Functional Unit Definition Criteria in Life Cycle Assessment and Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Discussion

  • Ioannis ArzoumanidisEmail author
  • Manuela D’Eusanio
  • Andrea Raggi
  • Luigia Petti
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science book series (BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL)


The definition of a Functional Unit (FU) is essential for building and modelling a product system in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). A FU is a quantified description of the function of a product that serves as the reference basis for all calculations regarding impact assessment. A function may be based on different features of the product under study, such as performance, aesthetics, technical quality, additional services, costs, etc. Whilst the FU definition is typical in LCA, this does not seem to be a common practice in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), even though a FU definition is required. Unlike LCA, where quantitative data are mainly collected and processed, the assessment of the social and socio-economic impacts in S-LCA is based on a prevalence of qualitative and semi-quantitative data, a fact that renders the assessment to be somehow unfriendly. Moreover, whilst in LCA a product-oriented approach is typical, S-LCA tends to be a business-oriented methodology, where the emphasis of the social assessment lies on the behaviour of the organisations that are involved in the processes under study rather than on the function that is generated by a product. Indeed, several S-LCA case studies were found in the literature in which the FU is not discussed, let alone defined. The objective of this article is to contribute to analysing the criteria used for the definition of a FU in LCA and verifying whether these criteria can be suitable for S-LCA case studies applications. For this reason, a literature review was carried out on LCA in order to identify whether and how this issue has been tackled with so far. In addition, a second literature review was performed in order to verify how the FU has been introduced in the framework of the S-LCA methodology. Finally, an investigation of the analysis results, in terms of the selected FU, is proposed in view of an ever-growing need for a combination of the LCA and S-LCA methodologies into a broader Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA).


  1. 1.
    Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability. 2010;2(10):3309–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kloepffer W. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2008;13(2):89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO 14040. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. Geneva, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Eusanio M, Zamagni A, Petti L. La social life cycle assessment a supporto del supply chain management, 11th conference of the Italian LCA network, resource efficiency e sustainable development goals: il ruolo del life cycle thinking, Siena, 2017, p. 279–287.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Loeillet D. 2nd International seminar in social life cycle assessment – recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2011;16(9):940–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Cesare S, Silveri F, Sala S, Petti L. Positive impacts in social life cycle assessment: state of the art and the way forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2016:1–16.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, Paris, 2009.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weidema B, Wenzel H, Petersen C, Hansen K. The product, functional unit and reference flows in LCA, environmental news 70, 2004, Danish Ministry of the Environment – Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  9. 9. Accessed 30 Oct 2017.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Arzoumanidis I, Raggi A, Petti L. Environmental assessment of beekeeping products and services – a life cycle assessment case study including honey and pollination, proceedings of the 10th congress of the Hellenic Society of Agricultural Engineers, Athens, 2017, p. 426–435.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bjørn A, Laurent A, Owsianiak M, Olsen SI, History LCA. In: Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI, editors. Life cycle assessment – theory and practice. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA. Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2014;19(3):620–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yıldız-Geyhan E, Altun-Çiftçioğlu GA, Neşet Kadırgan MA. Social life cycle assessment of different packaging waste collection system. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2017;124:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raffiani P, Kuppens T, Van Deal M, Azadi H, Lebailly P, Van Passel S. Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: towards a systemic approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2018;82(2):1839–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioannis Arzoumanidis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuela D’Eusanio
    • 1
  • Andrea Raggi
    • 1
  • Luigia Petti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economic Studies (DEc)University “G. d’Annunzio”PescaraItaly

Personalised recommendations