Towards a Taxonomy for Social Impact Pathway Indicators

  • Bo P. WeidemaEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science book series (BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL)


A conceptually complete taxonomy is proposed at three levels of the impact pathway: Elementary flows, midpoint impacts, and endpoint impacts. The completeness is ensured conceptually by including unspecified residuals and by the use of fully quantifiable indicators that can be traced from source to sink, so that completeness can be verified by input-output balances and against measured totals. Each category in the taxonomy has a definition and at the lowest level also a unit of measurement. Examples of category definitions and units are illustrated in an impact pathway model with starting point in the midpoint impact category “Undernutrition”. This model also demonstrates the role of the taxonomy in the development of characterisation factors.


  1. 1.
    EEA. Environmental indicators: Typology and overview, Technical report No 25, Copenhagen, European Environmental Agency, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jolliet O, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Itsubo N, Mueller-Wenk R, Peña C, Schenk R, Stewart M, Weidema BP. Final report of the LCIA definition study, Paris, Life cycle impact assessment programme of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative, United Nations Environmental Programme, 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bare JC, Gloria TP. Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection. J Clean Prod. 2008;16:1021–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simões MGFP. Social key performance indicators – Assessment in supply chains, Master Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, 2014.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    UNECE. Conference of European Statisticians recommendations on measuring sustainable development. New York and Geneva: United Nations; 2014.. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weidema BP. The social footprint – A practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2018;23(3):700–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    WHO. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, July 1946, Official Records of the World Health Organization, No. 2, p. 100.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weidema BP. The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2006;11(1):89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weidema BP, Schmidt J, Fantke P, Pauliuk S. On the boundary between economy and environment in LCA, Int J Life Cycle Assess, early on-line view 4. October 2017, Read-only link:
  10. 10.
    Ogbuanu C, Glover S, Probst J, Liu J, Hussey J. The effect of maternity leave length and time of return to work on breastfeeding. Pediatrics. 2011;127(6):e1414–27. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blakely T, Hales S, Woodward A. Poverty: assessing the distribution of health risks by socioeconomic position at national and local levels. Geneva: World Health Organization, WHO Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No 10, 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network, Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 (GBD 2016). Burden by Risk 1990–2016. Seattle: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation; 2017.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lynn R, Meisenberg G. National IQs calculated and validated for 108 nations. Intelligence. 2010;38(4):353–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heymann J, Raub A, Earle A. Breastfeeding policy: a globally comparative analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91:398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish Centre for Environmental AssessmentAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations