Abstract
In this chapter, after a brief literature review, the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) technology is introduced, including fundamental terminologies, steps for Implementing an S-LCA, and seven major assessment methods. A case study is presented to illustrate how the procedure and relevant assessment methods are applied in the S-LCA of a company producing lighting products.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aparcana, S., & Salhofer, S. (2013). Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling systems in low income countries: three Peruvian case studies. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Springer, 18(5), 1116–1128.
Benoît, C. et al. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Belgium: UNEP/SETAC Life CycleInitiative (Druk in de weer). http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf.
Benoît, C. et al. (2007). Developing a methodology for social life cycle assessment : The North American Tomato’ s CSR case. Analysis. Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~ffu/calcas/Benoit.pdf.
Chhipi-Shrestha, G. K., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2015). ‘Socializing’sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(3), 579–596.
Ciroth, A., & Eisfeldt, F. (2017). PSILCA—A product social impact life cycle assessment database—Database version 2.1’, GreenDelta GmbH, 1. http://www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PSILCA_documentation_update_PSILCA_v2_final.pdf.
Ciroth, A., & Franze, J. (2011). LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook: consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. Lulu. com. Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://www.greendelta.com/uploads/media/LCA_Notebook.pdf.
Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M., & Schierbeck, J. (2006). A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Springer, 11(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.08.223.
Ekener-Petersen, E., Höglund, J., & Finnveden, G. (2014). Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy Elsevier, 73, 416–426.
Ekener, E., Hansson, J., & Gustavsson, M. (2018). Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Springer, 23(3), 556–568.
Eynard, U. et al. (2018). Social risk in raw materials extraction: a macro-scale assessment. Social LCA, p. 221.
Feschet, P., et al. (2013). Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(2), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0490-z.
Fava, J., et al. (1993). A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment; Workshop Report; February 1–7; 1992, Sandestin, Florida.
Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2013). Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 155–171.
Güereca, F. E. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of rural cassava starch factories in Cauca-Colombia in the post-conflict. Social LCA, p. 150.
Hunkeler, D. (2006). Societal LCA methodology and case study. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Ecomed, 11(6), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.08.261.
Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier, 16(15), 1688–1698.
ISO (2006) Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Framework, Environmental Management. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html?browse=tc.
Jørgensen, A. et al. (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 96–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.11.367.
Koninklijke Philips, N. V. (2015). Philips annual report 2015. Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://www.philips.com/corporate/resources/annualresults/2015/PhilipsFullAnnualReport2015_English.pdf.
Labuschagne, C., & Brent, A. C. (2006). Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.01.233.
Mancini, L., & Sala, S. (2018). Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison of indicators frameworks. Resources Policy. Elsevier.
Norris, C. B., Aulisio, D., & Norris, G. A. (2012). Working with the social hotspots database-methodology and findings from 7 social scoping assessments. Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World. Springer, pp. 581–586.
Norris, G. A. (2006). Social impacts in product life cycles-Towards life cycle attribute assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Springer, 11(1), 97–104.
Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C., & Revéret, J.-P. (2010). Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Springer, 15(2), 164–171.
Petti, L., Ugaya, C. M. L., & Di Cesare, S. (2014). Systematic review of social-life cycle assessment (S-LCA) case studies. Social LCA in progress. FruiTrop, Montpellier.
Pöltl, M., & Spiegel, B. (2014). Arbitration under International Social Security Instruments. Intertax, 42(3), 194–201.
UNEP-SETAC. (2013). The methodological sheets for sub—Categories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Life cycle initiative, UNEP-SETAC. Retrieved May, 2, p. 150.
Villegas, J. D. et al. (2018). Social performance evaluation of an artisanal apparel brand in Peru using Social LCA. Social LCA, p. 105.
Weidema, B. P. (2006). Social impact categories, indicators, characterisation and damage modelling. In Presentation for the 29th Swiss LCA Discussion Forum. http://lca-net.com/p/1021.
