Purpose: The main purpose of this review is to investigate the methodology of social life cycle assessment (SLCA) through its application to case studies. In addition, the following research aims to define the trends related to the SLCA by researchers and consultants. This study will help to map the current situation and to highlight the hot spots and weaknesses of the application of the SLCA theory. Methods: The SLCA could be considered as a useful methodology to provide decision support in order to compare products and/or improve the social effects of the life cycle of a product. Furthermore, the results of the case studies analyzed may influence decision makers significantly. For this reason, a systematic literature review of case studies was carried out in which SLCA was applied in order to analyze closely the application of the stages of this methodology. In this study, the major phases of the technical framework for a SLCA were analyzed. Specific attention was paid to detect the positive impacts that emerged in the case studies, which were also studied by administering a questionnaire to the authors of the analyzed case studies and to a number of experts in the field of SLCA. Results and discussion: The 35 case studies examined in this paper, even though they do not deviate from the 40 identified by the previous processing, are still significantly different in terms of outcome produced. It is important to clarify that the authors who developed the case studies considered the steps defined in the SETAC/SETAC guidelines, borrowed from the ISO 14044 standard. Conclusions: The data resulting from this analysis could help both practitioners and researchers to understand what the issues are, on which it is still necessary to investigate and work, in order to solidify the SLCA methodology and define its role in the context of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). (Résumé d'auteur

No abstract

Purpose: Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is a methodology under continuous development, which may be applied at different scales: from products to economic sectors up to systems at region (meso) and country (macro) scales. Traditionally, SLCA has been focusing on the assessment of negative social externalities, whereas also positive social impacts could be associated to human interventions. The purpose of the present study is to understand how positive impacts are defined in published literature and how they could be assessed through indicators. The aim is to clarify the concept among scholars and to support decision making in business and policy context. Methods: The study uses a systematic review approach in order to analyse the types of indicators adopted. In the field of SLCA and according to Paragahawewa et al. (2009), “[I]ndicators are 'pointers' to the state of the impact categories (and/or subcategories) being evaluated by the SLCA”. Indicators can be quantitative, semi-quantitative or qualitative (UNEP/SETAC 2009). This review was carried out in order to identify and analyse positive impacts and indicators. After careful scrutiny, 47 papers containing theoretical frameworks were considered, as well as 46 papers presenting case studies. Results and discussion: Compared to environmental life cycle assessment (E-LCA), where the presence of positive impacts is lower, evaluating benefits or positive impacts can still play a major role in SLCA (Benoît et al. 2010). A quarter of the analysed papers on theoretical frameworks take into account the topic of positive impacts and indicators. Results from case study analysis highlight as “workers”, was the most considered stakeholder (in 100 % of the analysed papers), and as the majority of positive indicators used in the case study analysed are recorded in relation to “other value chain actors”. Within the concept of “positive impacts”, no reference should be made merely to the utility of a product or service. In a broader sense, we could refer to solutions improving the conditions of one or various stakeholders involved. In other words, these are solutions that carry a positive contribution to one or more stakeholders without harming others. Conclusions: So far, positive impacts are barely covered in literature. There is a clear need of streamlining definition and indicators, especially if they should be applied in a policy context complementing traditional—and often monetary-based, cost-benefit analysis (CBA). (Résumé d'auteur

No abstract

No abstract