts, such as HWB, guide the study.Systematic searches were in our study primarily used to facilitate the identification of potential parallel bodies of relevant literature.The searches were primarily performed in the academic database Scopus and in Google Scholar.An inclusive approach was used regarding covering different styles of spelling the search terms.In cases with a high number of documents from the searches, the number of citations was used as a criterion when further searching for key texts among the documents.A total of 115 documents, whereof 82 academic journal articles, where studied beyond abstract scanning.The final analysis covers 59 documents, whereof 38 academic journal articles.

Scope and procedure
The scope of the literature study includes a range of disciplines, and in particular sustainability science, philosophy, psychology, and development studies.Our primary starting points were as follows: key S-LCA documents on AoP, and in particular the articles by Reitinger et al. (2011) and Subramanian et al. (2018) and the 2020 S-LCA guidelines (UNEP 2020); literature on sustainability assessment (Audouin and de Wet 2012); and established global policy approaches to assessing sustainability, such as the SDGs (UN 2015).
The operationalisation of the review consists of a number of procedural steps.The steps are presented schematically in Fig. 1 and with further details described in the following: (A) A broad search related to HWB and HWB components.
The search focused on: A.1.Identification of potential theoretical lenses to relate consideration of HWB components to other approaches to HWB.A selection was here based on recent prominence in general and on S-LCA relevance by relating to cause-effect relationships in IPs.Search queries included combinations of the terms "wellbeing", "human well-being", "theor*", "concept*", and "philosophy".The theoretical lenses identified are described in Section 3.1.
A.2. Identification of approaches aspiring to support HWB.This step was highly inclusive, to both consider any potential approach for further study and because approaches not further covered in our study could lead to identifying other approaches of relevance through snowballing.Search queries included combinations of the terms "well-being", "human well-being", "social sustainability", "sustainability assessment", and "quality of life".Due to challenges in defining boundaries for many of the approaches and due to a large number of approaches, only the subset of approaches more closely related to the aim of the study and identified in step B are further described or outlined in the article.
A.3.Identification of fundamental sustainability aspects, such as rebound effects and intergenerational A.3: Identifying fundamental sustainability aspects relevant for HWB and S-LCA Fig. 1 Overview of the review's procedural steps and their interrelations.HWB = human well-being effects, of relevance when defining HWB.We identified these aspects in the literature found in step A.2 and in key sustainability publications, including in the "Brundtland report" (UN 1987) and in literature on limits to growth (e.g., Herrington 2021).The identified sustainability aspects are outlined in Section 3.3, and were further used in step B.3. (B) Further study based on selection and synthesis among the identified approaches aspiring to support HWB: B.1.Structured HWB approaches: A first selection was carried out for identifying structured HWB approaches among the approaches found in step A.2.The criteria for qualifying as a structured approach in the selection were to have a focus on a framework, categorisation, or other structured representations for addressing different HWB aspects.
B.2. HWB component approaches: Based on the results from the selection in step B.1, a second selection was performed for identifying the HWB approaches that intend to include a complete or close-to-complete group of HWB components that are final impacts rather than means that could be substituted for other means, and that are based on comprehensively documented research or reasoning.The eight selected approaches are presented in Section 3.2.Six prominent, selected approaches excluded through the selection are mentioned in Section 3.2.1.
B.3.Synthesis of systematic component approaches to HWB: From the selection in step B.2, a third selection was carried out for identifying and synthesising systematic HWB component approaches.The selection and synthesis were performed using two mappings.First, each approach was mapped according to whether and how the approach relates to the fundamental sustainability aspects identified in step A.3.Second, a mapping was performed both in order to find overlaps among the component sets and in order to create a set with a limited number of tentative HWB components.The second mapping was based on the components in the approach by Missimer et al. (2017b), as we detected large similarities between the components sets included in this mapping and thus could use one of them as a starting point.Further, this approach was the only mapped approach having, similar to S-LCA, a sustainability focus.The two mappings resulted in excluding approaches based on the second mapping and due to challenges in determining how different categories in the excluded approaches overlapped within each of these approaches.The analysis of the components in the original approaches and in the synthesis was performed qualitatively.The original approaches mostly focus on qualitatively identifying a set of HWB components, while in the case of the approach by Schwartz and colleagues a combination of quantita-tive testing and evaluation was used.We have therefore and due to the scope of our study performed a qualitative analysis.Section 3.4 presents the results from the two mappings of the identified systematic HWB component approaches.Approaches excluded in the selection are outlined in Section 3.3.(C) Creation of a framework on the set of HWB components and with guidance on using it: This step is based on the set of components identified in step B.3.We provide guidance based on both identified strengths and shortcomings of the included HWB approaches.
The strengths and shortcomings were deduced from the theoretical lenses on HWB found in step A.1 and from the first mapping in step B.3.The framework is presented in Section 3.5.

Human well-being in context
The concept HWB is in philosophy used to denote what is good for a person or what a person considers to be good (Crisp 2021).HWB is prominently theorised in contemporary philosophy (cf., Adler 2012; Crisp 2021).The central theoretical debate in this philosophy as identified by Crisp (2021) and Adler (2012) distinguishes between three perspectives on the HWB concept: choice determinants, typically referred to as desires; objectively good items; and experience, typically referred to as pleasure and displeasure, or hedonism.The choice perspective considers preference satisfaction for humans when they make choices.As a contrast, the perspective of objectively good items is about items considered to support HWB and that humans may not have enough information about to account for when making choices.The experience perspective is concerned with the perceptions humans have of their lives.To this categorisation, Crisp (2021) only identifies one potential criticism: the risk that the experience perspective can be seen as a list of aspects and thus warrant to be treated together with objectively good items, since the latter are presented as lists.Because this critique is of a formalistic nature, we deem the three categories still useful.In addition, earlier philosophical accounts by Frankena (1973) are compatible with the categorisation.Frankena identified that objective goods were seen as a middle-way for overcoming arguments between proponents for hedonism and non-hedonism views, and that objective goods can account for both hedonism and non-hedonism.In the following, we reason about these three perspectives, based on Adler's (2012) survey of philosophy literature on the topic, outline sustainability relevant matters not centrally covered in literature on the perspectives, and suggest a way for relating the three perspectives to one another.
The choice perspective on HWB has played an important role.The perspective has been dominant within economics.In addition, the view is adopted within moral philosophy.The correlation between choice determinants and ultimate HWB, however, depends on how well humans' choices are informed about the consequences of them.In the philosophy of HWB, it is considered that humans have far from full information about the consequences when making decisions.In addition, non-conscious behaviour may be even less informed by a rational overview of possible effects resulting from the behaviour.Decisions and non-conscious behaviour are however activities that do take place and therefore result in ultimate impacts on HWB.
In addition to the choice perspective, contemporary philosophers offer lists of HWB constituents that have been found to be "objective".Objective here refers to "goods" that are seen as intrinsic parts of HWB because they so clearly can support humans in their lives.A prominent objectivegoods list is the mentioned list by Grisez et al. (1987) on: life; knowledge and aesthetic experience; excellence in work and play; harmony between persons; inner peace; harmony among judgements, choices, and performances; and harmony with something more-than-human.The objective-list perspective can both assist in capturing important aspects of HWB that may not be captured by the choices driven by the desires, and assist in identifying the causes of the aggregated experience of pleasure and displeasure.We also identify an aspect of the objectively good items perspective not explicitly addressed in the reviewed literature; the choice of components to include in an objective-good list, as well as the importance for well-being of each such component, depends on what is defined as a good life.The definition of a good life can vary across space and time, making a generic definition challenging.More generally, the idea in which reality only can be accessed through a representation of it -the foundation of Western science -has been criticised by the postmodern paradigm since the 1970s (Aylesworth 2015).Acknowledging this postmodern view, definitions through words may only account for parts of what matters to humans.
Finally, HWB can be linked to experience through mental states.In many cases this link is defined as striving for positive mental states of pleasure and avoiding negative mental states of displeasure.To account for these states, concepts such as happiness and subjective HWB have been used.Considering experience may be more representative of ultimate HWB than an assessment of desires or objective goods, since the latter two may neither cover all causes of impacts on mental states, nor account for the different weights of these impacts.Assessing mental states is, however, clearly challenging and maybe only possible to a certain degree.
Based on the presentation in this section, we suggest that the three perspectives can be understood as mainly linked to one another through a few causal relationships.These relationships go from choice determinants via objective goods to experience, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Such a structure highlights the relevance of considering all of the three perspectives.The objective goods have a central role in these relationships, being more detailed and giving a more tangible descriptions than the other two perspectives, and are thus readily graspable while providing concrete guidance.These aspects of the objective goods may explain why it is more prominent than the other perspectives in S-LCA literature.Because of these aspects of the objective goods and the HWB component sets that operationalise them, such component sets are deemed a valid starting point for further consideration of the AoP in S-LCA.

Human well-being component approaches
We identified eight fully or partly systematic component approaches to HWB.Of these, we found six approaches on fully systematic component sets and two approaches on partly systematic such sets.The full set of approaches are listed in Table 1 and described further in the remainder of this sub-chapter.

Fully systematic approaches to human well-being components
The six identified systematic approaches to HWB component of S-LCA relevance were found in sustainability studies, philosophy, psychology, and development studies.
The research by Melinda Missimer and colleagues (Missimer et al. 2017a, b) is of great interest for S-LCA from an HWB perspective due to the research having its roots in sustainability studies.Their research took as its starting point the already existing framework for strategic sustainable development (FSSD) and broadly covered different strains in what may constitute the social dimension of sustainable development (Missimer et al. 2017a).The aim was to further develop the social dimension of the FSSD, making it more science-based and operational.Through a literature review, the following important aspects were identified for a socially sustainable society: trust, common meaning, diversity, capacity for learning, and capacity for self-organization.Next, Missimer et al. (2017b) identified mechanisms that could be harmful to these aspects.An iterative, participatory process was used for the identification, including a dozen workshops bringing together a large and broad selection of actors.The research identified that in a socially sustainable society, people are not subject to structural obstacles to five specific conditions.The central aspect of trust gave four of the conditions: health, influence, competence, and impartiality.The fifth condition-meaning-making-was derived from the aspect of common meaning.Remaining aspects of diversity, capacity for learning, and capacity to selforganisation were thought to be covered by one or several of the already identified conditions.
Another academic project of considerable relevance to S-LCA is the research by philosophers John Finnis and colleagues (cf.Alkire 2002;Reitinger et al. 2011) defined a set of basic goods that were found to be basic motives for human action (Grisez et al. 1987).Based on 25 years of research, the group presented seven basic goods: life; knowledge, and aesthetic experience; excellence in work and play; harmony between persons; inner peace; harmony among judgements, choices, and performances; and harmony with something more-than-human.Finnis (2011) highlighted similarities between the list and, among other, Frankena's (1973) synthesis of philosophers' lists of items that they found to be intrinsically desirable from a rational point of view, as well as Maslow's (1954) basic human needs from a psychological perspective.In S-LCA literature, the approach by Finnis and colleagues was used with some modification in the impact assessment framework presented by Reitinger et al. (2011).This use of the Finnis and colleagues approach was in turn based on an article by Alkire (2002) and its conclusion that the list of seven basic goods well aligned with other influential lists of HWB components.Within philosophy, also the capability approach is of S-LCA relevance (cf., Alkire 2002).The approach was initially developed by Amartya Sen, and is based on both philosophy and economics (Nussbaum 2015).The capability approach has since been developed further by several scholars, one of them being Marta Nussbaum.In her view, the capability approach is a human rights approach, with the goal of enabling people to function in areas of central importance, emphasising its use for political and constitutional purposes (Nussbaum 2007).She has listed ten central human capabilities.These capabilities are life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; developing ones conception of good (practical reason); affiliation (both personal and political); relationships with other species and the world of nature; play; and control over one's environment (both political and material).Nussbaum's claim is that the capability approach gives better guidance than utilitarian approaches or approaches in the classical social contract tradition.The S-LCA relevance of Nussbaum's list can be illustrated by its general agreement with the S-LCA relevant approach by Finnis and colleagues according to Alkire (2002).
In psychology, one of the approaches to be considered for S-LCA regarding HWB components is the theory of components of basic individual values by Shalom Schwartz and colleagues.The theory was developed in order to assist research on three broad questions on values (Schwartz 1992).The first question is about how shared experience -due to, among other, education, gender and unique experience -influences a person's priorities regarding values; the second question concerns how human value priorities have effects on actions, ideologies, and attitudes; and the final question is about potential differences between cultures and nations regarding how persons prioritise their values.Based on these goals, the theory was developed to include an as complete as possible set of basic values that are globally valid (Schwartz et al. 2012).The practical starting point of the research was a substantial amount of "literature on needs, social motives, institutional demands, and functional requirements of social groups" (Schwartz and Bilsky 1987, p. 551), and texts on religion and expert consultations (Schwartz 1992).The testing of the theory has been a central aspect of the research and has been performed through surveys targeting a large number of respondents who were primarily teachers in a range of countries but mainly Western ones (Schwartz 1992).Teachers were targeted because they were considered well to represent average values held in a society.The survey results support that the values suggested by the researchers are given quite similar importance ranks.A 2012 summary of the theory presents the following ten values: independent thought and action, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence, and universalism (Schwartz 2012).We find that all of the values not necessarily are endpoints.The parts of the value power that refer to controlling and dominating others and nature (Schwartz 2012) can be midpoints for selfdirection and security, and power could be considered to be the absence of destructive power from others and nature on oneself.The S-LCA relevance of the approach by Schwartz and colleagues is demonstrated by Alkire (2002) finding a close similarity between the individual values theory and the approach by Finnis and colleagues.
Another psychology-based approach of S-LCA interest is the self-determination theory (SDT) developed by Richard Ryan and Edward Deci (Deci and Ryan 2008a).Its relevance is illustrated by it being referred to as a point of comparison by the above approach by Schwarz and Bilsky (1987).In SDT, it is assumed that humans have an intrinsic motivation to grow, learn, integrate, and connect with others.The scholars summarise this motivation in three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan and Deci 2020).Autonomy is the sense of initiative and ownership in actions.Competence consists of the feeling of mastery, the ability to succeed and grow.Finally, relatedness is the sense of belonging and connection.Needs are central in the HWB literature (Alkire 2002), and thus relevant from an S-LCA perspective.
Finally, we identify an S-LCA relevant systematic component set on HWB in development studies on fundamental human needs and by Manfred Max-Neef and colleagues.Their identification of these needs was part of work aimed to "substantially contribute to the construction of a new paradigm of development, less mechanistic and more humane" (Max-Neef 1991, p. xii).The work was carried out in 1985-1986 as a close collaboration over 18 months between professionals in a range of Latin American countries, Sweden and Canada.The nine needs identified are subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity, and freedom.The S-LCA relevance is demonstrated by Alkire (2002) finding a close similarity between the fundamental human needs and the approach by Finnis and colleagues.

