Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius

  • SOCIETAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Improper disposal of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles constitute an eyesore to the environmental landscape and is a threat to the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. It is therefore imperative to determine a suitable disposal method of used PET bottles which not only has the least environmental load but at the same time has minimum harmful impacts on peoples employed in waste disposal companies. In this respect, the present study investigated and compared the environmental and social impacts of four selected disposal alternatives of used PET bottles.

Methods

Environmental impacts of the four disposal alternatives, namely: 100 % landfilling, 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling, 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling, were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:2006) and with the support of SimaPro 7.1 software. Social life cycle assessments were performed based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. Three stakeholder categories (worker, society and local community) and eight sub-category indicators (child labour, fair salary, forced labour, health and safety, social benefit/social security, discrimination, contribution to economic development and community engagement) were identified to be relevant to the study. A new method for aggregating and analysing the social inventory data is proposed and used to draw conclusions.

Results and discussion

Environmental life cycle assessment results indicated that highest environmental impacts occurred when used PET bottles were disposed by 100 % landfilling while disposal by 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling gave the least environmental load. Social life cycle assessment results indicated that least social impacts occurred with 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling. Thus both E-LCA and S-LCA rated 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling to be the best disposal option.

Conclusions

Two dimensions of sustainability (environmental and social) when investigated using the Life Cycle Management tool, favoured scenario 4 (75 % % flake production and 25 % landfilling) which is a partial recycling disposal route. One hundred percent landfilling was found out to be the worst scenario. The next step will be to explore the third pillar of sustainability, economic, and devise a method to integrate the three dimensions with a view to determine the sustainable disposal option of used PET bottles in Mauritius.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This private industry collects used PET bottles from special bins placed in strategic points throughout the island like hypermarkets, fairs etc. The industry also purchases used PET bottles from individuals, NGOs, private organizations. Thus there is an informal separate collection of used PET bottles and the collection rate in 2010 was 40 %. At the industry, used PET bottles are baled, shredded into flakes and bagged for export to South Africa. Since only part of the recycling process takes place in Mauritius, flake production can be referred to as partial recycling.

  2. The second international seminar in social life cycle assessment held on 5-6 May 2010 in Monpellier, France.

  3. An example would be: the number of workers answering yes to the question on wage satisfaction in the survey—this would represent the fraction of the sampled population of workers satisfied with their wages. This fraction can then be converted into percentage.

  4. For instance, if 55 % of workers were satisfied with their salary then the score allocated would be 2, according to Table 3.

  5. As example, if an organization creates 500 jobs, then the score allocated as per Table 4 would be 3.

References

  • Barthel L, Wolf MA, Eyerer P (2005) Methodology of life cycle sustainability for sustainability assessments. Presentation on the 11th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference (AISDRC), 6th–8th of June 2005, Helsinki, Finland

  • Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya S, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central Intelligence Agency (2012) The world fact book. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world…/geos/mp.html [date accessed: 28 January 2012]

  • Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabelled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. ISBN 978-1-4466-0087-0. Available at: www.greendeltatc.com/uploads/media/LCA_laptop_final.pdf [date accessed 5 November 2011]

  • Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterization of social impacts in LCA. Part 1: development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2008) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA of three disposal options in Mauritius. Int J Environ Waste Manage 2(1/2):125–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun RK, Chamilall DS, Munhurrun G (2011) Overview of non-hazardous solid waste in the small island state of Mauritius. Resour Conserv Recy 55:966–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2012) Disposal of post-consumer polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles: comparison of five disposal alternatives in the small island state of Mauritius using a life cycle assessment tool. Environ Technol 33(5):563–572

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Méthot A, Weidema BP (2006) Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. Discussion paper from UNEP/SETAC Task Force Integration of Social Aspects in LCA meetings in Bologna (January 2005), Lille (May 2005) and Brussels (November 2005). Freiburg, Germany, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekval T, Rydberg T (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Dreyer LC, Jørgensen A (2008) Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective—lessons learned. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 57:21–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, de Koning A, Suh S, Huppes G (2006) Toward an information tool for integrated product policy: requirements for data and computation. J Ind Ecol 10(3):147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) Environmental management:—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standards Organization, ISO 14040: 2006, Geneva

  • ISO (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation, ISO 14044:2006, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p 95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschenes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):381–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Loeillet D (2011) 2nd International seminar in social life cycle assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:940–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Méthot A (2005) FIDD: a green and socially responsible venture capital fund. Presentation on the Life Cycle Approaches for Green Investment—26th LCA Swiss Discussion Forum, 2005, Lausanne, Switzerland

  • Michaud JC, Farrant L, Jan O, Kjaer B, Bakas I (2010) Environmental benefits of recycling—WRAP Final report, 225 pp . Available at: www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Environmental_benefits_of_recycling_2010_update.dd025910.8816.pdf [date accessed: 29 January 2012]

  • Nishioka Y, Levy JI, Norris GA (2006) Integrating air pollution climate change and economics in a risk based life cycle analysis: a case study of residential insulation. Human Ecol Risk Assess 12(3):552–571

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paragahawewa U, Blackett P, Small B (2009) Report prepared for AgResearch June 2009 Social Life Cycle Analysis (S-LCA): some methodological issues and potential application to cheese production in New Zealand, available at: www.saiplatform.org/uploads/…/SocialLCA-FinalReport_July2009.p [date accessed 15 November 2010]

  • Pehnt M (2006) Dynamic life cycle assessment of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energ 31(1):55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, Rebitzer G (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. Environ Int 30:721–739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknech R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt WP, Suh S, Weidema BP, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30:701–720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):380–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruviaro CF, Gianezini M, Brandao FS, Winck CA (2011) Life cycle assessment in Brazilian agriculture facing worldwide trends. J Cleaner Prod. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.015

  • Schmidt I, Meurer M, Saling P, Kicherer A, Reuter W, Gensch C (2004) SEEbalance – Managing Sustainability of Products and Processes with the Socio-Eco-Efficiency Analysis by BASF. Greener Management International 45:79–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar G, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in lifecycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swarr ET (2009) Societal life cycle assessment—could you repeat the question. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:285–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. 104 pp. ISBN: 978-92-807-3021-0. Available at: www.unep.org/publications/search/pub_details_s.asp?ID=4102 [date accessed 18 January 2011]

  • Weidema BP (2005) ISO 14044 also applies to Social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):381–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1) (special issue):89–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:596–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Tertiary Education Commission of the Republic of Mauritius for funding this research under the PhD programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius

    Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun & Toolseeram Ramjeeawon

Authors
  1. Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toolseeram Ramjeeawon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foolmaun, R.K., Ramjeeawon, T. Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 155–171 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation