Abstract
Background, aim, and scope
There is a growing recognition on the part of industry, policymakers, and consumers that sustainable industry practices are needed to maintain environmental and social well being. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardized analytical framework that has traditionally focused on evaluation of the environmental impacts of processes or products using a cradle-to-grave approach. Yet, sustainability, defined generally, requires that assessments consider not only environmental but also social and economic impacts—the other two pillars of sustainability. Even though the LCA methodology has the potential to include both social and economic indicators, and SETAC guidelines recommend the inclusion of such impact categories in all detailed LCAs, no established set of metrics exists to describe the relationship between socioeconomic indicators (SEIs) and a specific product or process; nor is there a common understanding on how such metrics might be developed. This article presents the methods for and development of a suite of socioeconomic indicators that complement the LCA methodology and provides a comprehensive approach for assessing the cradle-to-grave sustainability of a product or process.
Methods
A combined top-down and bottom-up approach serves as the basis for development of the set of socioeconomic indicators presented here. Generally recognized societal values, industry specific issues, and financial constraints associated with collection of data necessary for measurement of the indicators are all factors considered in this approach. In our categorization, socioeconomic indicators fall into two types: additive indicators and descriptive indicators.
Results
Indicators are categorized based on fundamental methodological differences and then used to describe the socioeconomic impacts associated with salmon production. Additive indicators (e.g., production costs and value added) and descriptive indicators (e.g., fair wage and contribution to personal income) are both discussed.
Discussion
There is a need to further develop and refine methods to assess the results of socioeconomic indicators using a life cycle perspective. It would be most interesting to conduct additional case studies that focus on such methodological development, particularly trade-offs between stakeholder groups and pillars of sustainability. Additional areas of discussion are (1) the need for data to populate socioeconomic indicators and (2) defining system boundaries for socioeconomic indicators.
Conclusions
This article presents a set of socioeconomic indicators designed to serve as a complement for the LCA framework, thus, increasing the framework’s effectiveness as a measure of the overall sustainability of a product or process. Development of socioeconomic indicators as a complement to LCA is still in its early stages, however, and further research is required.
Recommendations and perspectives
The SEIs presented here are discussed theoretically within the context of salmon food production systems, but a test of the practicability and validity of the indicators (i.e., a practical application) is also necessary. The practical application of the topic will be presented in a forthcoming paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersson K, Ohlsson T (1999) Life cycle assessment of bread produced on different scales. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(1):25–40
Andersson K, Ohlsson T, Olsson P (1998) Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: a case. J Clean Prod 6:277–288
Christensen P, Ritter E (2000) Life cycle screening of pickled herring in jars. Masters Thesis, Ålborg University, Denmark
Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen A, de Oude N, Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B, Sequin J, Vignon B (1993) Guidelines for Life-cycle assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels
Delgado C, Wada N, Rosegrant M, Meijer S, Ahmed M (2003) Outlook for fish to 2020. In Meeting Global Demand. A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Initiative. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97
Ellingsen H. Working environment and LCA. In: Mattsson B, Ziegler F (2004) Chapter 6 of Environmental Assessment of Seafood Products through LCA. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, final report of a Nordic Network project, TemaNord, pp 35–38
Haas G, Wetterich F, Köpke U (2001) Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agric Eco Env 83:43–53
Heller MC, Keoleian GA (2000) Life cycle-based sustainability indicators for assessment of the US food system. Center for Sustainable Systems, Ann Arbor, p 61
Hofstetter P, Madjar M, Ozawa T (2006) Happiness and sustainable consumption psychological and physical rebound effects at work in a tool for sustainable design. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(Spec Issue 1):89–96
Hospido A, Tyedmers P (2005) Life cycle environmental impacts of Spanish tuna fisheries. Fish Res 76:174–186
Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2003) Simplified life cycle assessment of Galician milk production. Int Dairy J 13:783–796
Hospido A, Vázquez ME, Cuevas A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT (2006) Environmental assessment of canned tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycling 47(1):56–72
Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382
Hunkeler D, Rebitzer G (2005) The future of life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):305–308
ISO (2006a) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
ISO (2006b) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103
Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159
Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haas, p 95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95
Labuschagne C (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):3–15
Matthew S (2005) Fisheries and their contribution to sustainable development. Discussion panel A at the sixth meeting of the United Nations Open-ended informal consultative process on oceans and the law of the sea, 6–10 June 2005
Mattsson B, Sonesson U (2003) Environmentally-friendly food processing. Woodhead, Cambridge
Milà i Canals L, Clift R, Basson L, Hansen Y, Brandão M (2006) Expert workshop on land use impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(5):363–368
Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):5–15
Norris G (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(2):118–121
Norris G (2006) Social impacts in products life cycles towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(Spec Issue 1):97–104
O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA): approach and methodological development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):231–237
Pelletier N, Sonesson U, Ziegler F, Flysjö A, Ayer N, Kruse S, Robillard G, Scholz A, Tyedmers P (2007) Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: review and prospectus. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):414–421
Pintér L, Hardi P, Bartelmus P (2005) Indicators of sustainable development: proposals for a way forward. Discussion paper prepared under a consulting agreement on behalf of the UN Division for Sustainable Development
Seafood Choices Alliance (SCA) (2006a) Constant Cravings: the European consumer and sustainable seafood choices. http://www.seaweb.org/resources/reports.php
Seafood Choices Alliance (SCA) (2006b) Sustainable tables: seafood professionals and environmentally responsible seafood. http://www.seaweb.org/resources/reports.php
Seppälä J, Silvenius F, Grönroos J, Mäkinen T, Silvo K, Storhammar E (2001) Rainbow trout production and the environment. The Finnish Environment 529 (in Finnish)
The World Bank (2005) Turning the tide, saving fish and fisheries, building sustainable and equitable fisheries and governance; published under http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ESSDNETWORK/Publications/20631963/seaweb_FINAL_pt.1.pdf
The World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Thrane M (2004) Environmental impacts from Danish fish product—Hot spots and environmental policies. PhD Thesis, Dept. of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg
UNEP (2002) Johannesburg Summit 2002. Global change, global opportunity, trends in sustainable development. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/critical_trends_report_2002.pdf
UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2005) Life cycle approaches. The road from analysis to practice. http://www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/reports/lcini/Road%20report%20for%20web.pdf
Weidema B (2005) ISO 14044 also applies to social LCA (letters to the editor). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):381
Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(Spec Issue 1):89–96
Ziegler F, Nilsson P, Mattsson B, Walther Y (2003) Life cycle assessment of frozen cod fillets including fishery-specific environmental impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(1):39–47
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: David Hunkeler
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kruse, S.A., Flysjö, A., Kasperczyk, N. et al. Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14, 8–18 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0040-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0040-x