Partly systematic approaches to human well-being components
The two identified partly systematic approaches to HWB components of S-LCA relevance were found in the development studies area.The approaches define components based on a large amount of systematic research, but compared to the approaches in the previous section, these two approaches have less clarity regarding and less focus on the structure across the components and sub-components.One of the relevant approaches was found in the dimensions of poverty that are important to poor people in a study based on documents by Narayan and colleagues (Narayan et al. 2000b).Because Alkire (2002) found this research to align well with the above outlined fully systematic approaches, the claim of them being universal is supported by the research by Narayan and colleagues.The study is based on 81 Participatory Poverty Assessment reports by the World Bank and thereby covers discussions with more than 40,000 poor persons.The study focused on capturing how the poor characterise poverty, and therefore prioritised reports with more focus on open-ended methods.
Connected to the study of Participatory Poverty Assessment reports by the World Bank, Narayan and colleagues addressed dimensions of poverty that are important to poor people based on field studies (Narayan et al. 2000a).The aim of the study was to try to present a new perspective of HWB: how the poor see it.The S-LCA relevance is illustrated by Alkire (2002) finding this research to align well with the above outlined fully systematic approaches.Accounts of more than 20,000 persons in 1999 in 23 countries were synthesised.The selected countries seem representative of countries with large-scale poverty globally at the time of the study.Methodologically, a participatory approach was used, including techniques such as drawing and ranking.The findings are captured in the following foreword statement: "Poor people care about many of the same things all of us care about: happiness, family, children, livelihood, peace, security, safety, dignity, and respect" (Narayan et al. 2000a, p. xv).

Other structured approaches to human well-being
A number of other structured approaches to HWB were considered.They have not been included in the synthesis due to one or more of the following factors: they combine ends and substitutable means, and/or research backing the approach is only to a limited extent, or not at all, described.An example is the SDGs.A range of the SDGs are clearly candidates for being means for an end, such as the end expressed in SDG 3 on good health and well-being; SDG 1 on no poverty, SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation, SDG 13 on climate change, and SDG 16 on life on land (cf., UN 2015).The SDGs also represent a case where the research and reasoning behind the categorisation is not readily available or linked to in core documentation (cf., UN 2015).Determining whether an approach should be included or not may be difficult, but in the following cases, it was quite clear.Raworth's (2017) doughnut economy model, the SDGs (UN 2015), the country rankings by life evaluations in the World Happiness Report as of the 2023 report (Helliwell et al. 2023), the Human Development Index introduced in 2010 (UNDP 2010), the HWB approach in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Alcamo 2003), and the method social impact assessment (Vanclay 2003;Vanclay et al. 2015).

Well-being components from a sustainability science perspective
Based on key publications on sustainability science generally (e.g., UN 1987UN , 2015)), S-LCA (Schaubroeck and Rugani 2017;UNEP 2009UNEP , 2020)), and the six selected approached to systematic HWB components (e.g.Finnis 2011;Max-Neef 1991;Missimer et al. 2017a, b;Nussbaum 2015;Ryan and Deci 2020;Schwartz 2012), a range of aspects to evaluate the approaches were identified.The aspects cover both general scientific soundness, including transparency, and specific sustainability challenges.Aspects on component definition, scope, and features were selected for further analysis of the six approaches.
Regarding scope, level of completeness, whether universality is claimed, whether endpoints are considered, changes in the component set, and research process were considered.The endpoint aspect relates to the ambition of S-LCA to consider ultimate impacts on humans, in practice using the IP approach.Changes over time relates to the importance of the intergenerational aspect in sustainability.Research process includes consideration of the degree to which different individuals, cultures, and times are represented, the types of and amount of data sources, and collection and analysis approaches.
Regarding features, potential overlap between components, interdependency between components, and whether the components are seen as forming a hierarchy were identified as central issues.

Well-being components analysis
The overview of sustainability science aspects and component similarities across the six fully systematic approaches to HWB components is presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively and commented on in the following.Regarding sustainability science aspects, we identify patterns regarding scope, rigour, and additional differences across the six approaches.The scope is comprehensive and universal or near-universal according to the claims in all cases, but limited to self-determined aspects of life in the Ryan and Deci (2020) approach and to a minimally decent human life in the Nussbaum (2015) approach.In addition, a majority of the six approaches have been developed through substantial amounts of systematic research.Regarding further differences, some approaches explicitly mention that components may change, have interrelations, and be of different prominence, while the other approaches do not explicitly address these issues.
Regarding similarities and differences across the six HWB component approaches, they were found largely to address the same or similar aspects.The exception is the Ryan and Deci (2020) approach, with its broad but in comparison limited scope of HWB aspects.

A framework on using human well-being components
Combining the synthesis of the six HWB component approaches with the results from mapping them onto sustainability science aspects and the philosophy on HWB, we have distilled a framework that puts the five synthesised components in a context for further consideration and application, as shown in Table 4.A discussion on practical opportunities for using the framework is presented in the next section.

Using the framework
The framework presented in this paper is designed to be a general starting point for considering assessing sustainability in and beyond S-LCA.Earlier research by Weidema (2006) illustrates the challenges in quantifying impacts on social sustainability and in particular on aspects besides healthbased issues.The most challenging aspects to assess in Weidema's framework, based on the coarse level of assessment and the degree of estimation, are unequal opportunities and participation restrictions.Besides these aspects, the framework account only to a limited degree for the aspects having abilities and having a meaningful life, included in the framework presented here.In addition, the frameworks and reviews of social sustainability assessments by Labuschagne and Brent (2006), Weidema (2006), Reitinger et al. (2011), andSteen andPalander (2016) have focused on shorter chains of causeeffect chains, and often with each chain passing through the same intermediary steps.The paper by Schaubroeck and Rugani (2017), however, suggests complicated and iterative relationships between social, environmental, and economic  Grisez et al. (1987), c Nussbaum (2007, p. 21), d Nussbaum (2007, p. 22), e Nussbaum (2007), f Schwartz et al. (2012), g Schwartz et al. (2012, p. 3), h Schwartz (1992), i Schwartz and Bilsky (1987), j Schwartz and Bilsky (1990), k Ryan and Deci (2004, p. 6), l Deci and Ryan (2008a), m Deci and Ryan (1985), n Ryan and Deci (2004), o Deci and Ryan (2008b), p Max-Neef (1991, p. xii), q Max-Neef (1991, p. 30), and r Max-Neef (1991) sustainability.The challenge becomes even larger when considering the already demanding complexity of the existing S-LCA approaches, as illustrated by Lindkvist and Rydberg (2020) regarding the use of S-LCA in business, government agencies, and research institutes in Sweden.It is difficult within the scope of our study to indicate wheter certain of the presented HWB components are more challenging to operationalise than others.In general, considerable challenges may exist in assessing each of them.

Area of protection terms
In relation to other conceptualisations on the S-LCA AoP, a focus on HWB can be seen but also some variation regarding the use of terms.The 2020 S-LCA guidelines (UNEP 2020) refer in addition to HWB to social well-being; a term not further defined in the guidelines.Societal level aspects are explicitly included in our framework, by taking as the point of departure the societal aspects in the framework by Missimer et al. (2017b).As a complement, Soltanpour et al. (2019) presented a conceptualisation where a societal level is an IP step prior to the individual level expressed as HWB.Since societal aspects in some cases can be convenient to express as "societal" but eventually manifest themselves in interactions between and experience by individuals, our use of the term HWB should not be seen as excluding societal considerations.

Area of protection basis
To put focus on ends as distinct from substitutable means, the framework presented in this paper is based on theoretical HWB perspectives.Such a focus aligns with the S-LCA AoP framework by Reitinger et al. (2011) and the 2020 S-LCA guidelines (UNEP 2020), but departs to some extent from the business and policy focus used by Labuschagne and Brent's (2006) social sustainability framework and the basic needs focus in Steen and Palander's (2016) sustainability assessment framework.We identify a challenge for AoP considerations in the translation between academic approaches and application in businesses and governance.
The present study draws considerably on the work presented by Alkire (2002) on comparisons of HWB approaches.Our framework and its derivation is, however, situated in an S-LCA context contrary to a development context, is based on more than two decades of additional research, and brings in complementary reasoning on limitations grounded in philosophy on HWB.In addition, we find it fruitful to revisit HWB definitions thoroughly after the growing focus on the IP approach in S-LCA lately (cf., Sureau et al. 2020;Ugaya et al. 2023;UNEP 2020).

Impact pathway focus
Other studies on the AoP in relation to S-LCA have generally sought to provide (Labuschagne and Brent 2006;Steen and Palander 2016) and in some cases also test (Reitinger et al. 2011;Weidema 2006) entire IP frameworks.Such broad perspectives can explain the limited attention to the critical assessment of HWB components as such presented in our paper.In particular, this paper provides additional conceptualisation on the role of HWB components in relation to both actual sustainability impacts and to the the decisions where the actual choices of humans are made.In general, this illustrates that different types of studies on how to address sustainability in S-LCA complement one another, and that considerable work remains beyond presenting this framework.

Further study
This study points to a need for explorative research onwards, rather than provides a roadmap for further study.Two identified challenges to keep in mind are the trade-off between representing enough complexity and at the same time simplicity for feasibility in both research and use, and the important but absent challenge of whether the academic, business, and/or governance-based HWB definitions and frameworks are sufficient for addressing social sustainability from global perspective.This trade off points to the general challenge of governing the contemporary, often complex, supply chains.

Conclusions
This study addresses the interest for considering HWB broadly in S-LCA and the limited research on this topic to date.A structured study of philosophical perspectives on HWB as well as more specific approaches to sets of HWB components was used to search for insights from existing literature.Six established, systematic approaches to HWB component sets were identified, analysed from a sustainability science perspective, and synthesised.The synthesised set of components was put into context by highlighting the limitations derived from literature on philosophy of HWB.Our study as a whole illustrates the comprehensive and structured research across academia suggesting a broader AoP perspective in the S-LCA IP approach than the current health focus.Moreover, it reveals the somewhat unclear relation between HWB components and ultimate HWB, as well as the challenge in accounting for the HWB componets affected in actual decisions and behaviour.Our study both complements and is complemented by earlier S-LCA AoP framework publications, where the focus has been on entire IPs rather than HWB components, thus being less in depth on the specific challenges related to HWB definitions.A challenge is the integrated and iterative relationship between social, environmental, and economic sustainability going beyond existing S-LCA IP frameworks.The identified limitations in the current state of knowledge suggests further explorative research for viable ways onwards.
. As part of a larger research project on a natural-law theory, they have Fully or partly systematic approaches to a human well-being (HWB) component set Narayan et al. (2000a)effect relations between the well-being considered in the three main well-being approaches choice determinants, objectively good items, and experienced pleasure and displeasureTable 1DevelopmentDimensions of poverty that are important to poor people-based on documentsNarayan et al. (2000b)Dimensions of poverty that are important to poor people-based on field studiesNarayan et al. (2000a)

Table 2
Overview of sustainability science aspects of six fully systematic approaches to human well-being components

Table 3
Synthesis of and identified main relations between components across six fully systematic human well-being component approaches

Table 4
A framework on using synthesised human well-being components Creation of a framework on the set May not fully measure ultimate impact The challenge of considering the components in actual decisions and behaviour