2nd International Seminar in Social Life Cycle Assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles

Macombe, Catherine; Feschet, Pauline; Garrabé, Michel; Loeillet, Denis

doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0331-5

Cited by 34 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Notes: 1 Geographical specification: "no specification" means that it can be directly adopted to future studies without further adjustment of the impact assessment method; "country name-specific" means that the normalizing/weighting is country-specific and needs to be adjusted for future studies (e.g., weighting method of Schmidt et al 2005 andHsu et al 2013 apply the country-level statistic data for Germany/Taiwan); 2 Some methods are developed to specifically study a particular product system; thus, the social issues covered and (sub)categories identified are related to a particular product system. Nevertheless, the characterization model is not affected by the selection of indicators/(sub)categories; 3 Case study means that a real-world case was analyzed and is indicated by *; example means a hypothetical study; 4 Grave-to-grave means that only the EoL stage was analyzed; 5 Multi-criteria means that three levels of criteria are measured (a. establishing of guidelines and practices; b. the communication and delegation of responsibility for integration into daily work; c. systematic active control of the integration). The scores of the three levels are multiplied to obtain the score for each managerial measure.…”

Section: Methods Incorporating Type I Characterization Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reviews on SLCA include seminar/conference proceedings [3,4] and review of the guidelines for the SLCA of products by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative (hereafter the UNEP/SETAC guidelines) [2]. Two thorough reviews on SLCA were provided by Jørgensen et al [5] and Parent et al [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Dan²,

Chen

2014

Sustainability

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To promote the development of Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA), we conducted a comprehensive review of recently developed frameworks, methods, and characterization models for impact assessment for future method developers and SLCA practitioners. Two previous reviews served as our foundations for this review. We updated the review by including a comprehensive list of recently-developed SLCA frameworks, methods and characterization models. While a brief discussion from goal, data, and indicator perspectives is provided in Sections 2 to 4 for different frameworks/methods, the focus of this review is Section 5 where discussion on characterization models for impact assessment of different methods is provided. The characterization models are categorized into two types following the UNEP/SETAC guidelines: type I models without impact pathways and type II models with impact pathways. Different from methods incorporating type I/II characterization models, another LCA modeling approach, Life Cycle Attribute Assessment (LCAA), is also discussed in this review. We concluded that methods incorporating either type I or type II models have limitations. For type I models, the challenge lies in the systematic identification of relevant stakeholders and materiality issues; while for type II models, identification of impact pathways that most closely and accurately represent the real-world causal relationships is the key. LCAA may avoid these problems, but the ultimate questions differ from those asked by the methods using type I and II models. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2014, 6 4201

show abstract

Section: Methods Incorporating Type I Characterization Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Dan²,

Chen

2014

Sustainability

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This review underlines the need for agreement over which social impacts (both indicator and stakeholder categories) are the most relevant to include if social impact assessment methodologies are to capture impact transfers along the product life cycle that are intrinsic to the value of the product (Benoit & Mazijn 2009;Parent et al 2012) and unite disparate and often conflicting interests for the various actors and stakeholders implicated in the chain (Macombe et al 2011;Jorgensen 2012). In common with other sectors, the development of an LCA methodology that integrates social impacts in the food chain needs to take account of the large numbers of agents involved and the complexity posed by national and/or regional differences.…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social impacts and life cycle assessment: proposals for methodological development for SMEs in the European food and drink sector

Barling

2014

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractPurpose: SMEs account for 99 per cent of companies operating in the European food and drink industry and, often, are part of highly fragmented and complex food chains. The article focuses on the development of a social impact assessment methodology for SMEs in selected food and drink products as part of the EU--FP7 SENSE research project. The proposed methodology employs a top--down and bottom--up approach and focuses on labour rights/working conditions along the product supply chain as the key social impact indicator, limiting key stakeholder classification to workers/employees and local communities impacted by the production process. Problems related to this emerging field are discussed and questions for further research are expounded. Methods: The article reviews both academic and 'grey' literature on life cycle assessment (LCA) and its relationship to S--LCA and SMEs at the beginning of 2013 and includes case study evidence from the food sector. A pilot questionnaire survey sent to European food and drink sector SMEs and trade associations (as partners in the research project) about their knowledge, experience and engagement with social impacts is presented. Proposals are elaborated for a social impact assessment methodology that identifies the key data for SMEs to collect . Results and discussion: The literature reveals the complexity of the S--LCA approach as it aims tounite disparate and often conflicting interests. Findings from the pilot questionnaire are discussed. Using a top--down and bottom--up approach, the proposed methodology assesses data from SMEs along the supply chain in order to gauge social improvements in the management of labour--related issues for different product sectors. Issues relating to the 'attributional' choice of social impact indicator and key stakeholder categories are discussed. How 'scoring' is interpreted and reported, and what the intended effect of its use will be are also elaborated upon. Conclusions: Whilst recognising the difficulty of devising a robust social impact assessment for SMEs in the food and drink sector, it is argued that the proposed methodology makes a useful contribution in this fast emerging field.

show abstract

“…The United Nations Environment Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) published the BUNEP/SETAC Guidelines for SLCA of Products^ (Benoît and Mazijn 2009), which states that the ultimate objective of developing the SLCA is to promote the social conditions of stakeholders throughout the life cycle. The UNEP/SETAC Guidelines were already applied as a basis for several SLCA case studies and/or for selecting relevant social issues (subcategories) and indicators (Foolmaun and Ramjeeawon 2013;Traverso et al 2012;Franze and Ciroth 2011;Benoît-Norris et al 2012;Macombe et al 2011;Reitinger et al 2011;Ekener-Petersen and Moberg 2013;Martínez-Blanco et al 2014). So far, no consistent or specific social impact assessment method has been proposed in the guidelines or in the case studies that a detail analysis of the social life cycle impact assessment (SLCIA) methods developed will be provided in Sect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—part 1: methodology

Wang

Hsu

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to develop a new framework of social life cycle impact assessment (SLCIA) method based on the United Nations Environment Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) Guidelines for analyzing the social impact in Taiwan, particularly in the electronics industry. Methods After reviewing the literature on social life cycle assessment (SLCA), we analyzed existing case studies and developed SLCIA methods based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines. We thereafter identified stakeholders, subcategories, and indicators in accordance with the current status of SLCA case studies and opinions from ten experts in the Taiwanese electronics industry. Both quantitative and semiquantitative indicators were subsequently proposed to assess the social impact of workers in the Taiwanese electronics sector. Each indicator was given the score of 1 to 5 by classifying the social impact percentage of nine scales. To formulate an analytic framework for SLCIA, the weighting values of each subcategory and indicator were determined using the consistent fuzzy preference relations (CFPR) method. Results and discussion Seven subcategories and 19 qualitative and quantitative indicators of worker stakeholders for the electronics sector were identified based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines. A score of 1 to 5 is assigned to each quantitative indicator by classifying the social impact percentage of nine scales. The data obtained from companies for each quantitative indicator were subsequently transformed into social impact percentage in terms of the statistical data on social situations at the country or industry level. With regard to semiquantitative indicators, three implementation levels of management efforts on social performance within five elements were identified. The CFPR method was then employed to determine the weights of each indicator by ten experts. Results indicated that preventing forced work practices, protecting children from having to work, and providing minimum and fair wages for workers are the three most important indicators for assessing social impact. Conclusions A new SLCIA method that incorporates both quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators was proposed for assessing social impact in the electronics sector in Taiwan. Nine quantitative indicators can be easily organized using available social data from government statistics as performance reference points (PRPs) to determine the social impact exerted by companies. The relative weights were determined to allow for an impact assessment and thus solve the limitation of their currently assumed equal weights. The proposed framework is examined to analyze the social impact of three production sites for semiconductor packaging and manufacturing in Taiwan. Responsible editor: Marzia TraversoElectronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

2nd International Seminar in Social Life Cycle Assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles

Cited by 34 publications

References 10 publications

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Social impacts and life cycle assessment: proposals for methodological development for SMEs in the European food and drink sector

An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—part 1: methodology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About