Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption

  • LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: FROM LCA TO LCSA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Social Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) are tools acknowledged to have a role to play in the transition towards Sustainable Production and Consumption patterns (SPC). However, the role they play in this transition is seldom discussed, especially for SLCA. In addition, although the importance of taking a life cycle thinking (LCT) in the progression towards SPC seems indisputable, its added value is seldom made explicit. This article wishes to highlight the role of SLCA in the transition towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns and questions the relevance of LCT in this role.

Methods

To answer this question, we first identify the applications of SLCA that correspond to actions that have to be taken in the transition towards SPC based on the SPC and SLCA literature. Then, the relevance of LCT in the context of the different applications identified previously is questioned through a qualitative discursive analysis approach.

Results

The social goal of SPC is poorly discussed, and the SLCA literature can be one source of inspiration to define what this goal could be. On the basis of the UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines’ SLCA ultimate goal, SPC could be a means to improve stakeholders’ social conditions through the improvement of enterprises’ behaviours. The intended applications of SLCA for potentially supporting the improvement of enterprises’ behaviours are found to be the identification of hotspots in order to highlight areas of improvement inside the sphere of influence of the SLCA user and the guidance of purchasing and substitution choices on the basis of enterprises’ behaviours. In this article, it is suggested that, for SLCA to deserve the “LCT label”, it has to capture impact transfers along the products’ life cycle. Otherwise, an “ability-to-act-on” perspective is the proper angle to adopt in the identification of areas of improvement inside the sphere of influence and a “cradle-to-retailer”, the one to adopt when SLCA is used to guide buy/boycott.

Conclusions

Aside from revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in SPC and the raison d’être of LCT, we discuss some considerations which we believe should be taken into account when developing SLCA in the context of SPC. In conclusion, this article points to the importance of framing the use of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment tools in their context of use.

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. Wrisberg et al. (2002) define analytical tools like “tools modeling the system in a quantitative or qualitative way aiming at providing technical information for a better decision.” They categorized LCA and LCC as such tools.

  2. In the SLCA guidelines (UNEP 2009), it is stated that “sustainable consumption and production […] are the goals of LCA-based decision-making”.

  3. In the LCSA guidelines (UNEP 2011a), it is stated that “LCSA can play a crucial role in this process », this process being « to achieve the aim of a Green Economy with sustainable consumption and production patterns”.

  4. UNEP (2009) states that SLCA aims “to assess the social and socio-economic aspects of products and their potential positive and negative impacts along their life cycle” (italic from the authors). In a previous article (Parent et al. 2010), we argue that SLCA is assessing “social performances” rather than “social impacts” and that, in line with others (e.g. Macombe et al. 2010; Dreyer et al. 2006; Spillemaeckers et al. 2004), it is not the technical processes that are the main sources of stressors affecting stakeholders’ social conditions but the organizations involved in the life cycle of a product.

  5. Themselves adapting the formula from Klöpffer (2008) and Finkbeiner et al. (2010).

  6. The 10-YFP is a framework offering a common structure—based on a LCT—to the different strategies, tools and programs required for the transition towards SPC. It is headed by the Process of Marrakech, a multi-stakeholders process supporting national and regional programs of SPC.

  7. To be more precise, Finnveden et al. (2009) stated that “the unique feature of LCA is the focus on products in a life-cycle perspective”. But we feel plenty comfortable to extend this argument to the other LCSA tools.

  8. A very similar exercise has been undertaken by Jorgensen et al. (2012). These authors analyze effects of different possible types of SLCA, when we analyze effects of SPC actions that can be supported by SLCA. The main similarities and differences between the two analyses are highlighted throughout the article.

  9. Products imply any of: goods, services and processes.

  10. ISO 14040 (2006) also referred to “inclusion of environmental aspects in product standards” and “quantification, monitoring and reporting of entity and project emissions and removals, and validation, verification and certification of greenhouse gas emissions”, which are not discussed in this article. In addition, other applications are also often encountered in the LCA literature like strategic planning and policy making. Those actions would however need to be further defined to determine how they support SPC.

  11. This is true for environmental impacts covered in LCA. Indeed, as LCA does not assess all possible environmental impacts neither it considers effects induced outside the product life cycle system (in its attributional form), a purchase or a physical intervention based on LCA will omit impacts falling outside the scope of the tool.

  12. Which is however pointed as a subject that needed further researches (UNEP 2009; UNEP 2011a).

  13. http://www.unglobalcompact.org

  14. www.globalreporting.org

  15. The GRI does not provide guidance on how to behave but, in prescribing subjects to report upon, suggests areas of concern enterprises are considered liable for, so they should act as society expects them to.

  16. It is important to point here that the compliance of enterprises’ behaviours to social norms as a means to improve stakeholders’ social condition is criticized (e.g. Jorgensen et al. 2012 and Clift et al. 2012). Clift et al. (ibid.) use the example of the compliance to the ‘child labour free’ norm which can lead to a worse situation if the available alternative is prostitution. For the purpose of reflecting on the role of LCT in SLCA as a tool to support SPC, we, however, hold to the SLCA-PRP’s implicit assumption that compliance leads to enhancement of stakeholders’ social conditions.

  17. To echo what the SLCA guidelines define as “hotspots”, Quantis, AGECO and CIRAIG (2012) suggest the wording “potential hotspots” which are areas in the product system where there is a probability of encountering hotspots. This probability is influenced by the situation in a region, the economic sectors involved, etc. But these hotspots refer to the enterprises or their behaviours one might want to change.

  18. Available on line: http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/default.asp?site=lcinit&page_id=A8992620-AAAD-4B81-9BAC-A72AEA281CB9

  19. This seems to correspond to the intended application of what Jorgensen et al. (2012) define as the “firm lead SLCA”.

  20. This seems to correspond to the intended application of the “educative SLCA” in Jorgensen et al. (2012). These authors also argue that changing production level is a mechanism through which the social conditions can be improved by having more stakeholders benefiting from the good behaviours of a growing enterprise. We believe this is true for social impacts related to economic contribution and job creation. However, we consider that the creation of a market incentive is the final expected outcome of buy/boycotting an enterprise on the basis of their behaviours.

  21. Green is used here as the color of sustainability, and not only environmental sustainability.

  22. E.g. buying reusable diapers to reduce waste would encourage the production of such diapers. However, if the consumers are in a context where the energy consumed to clean the diapers cancels the reduction of waste, the signal sent to the market will not allow the achievement of the environmental goal of SPC.

  23. CIRAIG-AGECO (2011) uses these types of scenarios in the assessment of different end-of-life management options of computers.

  24. Organic farming is not always better for every impact category [e.g. Thomassen et al. (2008a, b) found higher global warming potential in organic dairy farms than in conventional].

  25. Acknowledging that the retailer can be the producer if he/she sells without intermediary.

  26. And as mentioned in footnote #16, compliance to some social norms will have to lead to better social conditions, which is not always straightforward, as suggested in the child labour example of Clift et al. (2012).

  27. socialhotspot.org

  28. Jorgensen et al. (2012) give the example of Nike severing a supplier that employs children in their workforce, leading to worse social conditions for the workers and the local society. We argue, however, that as the enterprise (Nike) has to have a very important economic influence on the supplier to create that negative impact, it probably had the “ability to make a change” (GRI 2005). Therefore, severing the supplier would be (in the state-of-the-art) a last resort, after negotiations to change behaviours have taken place (Quairel and Auberger 2007).

  29. Which could theoretically be measured by consequential SLCA (Jorgensen et al. 2012).

  30. Or the economy, if one is taking a consequential approach.

References

  • Alcott B (2008) The sufficiency strategy: would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecol Econom 64(4):770–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to socially assess biofuels—a case study of the UNEP/SETAC Code of Practice for social–economical LCA. Quality and Environmental Management. Stockhlom, Lulea University of Technology. Master's thesis, available [on line] http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1617/2009/077/. Consulted in 04/2012

  • CEC (2001) Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy. COM(2001) 68 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

  • CEC (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Integrated Product Policy—Building on Environmental Life-Cycle Thinking. COM(2003) 302 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

  • Charkiewicz E (2001) Transitions to sustainable production and consumption: concepts, policies and actions. NED, Tools for Transition, The Hague

  • CIRAIG (2008) Rapport Final-Analyse du cycle de vie comparative d'ampoules électriques: Incandescentes et fluorescentes compactes. Montréal, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur le cycle de vie des produits, procédés et services, available [on line] http://www.ciraig.org/pdf/ACV_Ampoules_Rapp_Final.pdf. Consulted in 04/2012

  • CIRAIG-AGECO (2011) Rapport d'analyse détaillée: Analyse du cycle de vie environnementale et sociale de deux options de gestion du matériel informatique en fin de vie. Montréal, Recyc-Québec, available [on line] http://www.chaire-cycledevie.org/fr/v.php?id=12&locale=fr&year=2011&type=2. Consulted in 04/2012

  • Clift R, Sim S et al. (2012) Sustainable Consumption and Production: quality, luxury and supply chain equity. In: Jawahir IS and Sikhdar S (eds) Treatise in sustainability science and engineering. Springer, London (in press)

  • Dreyer L, Hauschild M et al (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, Schau EM et al (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain 2(10):3309–3322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs DA, Lorek S (2005) Sustainable consumption governance: a history of promises and failures. J Consum Policy 28(3):261–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI (2005) GRI boundary protocol. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M, Jeswiet J et al (2005) From life cycle assessment to sustainable production: status and perspectives. CIRP Annals-Manuf Technol 54(2):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen E (1999) Every product casts a shadow: but can we see it, and can we act on it? Environ Sci Policy 2(1):61–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14024 (1999) Environmental labels and declarations—type I environmental labelling—principles and procedures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  • ISO 14025 (2006) Environmental labels and declarations—type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

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

  • Jorgensen A, Hauschild M et al (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):204–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen A, Hermann I et al (2010) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(6):531–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Dreyer L et al (2012) Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(6):828–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruse S, Flysjö A et al (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C, Feschet P et al. (2010) Reporting the social indicators to the functional unit for food product. Theoretical contribution regarding the collection of relevant data. 7th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. Bari, Italy

  • Maxwell D, Sheate W (2006) Enabling sustainable development through sustainable consumption and production. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 5(3):221–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (1994) Oslo Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption. http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo000.html Accessed 28 Feb 2012)

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quairel F, Auberger M-N (2007) La diffusion de la RSE par la relation fournisseurs: Injonctions paradoxales ou partenariat de progrès? Revue Internationale PME 20(3-4):69–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Quantis, AGECO and CIRAIG (2012) Environmental and socioeconomic life cycle analysis of milk in Canada. Quantis Canada, Montreal, pp. 35

  • Rebitzer G, Ekvall T et al (2004) Life cycle assessment: part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson A, Strandberg C (2007) Sustainability Purchasing Trends and Drivers. Report to the Sustainability Purchasing Network (SPN); http://www.buysmartbc.com/: 64

  • Spillemaeckers S, Vanhoutte G et al (2004) Integrated product assessment—the development of the label 'sustainable development' for products ecological, social and economical aspects of integrated product policy. Belgian Science Policy, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • Swarr T, Hunkeler D et al. (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola

  • Thomassen M, Dalgaard R et al (2008a) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):339–349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomassen MA, van Calker KJ et al (2008b) Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agr Syst 96(1–3):95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September, United Nations

  • UNDESA and UNEP (2010) Proposed Input to CSD 18 and 19 on a 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP ON SCP), Marrakech Process Secretariat

  • UNEP (2011a) Towards a Life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative

  • UNEP (2011b) Enabling conditions supporting the transition to a global green economy. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, United Nations Environment Programme

  • UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. C. Benoît and B. Mazijn (eds). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC): 104

  • WBCSD (2000) Eco-efficiency: creating more value with less impact, World Business Council for Sustainable Development: 32

  • Wrisberg N, Udo de Haes HA et al. (eds) (2002) Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a system perspective. The combined use of analytical tools. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Andreas Jørgensen and the two anonymous reviewers for their very inspiring ideas and comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Life Cycle Chair (CIRAIG) and Department of Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada

    Julie Parent & Jean-Pierre Revéret

  2. Department of Design and Computation Arts, Faculty of Fine Arts, Concordia University, 1455 boul de Maisonneuve Ouest, EV06-785, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Carmela Cucuzzella

  3. Laboratoire d’étude de l’architecture potentielle (LEAP), École d’architecture de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Carmela Cucuzzella

Authors
  1. Julie Parent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carmela Cucuzzella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Pierre Revéret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Pierre Revéret.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C. & Revéret, JP. Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 1642–1652 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0485-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0485-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation