Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA)

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

Abstract

Purpose

Technologies can contribute to sustainable development (e.g., improving living conditions) and at the same time cause sustainability problems (e.g., emissions). Decisions on alternative technologies should thus ideally be based on the principle to minimize the latter. Analyzing environmental, economic, and social aspects related to technologies supports decisions by identifying the “more sustainable” technology. This paper focuses on social issues. First, it discusses the applicability of the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) guidelines for a comparative technology analysis, taking the example of two case studies in developing countries. Indicating technologies as “sustainable” also means that they are indeed operated over the expected lifetime, which, in development projects, is often not guaranteed. Consequently, social aspects related to implementation conditions should be considered in an SLCA study as well. Thus, a second focus is laid on identifying appropriate indicators to address these aspects.

Methods

First, the SLCA guidelines were examined with regard to applying this product-related approach to two real case studies (analysis of technologies/plants for water supply and for decentralized fuel production) for a comparative technology analysis. Suitable indicators are proposed. To address the second focus, a literature research on technology assessment and implementation in developing countries was conducted. Moreover, socioeconomic studies in the investigation areas of the case studies were consulted. Based on this, indicators addressing implementation conditions were identified from the SLCA guidelines and additional literature.

Results and discussion

The study shows social issues and indicators found in the SLCA guidelines and considered suitable for a comparative technology analysis in the case studies. However, for a sustainability assessment of technologies, especially in developing countries, further indicators are required to address technology implementation conditions. A set of additional social indicators like reported trust in institutions or fluctuation of personnel is proposed. Though these indicators were derived based on specific case studies, they can also be suggested to other technologies and are not necessarily limited to developing countries.

Conclusions

The study pointed out that an application of the SLCA guidelines considering the whole life cycle was not (yet) feasible for the case studies considered. This is mainly due to the lack of data. Regarding technology implementation, it was examined which indicators are available in this SLCA approach and which could additionally be integrated and applied. This is relevant as a potential contribution of technologies to sustainable development can only be achieved when the technologies are successfully implemented.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Oxford (2012) defines indicator among others as “a thing that indicates the state or level of something” or as “a device providing specific information on the state or condition of something.” It can be differentiated between quantitative indicators using numbers to describe an issue, qualitative indicators using words, and semiquantitative indicators that categorize qualitative indicators in a yes/no form or in a scale (e.g., low, middle, high) (e.g., UNEP/SETAC 2009, 2011). Regarding social indicators, a number of definitions exist, summarized, e.g., in Noll (2004). According to Zapf (1977, p. 236), for example, social indicators are “all data which enlighten us in some way about structures and processes, goals and achievements, values and opinions.”

  2. Within the SLCA guidelines, the term impact encompasses effects, consequences, social change processes, and social attributes. Following the concept of Vanclay (2002), in this paper, social impacts refer only to impacts that can be experienced by humans. Otherwise, the terms social aspects or social issues are used, which—when they undergo a change—may lead to impacts.

  3. The lifetime of the technologies is assumed to be about 50–100 years. As data are not available with regard to if and how technologies will be deconstructed/disposed, this life cycle stage is excluded from the study.

  4. Similarly to Vanclay (2002), Macombe et al. (2011) emphasize the difference between state and change when talking about social impacts. Depending on the perspective, the specific features of technologies addressed here can be both understood as consequences of (or changes due to) the implementation of the technologies as well as state features of the technologies. The latter are considered relevant regarding a comparative technology analysis.

  5. This is challenging as well because the evaluation of impacts resulting from a decision for a certain company or product also requires the evaluation of the impacts resulting from the “non-implemented product” life cycle have to be assessed as well (Jørgensen et al. 2010).

References

  • Bauler T (2007) Identifying methodological challenges. In: Hák T, Moldan B, Dahl AL (eds) Sustainability indicators. A scientific assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp 49–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):682–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrera DG, Mack A (2010) Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: result of a survey among European energy experts. Energ Policy 38:1030–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christian DE (1974) International social indicators: the OECD experience. Soc Indic Res 1:169–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekener Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA -- part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J of Life Cycle Assess 18(1):127–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, Reimann K, Ackermann R (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) for products and processes. Paper presented at SETAC Europe 18th Annual Meeting, 25–29 May, Warsaw, Poland

  • Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franze J, Ciroth A (2011a) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):366–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franze J, Ciroth A (2011b) Social and environmental LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Presentation, LCM 2011, 28–31 August, Berlin, Germany

  • Hellpap C (2009) Quality and performance test of PICO PV-Systems, Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAFRREGTOPENERGY/Resources/717305-1264695610003/6743444-1268073515450/6.3.PicoPV.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2011

  • Hutchins MJ, Sutherland JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Cleaner Prod 16:1688–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAIA (1994) Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-F/SPO. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Belhaven

    Google Scholar 

  • International Standard Organisation (2006) ISO14044:2006. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • IWRM (2011) BMBF-Verbundprojekt IWRM Indonesien (joint research project IWRM Indonesia). Available at http://www.iwrm-indonesien and http://www.hoehlenbewirtschaftung.de. Accessed 28 July 2011

  • Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild MZ (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen MS, Hauschild MZ (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:376–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloepffer W (2007) Life-cycle based sustainability assessment as part of LCM. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, 27–29 August, Zurich, Switzerland

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopfmueller J, Brandl V, Joerissen J, Paetau M, Banse G, Coenen R, Grunwald A (2001) Nachhaltige Entwicklung integrativ betrachtet—Konstitutive Elemente, Regeln, Indikatoren. Global zukunftsfähige Entwicklung—Perspektiven für Deutschland, 1st edn. Sigma, Berlin, Germany

  • Lehmann A, Russi D, Bala A, Finkbeiner M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2011a) Integration of social aspects in decision support, based on life cycle thinking. Sustainability 3(4):562–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Schebek L, Finkbeiner M (2011b) Feasibility of current SLCA methodology for technology assessment. Poster presented at SETAC Europe 21st Annual Meeting, 15–19 May, Milan, Italy

  • Long ND, Ogunlana S, Quang T, Lam KC (2004) Large construction projects in developing countries: a case study from Vietnam. Int J Project Management 22(7):553–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C, Feschet P, Loeillet D, Garrabé M (2011) International seminar on social LCA. Recent developments in assessing the social impacts of the product life cycles. Synthesis of the Proceedings, 5–6 May, Montpellier, France

  • Martínez Blanco J, Lehmann A, Munoz P, Anton A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2013) Social life cycle assessment of compost and mineral fertilizers use in horticulture. Challenges and recommendations for social performance in a real case study. J Cleaner Prod (in press)

  • Meadows DH (1998) Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. The Sustainable Institute, Hartland Four Corners

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayono S, Lehn H, Kopfmueller J, Londong J, Lehmann A (2011) Baseline indicators to support decision making in sanitation case study: Integrated Water Resources Management project in rural karst area of Gunung Kidul, Java, Indonesia. In: Proceedings IWRM 2011 Conference, 12–13 October, Dresden, Germany

  • Nieuwenhout FDJ, van Dijk A, Lasschuit PE, van Roekel G, van Dijk VAP, Hirsch D, Arriaza H, Hankins M, Sharma BD, Wade H (2001) Experience with solar home systems in developing countries: a review. Prog Photovolt: Res Appl 9:455–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noll HH (2004) Social indicators and quality of life research: background, achievements, and current trends. In: Genov N (ed) Advances in sociological knowledge over half a century. VS Verlag fuer Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Oertel M (2010) Konzept für Capacity Building in der Abwasserbehandlung Konzeptentwurf für Capacity Building für die Abwasserbehandlung des Krankenhauses Wonosari/Java, Indonesien. (Concept for capacity building in sanitation. Concept draft for capacity building for a sanitation in the Wonosari Hospital, Java, Indonesia). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Karlsruhe Institute for Technology

  • Oxford (2012) Oxford dictionaries. Available at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/indicator. Accessed 1 November 2012

  • Prakash S (2012) Application of S-LCA: from artisanal mining to complex products. Workshop: Practical Aspects of Social Life Cycle Assessment, Berlin, 25 May

  • Puspitasari CP (2009) Analysis of governmental institutions performance concerning Integrated Water Resources Management. Case study in Gunung Kidul, Indonesia. Karlsruhe Institut für Technologie (KIT), Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Jaeger A, Deuschle J, Weimler-Jehle W (2009) A normative-functional concept of sustainability and its indicators. Int J Global Env 9(4):291–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Kuhn R, Sellke P (2012) Final selection of social indicators. Report prepared within the EC 7th framework project: development and application of a standardized methodology for the PROspective SUstaInability assessment of Technologies (PROSUITE), Stuttgart. Available at http://www.prosuite.org

  • Sahay S, Avgerou C (2002) Introducing the special issue on information and communication technologies in developing countries. Inf Soc 18:73–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saleth RM, Dinar A (1999) Evaluating water institutions and water sector performance. World Bank Technical Paper No. 447. World Bank, Washington, DC

  • Schultz J, Brand F, Kopfmueller J, Ott K (2009) Building a ‘theory of sustainable development’: two salient conceptions within the German discourse. Int J Environ Sustainable Dev 7(4):465–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SHDB (2009) Social Hotspot Database. New Earth/Social Hotspots Database project. Available at http://socialhotspot.org/

  • Swarr T, Hunkeler D, Kloepffer W, Pesonen HL, Ciroth A, Brent AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. ISBN: 978-1-880611-87-6

  • Tébar-Less C, McMillan S (2005) Achieving the successful transfer of environmentally sound technologies: trade-related aspects. OECD Working Paper No. 2005-02

  • Ugaya C (2012) S-LCA of cocoa soap. Workshop: Practical Aspects of Social Life Cycle Assessment, Berlin, 25 May

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Druk in de weer, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. Making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative

  • Vanclay F (2002) Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess 22:183–211

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapf W (1977) Soziale Indikatoren—eine Zwischenbilanz. In: Krupp HJ, Zapf W (eds) Sozialpolitik und Sozialberichterstattung. Campus, Frankfurt a.M./New York, pp 231–246

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the profound review of the paper by the anonymous reviewers and thank them for their useful and interesting comments and references proposed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Technology, Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Annekatrin Lehmann, Marzia Traverso & Matthias Finkbeiner

  2. Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), PO box 3640, 76021, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Annekatrin Lehmann, Eva Zschieschang & Liselotte Schebek

  3. Institute of Industrial Ecology (INEC), HS-Pforzheim, Tiefenbronner Straße 65, 75175, Pforzheim, Germany

    Eva Zschieschang

  4. Institute IWAR, Industrial Material Cycles, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Petersenstr. 13, 64287, Darmstadt, Germany

    Liselotte Schebek

Authors
  1. Annekatrin Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Zschieschang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marzia Traverso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Finkbeiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liselotte Schebek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annekatrin Lehmann.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alessandra Zamagni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lehmann, A., Zschieschang, E., Traverso, M. et al. Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 1581–1592 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0594-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0594-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation