Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims at spelling out the area of protection (AoP), namely the general concept of human well-being and the impact categories in social life cycle assessment (SLCA). The applicability of the so-called capabilities approach—a concept frequently used for evaluating human lives—is explored. It is shown how the principles of the capabilities approach can be transferred to the impact assessment within SLCA.
Methods
The literature concerning the AoP and the impact assessment has been critically reviewed from an applied philosophy perspective. The capabilities approach has been adopted for defining both the AoP and the impact categories.
Results
The main results are the following: (1) The AoP is defined as autonomy, well-being freedom and fairness; (2) using the dimensions which constitute well-being together with the concept of fairness eight impact categories are proposed: life, knowledge and aesthetic experience, work and play, friendship, self-integration, self-expression, transcendence and fairness itself and (3) by examining the ‘Guide to Social LCA: Methodological Sheets’, it is demonstrated that our proposed framework can be used for structuring the previous work on impact assessment.
Conclusions
The capability approach is one possibility for addressing the question ‘what is of importance in a human life?’ When applied in a practical field, like SLCA, this framework is not only useful for structuring data but also for disclosing our own normative assumptions about what counts as valuable in a human life. Thus, the normative evaluation is more coherent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Our framework is not designed for resolving the questions about the appropriate level of analysis for SLCA.
In other areas of political decision making, this recently has led to a discussion about more sophisticated measures for human well-being. A notable indicator used by the United Nations is the Human Development Index (HDI). This indicator builds upon Sen’s capability approach as it is used in this paper. More sophisticated measurements, however, face the problem, they rely on a huge amount of data, which are often not available or updated.
This criticism led to the development of other measurement tools, like the HDI or the Gross Happiness Index.
What a person is actually able to do and to be is of course not only a question of her resources, but hinges on a number of conditions including societal factors, the environment, her biological predispositions, etc.
Many people value things or actions that have adverse effects on their well-being, e.g., they choose to smoke and risk their health. Therefore, the relation between the full range of action and the actions conducive to a person’s well-being is a topic Sen has repeatedly returned to, contrasting “agency-freedom” with “well-being-freedom” (Sen 2009). The capabilities approach is not from the outset limited to assessing well-being, but takes into account all the functionings a person may have reason to value.
References
Alkire S (2002a) Dimensions of human development. World Dev 30(2):181–205
Alkire S (2002b) Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford University Press, New York
Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. http://www.cdo.ugent.be/publicaties/280.guidelines-sLCA.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2010
Benoît C et al (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):156–163
Comim F, Tsutsumi R, Varea A (2007) Choosing a sustainable consumption: a capability perspective on indicators. J Int Dev 19:493–509
De Vries B, Peterson A (2009) Conceptualizing sustainable development: an assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, world views and scenarios. Ecol Econ 68(4):1006–1019
Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97
Finis J, Grisez G, Boyle J (1987) Practical principles, moral truth & ultimate ends. Am J Jurisprud 32:99–151
Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Méthot AL, Weidma B (2006) Feasibility study: integration of social impacts into LCA. http://www.concisenet.de/fileadmin/download/modul_ps/UNEP-SETAC_feasibility_study_mai_06.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2010
Holland B (2008) Justice and the environment in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. Polit Res Q 61(2):319–332
Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(11):96–103
Jørgensen A, Lai L, Hauschild M (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):5–16
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 of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95
Life Cycle Initiative (2010) Guide to social LCA: methodological sheets. http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/default.asp?site=lcinit&page_id=A8992620-AAAD-4B81-9BAC-A72AEA281CB9. Accessed 1 Oct 2010
Omann I, Rauschmayer F, Frühmann J (2010) Sustainable development: capabilities. Needs and well-being. Taylor & Francis, London
Ott K, Döring R (2008) Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Metropolis, Marburg
Schultz J, Brand F, Kopfmüller J, Ott K (2008) Building a ‚theory of sustainable development’: to salient conceptions within the German discourse. Int J Environ Sust Dev 7(4):465–482
Sen A (1992) Development as freedom. Anchor, New York
Sen A (2005) Human rights and capabilities. J Hum Dev 6(2):151–166
Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Harvard University Press, Harvard
Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Background document for the second working group (WIA-2) on life cycle impact assessment of SETAC-Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74
Van Ootegem L, Spillemaeckers S (2009) A capabilities approach on well-being and sustainable development. http://www.esee2009.si/papers/Spillemaeckers-A_capabilities.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2010
Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reitinger, C., Dumke, M., Barosevcic, M. et al. A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16, 380–388 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0265-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0265-y