Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Social Life Cycle Assessment pp 115–146Cite as

Social Life Cycle Assessment Application: Stakeholder Implication in the Cultural Heritage Sector

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The word “sustainability” is often used to refer to equity within and between generations, as explained in the Brundtland Report (1987). The clarification of the concept in the triple bottom line is often used to illustrate the need to investigate the social, environmental, and economic decisions. The classification of stakeholders is still controversial and not universally agreed upon in the various analysis models, are a common point balance categories: customers, staff, suppliers, and the local community (Hinna 2005; Schwartz 2006a). The Social Life Cycle Assessment (SCLA) methodology can be described as a tool that allows a strategic vision and management of the social sustainability of the product and takes the form of an analysis that lets the company observe the social impact of the product through its sustainability evaluation throughout its life cycle (Benoit et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 156–163, 2010). The possible solution to this gap can be represented by models of assessment of social impacts based on Life Cycle Thinking, and especially through the application of the Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methodology that is suitably integrated with the models until now mentioned in the literature (UNEP/SETAC, United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment Programme, 2009b). The evaluation of the life cycle for the social aspects (social LCA) is a framework that allows the generation, organization, evaluation and communication of social impacts on the life cycle of a product, process, or service. The aim of this study is to create a framework for the social impact evaluation in the cultural heritage sector, through the association of existing Social Life Cycle Assessment tools with data resulting from social evaluation of the relationship between cultural services and stakeholders in order to point out the criticalities of the cultural heritage sector. This study introduced a theoretical framework for the evaluation of social impact on the cultural heritage sector, through the application of SLCA methods, and shows how it could be possible to classify the stakeholder subcategories in order to consistency. It is the preliminary approach of an integrative support to the SAM methods for SLCA.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28–48. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M. C., & Merli, R. (2013). Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: Methodology for application in tourism. Sustain, 5, 3275–3287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagdadli, S. (1997). Il museo come azienda. Management e organizzazione al servizio della cultura.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoît, C., Norris, G. A., Valdivia, S., et al. (2010). The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(2), 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, C. (2006). The sustainability of museum growth: A system dynamics approach. System Dynamics Conference, Nijmegen, Luglio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. (2004). The quest for sustainable, healthy communities. Effective Sustainability Education Conference, NSW Council on Environmental Education, UNSW, Sydney, 18–20 February, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, N. (2005). The whipple ‘Time clock’ experiment: Measurement of visitor engagement in a small museum. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from http://neumann.hec.ca/aimac2005/PDF_Text/Calwell_Niall.pdf.

  • Couture, J., Parent, J., Lafontaine, M., & Revéret, J. (2012). Lessons learned from integrated environmental and socioeconomic life cycle assessments. Eighth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, October 1–4, 2012. Saint-Malo, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirieleison, C. (2003). La gestione strategica dei musei. Collana di studi economico-aziendali E. Giannessi. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. (1986). Can culture survive the marketplace? In P. J. DiMaggio (Ed.), Nonprofit enterprise in the arts: studies in mission and constraint. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti M. R., & Renzi M. F. (2013). Cultural technology district: a model for local and regional development. Current Issues in Tourism, ISSN: 1368-3500, doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.789006.

  • Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti, R., Marchegiani, L., Renzi, M. F., & Toni, M. (2014). Ars Artis Gratia No More: Proposal of an integrated cultural heritage management model for social and economic sustainability. EURAM 2014 Waves and Winds of Strategic Leadership for Sustainable Competitiveness, 4–7 June, Valencia, Spain. ISBN No: 978-84-697-0377-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti, M. R., Mattia, G., & Renzi, M. F. Cultural heritage and consumer behavior: a survey on Italian cultural visitors. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2013-0009.

  • Donert, K., & Light, D. (1996). Capitalising on local and heritage: Tourism and economic reorganization, in Argentiere La Basse, High French Alps. In L. Harrison & W. Husbands (Eds.), Practicing responsible tourism (pp. 193–215). Brisbane: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, L. C., Hauschild, M., Schierbeck, J. (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 88–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007). Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European Agenda for Culture in a Globalizing World, COM(2007) 242, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 113–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom (p. 133). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 682–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M., & Cordey-Hayes, M. (1996). Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation.Technovation, 16(6), 301–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, A., & Rentschler, R. (2002). Changes in museum management: A custodial or marketing emphasis? Journal of Management Development, 21(10), 745–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1989). Collaboration finding common ground for multi-party problems. San Francisco: Josey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griesshammer, R., Benoît, C., Dreyer, L. C., Flysjö, A., Manhart, A., Mazijn, B., et al. (2006). Feasibility study: Integration of social aspects into LCA. Freiburg: Öko-Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulding, C. (2000). The museum environment and the visitor experience. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, J. (2001). The fourth pillar of sustainability: Culture’s essential role in public planning. Victoria, Australia: Common Ground Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinna, L. (2005). Come gestire la responsabilità sociale di impresa. Ed. Il sole 24 Ore, Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler, D. J. (2006). Societal LCA methodology and case study. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(6), 371–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Labor Organization (ILO) (2012). NORMLEX information system on international labor standards. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12000:1831992704291564::::P12000_INSTRUMENT_SORT:4.

