Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA

  • SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is developing rapidly and represents a valuable complement to other life cycle methods. As methodological development continues, a growing number of case studies have noted the need for more scientific rigor in areas like data collection, allocation methods, and incorporation of values and cultural context. This work aims to identify opportunities, especially in the social sciences, to improve rigor in SLCA.

Methods

A review of existing literature and tools is based on both hand coding of the SLCA literature as represented in Web of Science’s “All Collections” database and on computer-aided review of the SLCA and other related literatures (including social impact assessment (SIA), life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), and corporate social responsibility (CSR)) using a text mining technique known as topic modeling. Rapid diagnosing of potentially valuable contributions from literatures outside of SLCA through computer-aided review led to more detailed, manual investigation of those literatures for further insight.

Results and discussion

Data collection can benefit from increased standardization and integration with social science methods, especially frameworks for surveys and interviews. Sharing examples of questionnaires and ethics committee protocols will likely improve SLCA’s accessibility. SIA and CSR also represent empirical data sources for SLCA. Impact allocation techniques can benefit from reintegration with those in ELCA, in particular by allocating (when necessary) at facility—rather than product—level. The focus on values and subjectivity in SLCA is valuable not only for SLCA but also for other methods, most notably ELCA. Further grounding in social science is likely to improve rigor in SLCA.

Conclusions

SLCA is increasingly robust and contributing to interdisciplinary discussions of how best to consider social impacts. This work makes three major recommendations for continued growth: first, that SLCA standardize human subject research used for data gathering; second, that SLCA adopt allocation techniques from ELCA; and third, that SLCA continue to draw on social science and other literatures to rigorously include value systems.

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

References

  • Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80:64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson AA, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Corley EA (2012) The Role of Media and Deference to Scientific Authority in Cultivating Trust in Sources of Information about Emerging Technologies. Int J Publ Opin Res 24:225–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013) Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling systems in low income countries: three Peruvian case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1116–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Merli R (2013) Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability 5:3275–3287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assael H, Keon J (1982) Nonsampling vs. Sampling Errors in Survey Research. J Mar 46:114–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic?: opting for an empirically based approach to social life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 17:517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît C, Mazijn B, Andrews ES (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: social and socio-economic LCA guidelines complementing environmental LCA and Life Cycle Costing, contributing to the full assessment of goods and services within the context of sustainable development. United Nations Environment Programme

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

    Article  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 16:682–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit-Norris C, Norris GA, Aulisio D (2014) Efficient Assessment of Social Hotspots in the Supply Chains of 100 Product Categories Using the Social Hotspots Database. Sustainability 6:6973–6984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bice S (2015) Bridging corporate social responsibility and social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 33:160–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billiet J, Loosveldt G (1988) Improvement of the quality of responses to factual survey questions by interviewer training. Publ Opin Q 52:190–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blei D, Lafferty J (2006) Correlated Topic Models. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst 18:147

    Google Scholar 

  • Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret JP (2015) Anticipating Impacts on Health Based on Changes in Income Inequality Caused by Life Cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouzid A, Padilla M (2014) Analysis of Social Performance of the Industrial Tomatoes Food Chain in Algeria. New Medit: Mediterr J Econ, Agric Environ 13:60–65

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdge RJ, Vanclay F (1996) Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series. Impact Assess 14:59–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdge R, Fricke P, Finsterbusch K, Freudenburg W, Gramling R, Holden A, Llewellyn L, Petterson J, Thompson J, Williams G (1995) Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 15:11–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) “Socializing” sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:579–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi BC, Pak AW (2005) A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev Chronic Dis 2:A13

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloquell-Ballester VA, Cloquell-Ballester VA, Monterde-Díaz R, Santamarina-Siurana MC (2006) Indicators validation for the improvement of environmental and social impact quantitative assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:79–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen G, Forbes J, Garraway M (1996) Can different patient satisfaction survey methods yield consistent results? Comparison of three surveys. BMJ 313:841–844

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:385–402

    Article  CAS  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 Life Cycle Assess 18:127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekener-Petersen E, Moberg Å (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 2: reflections on a study of a complex product. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G (2014) Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy 73:416–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Saez AR, Benhmad F (2013) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway: the case of banana industry in Cameroon. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2013) 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press

  • Freudenburg WR (1986) Social Impact Assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 12:451–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM, Fowler, FJ, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2011) Survey Methodology. John Wiley & Sons

  • Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment. Environ Resource Econ 11:413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Dreyer LC, Jørgensen A (2008) Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective—Lessons learned. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57:21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi K, Sato M, Darnhofer I, Grötzer M (2010) Farmers’ responses to social impact indicators for agricultural and community practices: a case study of organic rice production in Japan. 9th European IFSA Symposium, Vienna, pp 4–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins C, Milne M, Gramberg B (2015) The Uptake of Sustainability Reporting in Australia. J Bus Ethics 129:445–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:620–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA Methodology and Case Study (12 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:371–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Strano A, Gulisano G (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment in a constructivist realism perspective: a methodological proposal. In: Macombe C and Loeillet D (eds). Social LCA in progress. Pre-Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar in Social LCA. Montpellier, France, November 19–21 2014, ISNN 1256–5458

  • ISO 14040:2006 (2006) Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles and framework. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=37456. Accessed 28 June 2015

  • ISO 14044:2006 (2006) Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Requirements and guidelines. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=38498. Accessed 28 June 2015

  • Jenkins H, Yakovleva N (2006) Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. J Clean Prod 14:271–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jockers M (2011) The LDA Buffet Is Now Open; Or, Latent Dirichlet Allocation for English Majors. Stanford University. https://web.stanford.edu/group/ats/cgi-bin/hivetalkin/?p=2011. Accessed 26 May 2015

  • Johnson TP, O’Rourke D, Burris J, Owens L (2002) Culture and survey nonresponse. Survey nonresponse 55–69

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnani A (2007) Doing well by doing good—case study: “Fair & Lovely” whitening cream. Strateg Manag J 28:1351–1357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch S (2010) Experiments in Engaged Anthropology. Collab Anthropol 3:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen J (2003) Should we measure corporate social responsibility? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 10:25–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick JA (1999) Survey Research. Annu Rev Psychol 50:537–567

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann A, Russi D, Bala A, Finkbeiner M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2011) Integration of Social Aspects in Decision Support, Based on Life Cycle Thinking. Sustainability 3:562–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Schebek L (2013) Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1581–1592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom CE, Cohen DK (1979). Usable knowledge: social science and social problem solving. Yale University Press

  • Lockie S, Franettovich M, Petkova-Timmer V, Rolfe J, Ivanova G (2009) Coal mining and the resource community cycle: a longitudinal assessment of the social impacts of the Coppabella coal mine. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29:330–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthe T, Kägi T, Reger J (2013) A systems approach to sustainable technical product design: combining life cycle assessment and virtual development in the case of skis. J Ind Ecol 17:605–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R (2013) Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod 52:205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1386–1392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Antón A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1506–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCallum AK (2002) MALLET: a Machine Learning for Language Toolkit. http://mallet.cs.umass.edu. Accessed 26 May 2015

  • McGorry SY (2000) Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues. Qual Mark Res 3:74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertens DM (2007) Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mixed Methods Res 1:212–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang YJ, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris GA (2006) Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles - Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1065/lca2006.04.017

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:97–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottinger G (2013) Refining expertise: how responsible engineers subvert environmental justice challenges. NYU Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret JP (2013) Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1642–1652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson FD, Neailey K (2002) A Risk Register Database System to aid the management of project risk. Int J Proj Manag 20:365–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck P, Sinding K (2003) Environmental and social disclosure and data richness in the mining industry. Bus Strateg Environ 12:131–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzirani S, McLaren SJ, Seadon JK (2014) Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1316–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presser S, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E, Martin J, Rothgeb JM, Singer E (2004) Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions. Publ Opin Q 68:109–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez PKS, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML (2014) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1515–1523

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer NC, Presser S (2003) The Science of Asking Questions. Annu Rev Sociol 29:65–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt JP, Konrath SH, Schwarz N (2011) “Global warming” or “climate change”?: whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Publ Opin Q 75:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt JP, Roh S, Schwarz N (2015) Questionnaire design effects in climate change surveys: implications for the partisan divide. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 658:67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press

  • Slovic P, Layman M, Kraus N, Flynn J, Chalmers J, Gesell G (1991) Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal 11:683–696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R, Smith TW (1996) Asking sensitive questions the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Publ Opin Q 60:275–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker A (2000) Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:435–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umair S, Björklund A, Petersen EE (2015) Social impact assessment of informal recycling of electronic ICT waste in Pakistan using UNEP SETAC guidelines. Resour Conserv Recycl 95:46–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay F (2006) Principles for social impact assessment: a critical comparison between the international and US documents. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vavra J, Bednarikova M (2013) Application of social life cycle assessment in Metallurgy. METAL 2013: 22nd International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials

  • Villar A, Krosnick JA (2011) Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: does word choice matter? Clim Chang 105:1–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walker G (2010) Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: the implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:312–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler T, Lord F (2010) Planning for the Human Dimensions of Oil Spills and Spill Response. Environ Manag 45:723–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willams TM (1994) Using a risk register to integrate risk management in project definition. Int J Proj Manag 12:17–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink M (1988) The social impact of a large wind turbine. Environ Impact Assess Rev 8:323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited. Sustainability 6:4200–4226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu X (2008) Impacts of corporate code of conduct on labor standards: a case study of Reebok’s athletic footwear supplier factory in China. J Bus Ethics 81:513–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The contributions of several anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-114747. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega Ste 226, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Emily Grubert

Authors
  1. Emily Grubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Grubert.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 40 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grubert, E. Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 481–491 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1117-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1117-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation