Skip to main content

Weighting and Scoring in Social Life Cycle Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perspectives on Social LCA

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science ((BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL))

Abstract

Social impact evaluation is one of the cornerstones of products and services sustainability. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA hereafter) focuses on studying potential social impacts of products’ life cycle. As it is a relatively new analytical approach, no globally shared application tools have been developed for it yet. Communicating S-LCA results to decision-makers in order to promote social sustainable decisions is a challenge because it involves the aggregation of companies’ performances across impact categories through numerical variables based on value-choices. Currently, the weighting process (used for performance aggregation) considered for type I analysis in the literature presents some limits: lack of transparency, implicit choices, no standard weighting method and the failure to take into account the uncertainty of these value choices. This paper aims to address these limits by proposing a standard approach to conduct the weighting process for type I S-LCA. It starts after characterization phase and comprises four stages: (i) impact level scoring, (ii) functional unit aggregation, (iii) weighting factors definition and (iv) performances aggregation across impact categories. This approach is able to consider determinist or stochastic numerical variables, depending on the inclusion or not of the uncertainty associated to people’ value judgments. In terms of results, this paper presents an illustrative case study in order to exemplify how to conduct the weighting process in S-LCA. Considering the results, we identified some limits related to our approach: (i) depending on the subjects involved in S-LCA and the subcategory indicators considered for the assessment, it might not be possible to define standard weighting factors for all case studies; (ii) the type of uncertainty tackled on this approach is only associated with value choices – no other source of uncertainty is addressed and; (iii) the method used to assess qualitative social performances (scoring, check list or social hotspot database) can influence the aggregated social performance of product systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Benoit C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Praksha S, Ugaya C, Beck T. The guidelines for social lifecycle assessment of products: Just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2010;15(2):156–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste P. Addressing uncertain scoring and weighting factors in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2017;22(10):1609–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G. Potential hotspot identified by social LCA – Part 1: A case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2013;18(1):127–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ugaya CML. The social assessment of products. In: Murray J, Mcbain D, Wiedmann T, editors. The sustainability practitioner’s guide to social analysis and assessment. Chicago: Commun Group; 2015. p. 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Revéret JP. A literature review of type I S-LCA – making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2018;23(3):432–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. https://www.social-lca.org/. Accessed DD.MM.2018

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sanchez-Ramirez PK, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML. Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2014;19(8):1515–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bengtsson M. Weighting in practice: Implications for the use of life-cycle assessment in decision making. J Ind Ecol. 4(4):47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. ISO 14040. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. Geneva, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Breno Barros Telles do Carmo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

do Carmo, B.B.T., Garrido, S.R., Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M.C. (2020). Weighting and Scoring in Social Life Cycle Assessment. In: Traverso, M., Petti, L., Zamagni, A. (eds) Perspectives on Social LCA. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01508-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics