Beyond a Corporate Social Responsibility Context Towards Methodological Pluralism in Social Life Cycle Assessment: Exploring Alternative Social Theoretical Perspectives

  • Henrikke BaumannEmail author
  • Rickard Arvidsson
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science book series (BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL)


The UNEP/SETAC guidelines have Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as the underpinning theoretical perspective. However, studies on CSR suggest that the companies have benefitted more than society. We explore two alternative theoretical perspectives: the theory of ecologically unequal exchange (TEUE) and the actor-network-theory (ANT). By analysing case studies informed by TEUE and ANT, we identify their contribution to social life cycle assessment. The analysis shows that the perspectives enable description and identification of issues otherwise uncovered by the UNEP/SETAC approach: the unequal balance of health effects over a production and a consumption system and the presence of multiple and sometimes conflicting interests across actors in a production and consumption system, respectively. We point out characteristic methodological differences and conclude that S-LCA would benefit from greater pluralism.


  1. 1.
    Banerjee SB. A critical perspective on corporate social responsibility: towards a global governance framework. Crit Perspect Int Bus. 2014;10(1–2):84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sanders P. Is CSR cognizant of the conflictuality of globalisation? A realist critique. Crit Perspect Int Bus. 2012;8(2):157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorton WA. The philosophy of social science. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — A peer-reviewed academic resource, Accessed 17 Dec 2017.
  4. 4.
    Keating M, Della Porta D. 2009. In defence of pluralism. Combining approaches in the social sciences. Political studies association, Edinburgh. 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kauffman J. Advancing sustainability science: report on the international conference on sustainability science (ICSS) 2009. Sustain Sci. 2009;4(2):233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    UNEP-SETAC. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hornborg A. Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system. Int J Comp Sociol. 2009;50(3–4):237–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jorgenson AK. Environment, development, and ecologically unequal exchange. Sustainability. 2016;8(3):227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oulu M. The unequal exchange of Dutch cheese and Kenyan roses: introducing and testing an LCA-based methodology for estimating ecologically unequal exchange. Ecol Econ. 2015;119:372–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford university press; 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czarniawska B. Actor-Network Theory. In: The SAGE handbook of process organization studies. London: SAGE; 2016. p. 160–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baumann, H.Simple material relations handled by complicated organisation or ‘how many (organisations) does it take to change a lightbulb?’, Proceedings of what is an organization? Materiality, Agency and Discourse, HEC Montréal, Université de Montréal, Queébec, Canada, 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baumann H. Using the life cycle approach for structuring organizational studies of product chains. Linköping: Greening of Industry Network conference; 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y. Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? J Ind Ecol. 2013;17(4., 2013):517–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arvidsson R, Hildenbrand J, Baumann H, Islam KN, Parsmo R. A method for human health impact assessment in social LCA: lessons from three case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2018;23(3):690–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Afrane G, Arvidsson R, Baumann H, Borg J, Keller E, Mila i Canals L, Selmer, J. K. A product chain organisation study of certified cocoa supply. 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Management, Göteborg, Sweden, 2013.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Camacho Otero J, Baumann H. Unravelling the shrimp nets.Tracing actors, arguments and life cycle thinking in the controversy over the sustainability of the Swedish West Coast shrimp. ESA report 2016:17, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2016.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lindkvist M, Baumann H. Analyzing how governance of material efficiency affects the environmental performance of product flows: a comparison of product chain organization of Swedish and Dutch metal packaging flows. Recycling. 2017;2(4):23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venturini T. Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Underst Sci. 2010;19(3):258–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Latour B. Mapping controversies: syllabus 2012–13. MediaLab. Science Po. Retrieved from, Accessed 15 Oct 2015.
  21. 21.
    Mitchell R, Parkins J. The challenge of developing social indicators for cumulative effects assessment and land use planning. Ecol Soc. 2011;16(2):29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A. Challenges in determining the effectiveness of sustainability assessment. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors. Sustainability assessment: Pluralism, practice and progress. New York: Routledge; 2013. p. 37–50.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Franks DM, Brereton D, Moran CJ. Cumulative social impacts. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2011. p. 202–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Systems AnalysisChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations