Abstract
Purpose
In social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), we can distinguish two main types of impact assessment (LCIA): type I can be seen as a reporting approach with the use of performance reference points and type II aims at including cause-effect chains or impact pathways in the analysis. Given the heterogeneity of those type II approaches, this review provides a classification of existing type II approaches.
Methods
We reviewed a total of 28 articles against the background of their main purpose, the method used, the issues covered and the origin of data (observation/characterization/ measurement). We checked the articles against (i) the reflection of an impact pathway, (ii) the availability of so-called inventory and impact indicators, and (iii) the presence of characterization models or factors translating correlations or causality.
Results and discussion
The analysis reveals three main paths to include impact pathways in S-LCA, which differ in authors’ intentions: (1) some studies identify and propose variables composing impact pathways, or frameworks gathering several pathways; (2) other studies investigate or test known pathways empirically, and until now seek mainly to link income data with health impacts at a macro scale, and (3) a last batch applies known and already quantified characterization models or factors from other research works in case studies. Until now, these case studies focus mainly on income-related social effects or on health impacts. Further, each path is further characterized and classified under nine approaches. Our findings highlight not only the heterogeneous nature of approaches, but also their common denominator which is to not consider phenomena or impacts in isolation but to consider them in relation to their sources or further impacts. It should be noted that type II studies are not only limited to quantitative approaches and variables, but can also use more qualitative variables and methods.
Conclusions
The presented classification may be used as a guidance tool for authors to make their methodological choices. Also, our findings indicate the opportunity of extending future type II S-LCA research to variables tackled in type I studies (e.g., safe and fair employment and working conditions), beyond pathways including incomes and health impacts. This can be done by using theories from social sciences for the identification of impact pathways. Those could then further be investigated through statistical approaches or in the framework of S-LCA case studies, with specific data and potentially more qualitative methods to analyze causality or social mechanisms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In type I studies, referring to characterization is not correct since there is no characterization per se (as in E-LCA), but rather a referencing with performance reference points/a reference scale (i.e., generally a translation from qualitative to semi-quantitative variables).
These three paths (identification of variables, testing, and applications) are not to be understood as subsequent steps, but rather as a way to highlight the authors’ intentions within their studies. However, the studies relating to the different paths may benefit from each other and one may be used as the basis for further studies.
References
Arvidsson R, Baumann H, Hildenbrand J (2014) On the scientific justification of the use of working hours, child labour and property rights in social life cycle assessment: three topical reviews. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:161–173
Arvidsson R, Hildenbrand J, Baumann H, Islam KMN, Parsmo R (2018) A method for human health impact assessment in social LCA: lessons from three case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:690–699
Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the Production of an Airbag Injure more People than the Airbag Saves in Traffic? J Ind Ecol 17:517–527
Behaghel L (2006) Lire l’économétrie, Collection Repères. Economie ; 460. La Découverte, Paris
Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC, Paris
Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret J-P (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417
Bonacina De Auraujo J, Ugaya CML (2018) Development of S-LCIA models: a review of multivariate data analysis methods, in: Pre-Proceedings, Fruitrop Thema. Presented at the 6th Social LCA conference - People and places for partnerships, CIRAD, Pescara, Italy
Brent A, Labuschagne C (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:3–15
Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2014) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17:579–596
Di Cesare S (2016) Farmworkers’ pesticides exposition assessment: the Wesseling pathway
Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2005) A Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 11:88–97.
Feschet P (2014) Analyse du Cycle de Vie Sociale. Pour un nouveau cadre conceptuel et théorique. Université de Montpellier 1, Montpellier
Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Saez AR, Benhmad F (2012) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503
Gorton WA (2019) The Philosophy of Social Science. Internet Encycl Philos
Grubert E (2018) Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:481–491
Hofstetter P, Norris GA (2003) Why and how should we assess occupational health impacts in integrated product policy? Environ Sci Technol 37:2025–2035
Huang L, Ernstoff A, Fantke P, Csiszar SA, Jolliet O (2017) A review of models for near-field exposure pathways of chemicals in consumer products. Sci Total Environ 574:1182–1208
Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA Methodology and Case Study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:371–382
Hutchins MJ, Sutherland JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod Sustain Supply Chain Manage 16:1688–1698
Iofrida N, Luca AID, Strano A, Gulisano G (2018) Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:464–480
Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Silveri F, Falcone G, Stillitano T, Gulisano G, Strano A (2019) Psychosocial risk factors’ impact pathway for social life cycle assessment: an application to citrus life cycles in South Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:767–780
ISO (n.d.) ISO 26000 Social responsibility [WWW Document]. ISO. URL http://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/home/standards/popular-standards/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html (accessed 4.29.19)
Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2009) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:5–16
Jørgensen A, Jørgensen MS, Finkbeiner M, Hauschild MZ (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:376–384
Knight CR, Winship C (2013) The causal implications of mechanistic thinking: identification using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). In: Morgan SL (ed) Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3_14
Lagarde V, Macombe C (2012) Designing the social life cycle of products from the systematic competitive model. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 18:172–184
Macombe C (2013) How can one predict social effects and impacts?, in: Social LCAs - Socio-Economic Effects in Value Chains, Fruitrop Thema. CIRAD/IRSTEA
Menikpura SNM, Gheewala SH, Bonnet S (2012) Framework for life cycle sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management systems with an application to a case study in Thailand. Waste Manag Res 30:708–719
Moriizumi Y, Matsui N, Hondo H (2010) Simplified life cycle sustainability assessment of mangrove management: a case of plantation on wastelands in Thailand. J Clean Prod 18(16-17):1629–1638
Musaazi MK, Mechtenberg AR, Nakibuule J, Sensenig R, Miyingo E, Makanda JV, Hakimian A, Eckelman MJ (2015) Quantification of social equity in life cycle assessment for increased sustainable production of sanitary products in Uganda. J Clean Prod 96:569–579
Neugebauer S (2016) Enhancing life cycle sustainability assessment tiered approach and new characterization models for social life cycle assessment and life cycle costing. Technischen Universität Berlin, Berlin
Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang Y-J, Wolf K, Finkbeiner M (2014) Impact pathways to address social well-being and social justice in SLCA—fair wage and level of education. Sustainability 6:4839–4857
Neugebauer S, Emara Y, Hellerström C, Finkbeiner M (2017) Calculation of fair wage potentials along products’ life cycle – Introduction of a new midpoint impact category for social life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 143:1221–1232
Norris GA (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles—towards life cycle Attribute Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:97–104
Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret J-P (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171
Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Revéret J-P (2018) A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:432–444
Silveri F (2016) Anticipating psychosocial factors effects in the agri-food sector: the Siegrist’s pathway
Sureau S, Achten WMJ (2018) Including governance and economic aspects to assess and explain social impacts: a methodological proposal for S-LCA, in: Pre-Proceedings, Fruitrop Thema. Presented at the 6th Social LCA conference - People and places for partnerships, Pescara, Italy
Sureau S, Mazijn B, Garrido SR, Achten WMJ (2018) Social life-cycle assessment frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:904–920
Touceda MI, Neila FJ, Degrez M (2018) Modeling socioeconomic pathways to assess sustainability: a tailored development for housing retrofit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:710–725
Weidema BP (2006) The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96
Weidema BP (2018a) Towards a taxonomy for social impact pathway indicators, in: Pre-Proceedings, Fruitrop Thema. Presented at the 6th Social LCA conference—People and places for partnerships, CIRAD, Pescara, Italy
Weidema BP (2018b) The social footprint—a practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:700–709
Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6:4200–4226
Wu SR, Chen J, Apul D, Fan P, Yan Y, Fan Y, Zhou P (2015) Causality in social life cycle impact assessment (SLCIA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1312–1323
Funding
This research was financially funded by a Mini-ARC PhD scholarship of the Université libre de Bruxelles.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor Marzia Traverso
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 62 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sureau, S., Neugebauer, S. & Achten, W.M.J. Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 382–393 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01693-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01693-9