Werker, J., Wulf, C., & Zapp, P. (2018). Pathways to S-LCA Interpretation–where to start. Social LCA, p. 155.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the contributions to this article made by Miss Chang Xu and Miss Meidan Wang, visiting students from the Harbin Engineering University (HEU), China, supported by the HEU Visiting Scholar grants.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix 7.1 List of Performance Reference Points (Ciroth and Franze 2011)
Subcategory | Performance Reference Point | Basis |
---|---|---|
Freedom of association and collective bargaining | Freedom of association and collective bargaining should be ensured. The forming and joining of independent trade unions should be possible. | • ILO labour standards • UN Declaration on Human Rights • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UN Global Compact • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Child labour | No occurrence of child labour. | • ILO labour standards • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UN Global Compact • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Forced labour | No occurrence of forced labour. | • ILO labour standards • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprisess • UN Global Compact • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Fair salary | The wage level should ensure a decent standard of living. The payment of the minimum wage is often not sufficient. Further, companies should pay in time and do not withhold shares of the salary. | • ILO labour standards • UN Declaration on Human Rights • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Working time | The working time should not exceed 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week. | • ILO labour standards • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Discrimination | No occurrence of discrimination. Further, companies should employ minorities and the employment ratio men to women should be balanced. | • ILO labour standards • UN Declaration on Human Rights • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UN Global Compact • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Health and safety | Adequate management of health and safety, so that the risk of workers is low. | • ILO labour standards • ISO 26000 • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Social benefits/social security | Companies should provide social benefits as for instance medical insurance or pension insurance, which ensure a decent standard of living. Other social benefits as swimming pools, staff cars, or the like are classified as rather unimportant. | • ILO labour standards • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Access to material resources | Companies should not overexploit material resources and should implement certified environmental management systems to minimise resource consumption. In addition, companies should improve community infrastructure, if the infrastructure is underdeveloped or not sufficient for a decent standard of living. | • UN Declaration on Human Rights • ISO 26000 • ISO 14000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UN Global Compact • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Access to immaterial resources | Companies should provide for one thing freedom of expression; for another thing they should support communities in education or other community services, if necessary. | • UN Declaration on Human Rights • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Delocalisation and migration | Companies should not cause resettlements or migration movements on a large scale. If resettlements are necessary companies should provide appropriate compensations. | • UN Declaration on Human Rights • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Cultural heritage | Companies should respect cultural heritage and do not infringe cultural customs and traditions in any way. | • UN Declaration on Human Rights • ILO conventions • Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Respect of indigenous rights | Companies should respect indigenous rights, including the rights to lands, resources, cultural integrity, self-determination, and self-government. | • UN Declaration on Human Rights • Indigenous rights • ILO conventions • UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples • IFC Performance Standards on • Social and Environmental Sustainability • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Safe and healthy living conditions | Companies should minimise their environmental pollution in order not to jeopardise the health of community members. | • UN Declaration on Human Rights • ISO 26000 • IFC Performance Standards on • Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Secure living conditions | In countries with high crime rates companies should contribute to secure living conditions through private security personnel. | • UN Declaration on Human Rights • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Local employment | Companies should contribute directly or indirectly through local suppliers to the reduction of local unemployment. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • ILO conventions • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Community engagement | Companies should engage in their communities in different areas. In addition, companies should include community stakeholders in relevant decision-making processes. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Public commitments to sustainable issues | Companies should contribute to the sustainable development of the society with regard to the impacts from their activities. | • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Contribution to economic development | Companies should contribute the local economic development through different aspects as payment of wages, purchase of raw materials and supplies, investments etc. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Prevention and mitigation of conflicts | Companies located in regions with a high risk of conflicts due to resource depletion, massive pollution or poor working standards should try to reduce the risk by dint of appropriate measures. | • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Technology development | Companies acting in technology relevant areas should engage in the development of efficient and environ- mental sound technologies. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UN Global Compact • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Corruption | Companies should not be involved into cases of corruption and should implement appropriate measures to prevent corruption. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UN Global Compact • The Global Sullivan Principles • The Global Sullivan Principles |
Fair competition | Companies should act fair, i.e. not anti-competitive. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • United Nations Set of principles and rules on competition • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Promoting social responsibility | Companies should promote social responsibility among suppliers, including monitoring, audits, and training with regard to social responsible behaviour. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Supplier relationships | Companies should develop supplier relationships, which base on mutual co-operation. Companies should act fair regarding their suppliers and should support them, if necessary. | • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Respect of intellectual property rights | Companies should respect intellectual property rights and should not infringe patent rights. | • ISO 26000 • The Global Sullivan Principles • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Health and safety | Companies should minimise health and safety risks of products. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Feedback mechanism | Companies should implement feedback mechanisms to come in contact with consumers in an uncomplicated way. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Transparency | Companies should communicate regarding their product and social responsibility in a transparent way. The communication should enable an informed consumer choice. | • ISO 26000 • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises • UNEP/SETAC method sheets • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
End of life responsibility | Companies should provide information to consumers regarding appropriate end-of-life options, if relevant. Manufactures of electronic products should establish product take back systems and should ensure appropriate product disposal. | • WEEE directive • UNEP/SETAC method sheets |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wu, Y., Su, D. (2020). Social Life Cycle Assessment. In: Su, D. (eds) Sustainable Product Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39149-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39149-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39148-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39149-2
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)