  • Ivory, B. (1999). Enterprise development: A model for Aboriginal entrepreneurs. South Pacific Journal of Psychology, 11(2), 62–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, A., Le Bocq, A., Nazarkina, L., et al. (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Kotler, N. (1998). Museum strategy and marketing: Designing missions, building audiences, gene rating revenue and resources. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landorf, C. (2009). Managing for sustainable tourism: A review of six cultural world heritage sites. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 53–70. doi:10.1080/09669580802159719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. A. (2008). Review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathe, S. (2014). Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: The SLCA participatory approach. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0758-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (1994). Are sweet dreams made of this? Tourism in Bali and Eastern Indonesia. Northcote, VIC: IRIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, W. (1992). The Hannover principles: Design for sustainability.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merli, R. (2012). La responsabilità sociale d’impresa: aspetti teorici e strumenti operativi (CEDAM 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurse, K. (2006). Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. Small states: Economic review and basic statistics (Vol. 11, pp. 28–40). London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, D. M., & Raiborn, C. A. (2001). Sustainable development: The ethics support the economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pederson, A. (2002). Managing tourism at world heritage sites. Paris: World Heritage Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzirani, S., McLaren, S. J., & Seadon, J. K. (2014). Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(6), 1316–1330. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0722-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, P. K. S., Del Sordo M., & Petti, L. (2013). La social life cycle assessment del pomodoro cuore di bue. DEc Working paper series. Paper n 27, 2013. http://www.dec.unich.it/arc/wpapers/2013/2013-027.pdf.

  • Ramirez, P. K. S., Petti, L., Brones, F., Ugaya, C. M. L. (2012). Método de Avaliação de Subcategoria em ACV Social: Aplicação para Trabalhadores no Sabonete de Cacau da Natura. III Congresso Brasileiro de Gestão do Ciclo de Vida. Maringá, Brasil, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, P. K. S., Petti, L., & Ugaya, C. M. L. (2014). Subcategory Assessment Method for Social LCA: A First Application on the Wine Sector. In Pathways to Environmental Sustainability (pp. 107-116). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera-Sánchez, L., & Lozano-Ascencio, F. (2014). Between Contexts of Departure and Modalities of Social Organization of Migration: A Radiography of the Research Process. In The Practice of Research on Migration and Mobilities (pp. 129–159). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saastamoinen, O. (2005). Multiple ethics for multidimensional sustainability of forestry? Silva Carelica, 49, 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco, P. L., & Ferilli, G. (2006). Il distretto culturale evoluto nell’economia post industriale (DADI/ WP_04/06, Working Papers). University IUAV of Venice.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAI (Social Accountability International) (2013). SA8000® Guidance—2008 Standard. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from http://sa-intl.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/SA8000ConsolidatedGuidance2013.pdf.

  • Schwartz, M. S. (2006a). God as a managerial stakeholder? J Bus Eth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2006b). A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3):137–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamsuddin, S., & Sulaiman, A. B. (1998). Maintaining the identity of cities in a rapidly changing urban context with special reference to Malaysia. Jurnal Alam Bina, 1(1), 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squire, S. J. (1996). Literary tourism and sustainable tourism: Promoting ‘Anne of Green Gables’ in Prince Edward Island. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4, 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torjman, S. (2002). The social dimension of sustainable development. Caledon Institute of Social Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M. (2009). Life cycle sustainability dashboard. In LCM Conference, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009a). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Belgium: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009b). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009c). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC LIfe Cycle Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2010). Methodological sheets of sub-categories of impact for a social LCA. Retrieved November 18, 2011, from http://lcinitiative.unep.fr.

  • UNESCO (1972). Resolutions and recommendations 3.3: Studies and development of culture, (Vol. 1). Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2001). UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity. Resolution 15 adopted by the General Conference at its 31st session, (Vol. 1). Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2009). Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, vol G.A. Res. 61/295. United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valente, C., Modahl, I. S., & Askham, C. (2013). Method development for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) of New Norwegian Biorefinery, report of Ostfold Research ISBN: 978-82-7520-711-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venn, T. J., & Quiggin, J. (2007). Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Ecological Economics, 61(2), 334–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villafrate (2014). The role of sustainability in developing countries: Evidence from Turkey. M.Sc. thesis, Roma Tre University, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weerawardena, J., & Sullivan Mort, G. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema, B. P. (2006). The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(1), 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2006). Where is the wealth of nations? measuring capital for the 21st century. WB, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Studies, Università Di Roma Tre, 00154, Rome, Italy

    G. Arcese, L. Di Pietro & R. Guglielmetti Mugion

Authors
  1. G. Arcese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Di Pietro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Guglielmetti Mugion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Arcese .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sustainability Consultant, Global Sustainability Services, SGS (HK) Limited, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

    Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Arcese, G., Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti Mugion, R. (2015). Social Life Cycle Assessment Application: Stakeholder Implication in the Cultural Heritage Sector. In: Muthu, S. (eds) Social Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-296-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation