Abstract
Purpose
Measurability becomes a key question in the assessment of the sustainability of products and services. As the LCA has proven its capability of measuring environmental sustainability over the last decades, the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) seems promising as a way to cover the social dimension of sustainability within a similar framework. For operability reasons, working hours are commonly used as a single metric in product orientated S-LCA studies, even though major stakeholder groups are excluded by doing so. This paper shows how this shortcoming can be overcome through the introduction of the measurement of additional activity variables and explores different ways of implementing these variables.
Methods
This work suggests introducing the activity variables Biophysical Pressure and Added Value in addition to the commonly used working hours of involved labour forces. Biophysical Pressure reflects the negative influence of the degraded natural environment on the affected humans in addition to the direct health effect covered by standard LCA. Added Value represents the potential benefits for stakeholders due to financial investments in production. The new activity variables are derived from the MRIO database “Exiobase” and coupled with social risk indicators from the “Social Hotspot Database”. Finally, the qualitative risk classes are transformed to quantitative units and normalized to allow for a better interpretation and an optional aggregation of the three variables into a Final Social Impact score.
Results and discussion
In order to test the method’s applicability, the social impacts of products and services from two different product systems were calculated and compared. Three t-shirts and four residential housing heating systems were assessed by the developed method and compared on the basis of their respective functional units. Major differences between the social impact measured only by working hours and social impact measured by the aggregation of the three quantitative units were observed, especially since the Added Value (social benefits) dimension and working hours contrasted regionally. While the concept is functional, there are limitations related to the MRIO inventory data and to the interpretation of results; therefore, sensitivity analyses were applied.
Conclusions
The developed S-LCA method shows a promising way to extend the range of stakeholders affected by the life cycle of a distinct product by adding new variables. While constraints of MRIO data concerning detailed product system representation currently limit the approach, it allows one to identify potential social hotspots in complex product systems.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acquaye AA, Wiedmann T, Feng K, Crawford RH, Barrett J, Kuylenstierna J, Duffy AP, Koh SCL, McQueen-Mason S (2011) Identification of ‘carbon hot-spots’ and quantification of GHG intensities in the biodiesel supply chain using hybrid LCA and structural path analysis. Environ Sci Technol 45(6):2471–2478
Alsamawi A, Murray J, Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K (2014) The inequality footprints of nations: a novel approach to quantitative accounting of income inequality. PLoS One 9(10):e110881
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(2):156–163
Benoît Norris C (2014) Data for social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:261–265
Benoît-Norris C (2012) 20. Social Life Cycle Assessment: a technique providing a new wealth of information to inform decision making. Life Cycle Assess Handb A Guid Environ Sustain Prod 1996:433–452
Benoit-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4:1946–1965
Blok K, Huijbregts M, Roes L, Haaster B, van Patel M, Hertwich E, Wood R, Hauschild MZ, Sellke P, Antunes P, Hellweg S, Ciroth A, Harmelink M (2013) A Novel Methodology for the Sustainability Impact Assessment of New Technologies. Report prepared within the EC 7th framework project PROSUITE. Available at: https://www.prosuite.org
Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development. Med Confl Surviv 4:300
Bryman A (2012) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, New York
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 Techn Environ Policy 17:579–596
Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) Societal assessment (subject Editor: David Hunkelert) a framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 11:88–97
Erdgas Schweiz (2015) Kostenvergleich verschiedener Heizsysteme. https://www.erdgas.ch/fileadmin/customer/erdgasch/Data/Erdgas/Preise/kostenvergleich_d.pdf
Flick U (2008) Triangulation - Eine Einführung. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
FWS (2009a) Heizkostenvergleich Mehrfamilienhaus. In: Fachverein Wärmepumpen Schweiz Website. https://www.fws.ch/tl_files/download_d/Downloads/heizkostenvergleich_mfh_april2009_d.xls?phpMyAdmin=6b841e574b7e027ebeb2ac08849f32af
FWS (2009b) Heizkostenvergleich Einfamilienhaus. In: Fachverein Wärmepumpen Schweiz Website. https://www.fws.ch/tl_files/download_d/Downloads/kopie_von_heizkostenvergleich_efh_april2009_d__2_.xls?phpMyAdmin=6b841e574b7e027ebeb2ac08849f32af
Gaasbeek A, Meijer E (2013) Handbook on a Novel Methodology for the Sustainability Impact Assessment of New Technologies
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, De Schryver A et al (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. doi: http://www.lcia-recipe.net
H&M (2013) H&M Annual Report 2013. http://about.hm.com/content/dam/hm/about/documents/en/AnnualReport/Annual-Report-2013_en.pdf. (Accessed 06.04.2015)
Haas A, Pfister S, Zimdars C (2017) Social LCA Data in a Tool v1. Mendeley Data. doi: 10.17632/885knh8s4j.1
HessNatur (2013) Hessnatur Bericht zur Nachhaltigkeit
Hicks CC, Levine A, Agrawal A, Basurto X, Breslow SJ, Carothers C, Levin PS (2016) Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science 352(6281):38–40. Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6281/38.abstract
ISO (2006) ISO14040:environmental managements—lifecycleassessments—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
Jørgensen A (2013) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:296–299
Klöpffer W, Grahl B (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA): a guide to best practice. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
Martinez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang YJ, Finkbeiner M (2015) Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1586–1599
Mattioda RA, Mazzi A, Canciglieri O, Scipioni A (2015) Determining the principal references of the social life cycle assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1155–1165
Ness B, Urbel-piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2006) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60:498–508
Norris GA (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles towards life cycle attribute assessment. Harvard Sch Public Heal 1:97–104
Pfister S, Curran M, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2010) Trade-offs between land and water use: regionalized impacts of energy crops. In: Notarnicola B, Settani E, Tassielli G, Giungato P (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, vol 1. Università degli studi di Bari
Pfister S, Saner D, Koehler A (2011) The environmental relevance of freshwater consumption in global power production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:580–591
Simas M, Wood R, Hertwich E (2015) Labor embodied in trade. J Ind Ecol 19(3):343–356
Uchatius W (2010) Das Welthemd. Der Modekonzern H&M tritt gegen Ausbeutung ein. Und doch verkauft er Kleider für ein paar Euro. Wie kann das sein? In: Die Zeit Online. http://www.zeit.de/2010/51/Billige-T-Shirts. (Accessed 06.04.2015)
UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris
United Nations (1993) Agenda 21. The United Nations Programme of action from Rio. United Nations, New York
Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J et al (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1673–1685
Verones F, Hanafiah MM, Pfister S et al (2010) Characterization factors for thermal pollution in freshwater aquatic environments. Environ Sci Technol 44:9364–9369
Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96
Wood R, Stadler K, Bulavskaya T et al (2015) Global sustainability accounting-developing EXIOBASE for multi-regional footprint analysis. Sustain 7:138–163
WRI (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington
Wu R, Yang D, Chen J et al (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6:4200–4226
Acknowledgements
We thank Andreas Ciroth and GreenDelta GmbH for their input on S-LCA as well as for valuable comments on the approach developed and Catherine Benoit for sharing additional information on the SHDB. We acknowledge Stefanie Hellweg and Christie Walker for proofreading the manuscript. This work was partially sponsored by the Swiss National Science Foundation through the project “Sustainability evaluation of biorefinery systems for fuel and commodity chemical generation from plant residues”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zimdars, C., Haas, A. & Pfister, S. Enhancing comprehensive measurement of social impacts in S-LCA by including environmental and economic aspects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 133–146 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1305-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1305-z