Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials
- 728 Downloads
Sustainability analysis should include the assessment of the environmental, social, and economic impacts throughout the life cycle of a product. However, the social sustainability performance assessment is seldom carried out during materials selection due to its complex nature and the lack of a social life cycle assessment tool. This study presents a single score-based social life cycle assessment methodology, namely social sustainability grading model, for assessing and comparing the social sustainability performance of construction materials using a case study on recycled and natural construction materials.
The proposed method is developed based on the methodological framework provided by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry guidelines published in 2009 and the methodological sheets published in 2013, the indicators and sustainability reporting guidelines provided by the Global Reporting Initiatives and ISO 26000 for social responsibility of products, and the indicators provided by the Hong Kong Business Environment Council Limited for construction sustainability. A twofold research approach is proposed in this model: the first one is the qualitative research based on expert interviews to identify, select, and prioritize the relevant subcategories and indicators, and the second one is the operational research based on the case-specific survey to collect the required data. A social sustainability index was proposed for the interpretation of the results effectively. A case study on construction materials was conducted to illustrate the implementation of the method using case-specific first-hand data.
Results and discussion
The major outcome of this study is the systematic development of a social sustainability assessment tool based on the established standards and guidelines. The case study showed that four subcategories are crucial social concerns for construction materials (i.e., health and safety issues of the materials, health and safety of workers, company’s commitment to sustainability, and company’s policies on energy and water consumption). Based on the sustainability index proposed, using recycled aggregates from locally generated waste materials scored higher (about 31–34%) social sustainability than using imported natural aggregates. In addition, recycled aggregates and natural aggregates achieved “sustainable” and “neutral” rating sustainability levels, respectively. However, several subcategories (e.g., health and safety, working hour, forced work, training and social benefits of workers, and quality of the materials and information disclosing to public) are still needed to improve the social sustainability performance of recycled aggregates.
An integrated social life cycle assessment method is presented in this study for assessing the social sustainability of construction materials. In addition, the reported case study in this paper is one of the first attempts for social sustainability assessment of recycled construction materials, and the method can be applied to other recycled materials/products for comparative analysis. However, several critical factors, such as integration in other life cycle methods and software, sensitivity analysis, and more case studies, are still needed for further improvement of the developed method.
KeywordsConstruction materials Recycled materials Social life cycle assessment SSG model
The authors would like to thank all the stakeholders who participated in this research project and also to The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Project of Strategic Importance) for funding support.
- BECL (2013) Moving the construction sector towards sustainable development: industry engagement in developing corporate sustainability initiatives for SMEs in construction sector in Hong Kong. Business Environment Council Limited (BECL), Hong KongGoogle Scholar
- Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to socially assess bio-fuels: a case study of the UNEP/SETAC Code of Practice for social-economical LCA. Master thesis, Division of Quality and Environmental Management. Lulea University of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- Bozhilova-Kisheva K, Olsen SI (2011) Are recycled building materials more sustainable than the traditional ones? http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:124158/datastreams/file_93065bf1-3a65-4b96-aea2-1e17c157f37b/content. Accessed 16 June 2017
- Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. GreenDeltaTC GmbH, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Clift R (2014) Social life cycle assessment: what are we trying to do? In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Pre-proceedings of the 4th international seminar in social LCA. 19th–21st November. Montpellier, France, pp 11–16Google Scholar
- De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A, Falcone G, Gulisano G (2015) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999:1–14Google Scholar
- Di Cesare S, Silveri F, Petti L (2014) The role of indicators in social life cycle assessment: results from a literature review http://bit.ly/1O9gf5F. Accessed 16 June 2017
- Di Cesare S, Silveri F, Sala S, Petti L (2016) Positive impacts in social life cycle assessment: state of the art and the way forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1169-7
- do Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste P (2017a) Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4
- do Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste PE (2017b) Addressing uncertain scoring and weighting factors in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1275-1
- Garrido SR, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Reveret JP (2016) A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1067-z
- GRI (2013) Sustainability reporting guidelines (G4), Reporting principles and standards disclosures. Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI), The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Grubert E (2016) Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1117-6
- Henke S, Theuvsen L (2014) Social life cycle assessment: socioeconomic evaluation of biogas plants and short rotation coppices. Proceedings in food system dynamics, Proceedings in System dynamics and innovation in food networks, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework (ISO14040). Geneva, Switzerland, ISOGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines (ISO14044). Geneva, Switzerland, ISOGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2010) Guidance on social responsibility (ISO 26000). Geneva, Switzerland, ISOGoogle Scholar
- Nazarkina L., Le Bocq A (2006) Social aspect of sustainability assessment: Feasibility of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Other. EDF, Moret-sur-Loing, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Petersen EE (2013) Tracking down social impacts of products with social life cycle assessment. PhD thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2016) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4
- Petti L, Ugaya CML, Di Cesare S (2014) Systematic review of social-life cycle assessment (S-LCA) case studies impact assessment method. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Pre-proceedings of the 4th international seminar in social LCA. FruiTrop Thema, pp 34–41Google Scholar
- Reveret JP, Couture JM, Parent J (2015) Socioeconomic LCA of milk production in Canada. In: Muthu SS (ed) Social life cycle assessment—an insight. Springer, Singapore, pp 25–69Google Scholar
- Siebert A, Bezama A, O’Keeffe S, Thran D (2016) Social life cycle assessment: in pursuit of a framework for assessing wood-based products from bioeconomy regions in Germany. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1066-0
- Sousa-Zomer TT, Miguel PAC (2015) The main challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA) to support the social impacts analysis of product-service systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-1010-8
- UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEPSETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- UNEP/SETAC (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products. UNEP-SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- UNEP/SETAC (2013) The methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). UNEP-SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Zanchi L, Delogu M, Zamagni A, Pierini M (2016) Analysis of the main elements affecting social LCA applications: challenges for the automotive sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1176-8