Societal life cycle assessment—could you repeat the question?

Swarr, Thomas

doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0088-2

Cited by 31 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In LCA, FU must be established to enable different product systems to be compared on an equal basis [37]. This is not causing any controversies in ELCA, since the environmental impacts are directly linked with physical input/output of unit processes that are fulfilling the FU.…”

Section: Data Level and Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Dan²,

Chen

2014

Sustainability

141

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: Data Level and Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Dan²,

Chen

2014

Sustainability

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the most commonly debated questions has been: is the social life cycle assessment of a product different from a usual environmental LCA and if yes, how so (for example, Klöpffer and de HH 2008;Swarr 2009)? This question is addressed in detail in the guidelines and will be developed in the next section of this article.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!

Chevrier

Norris²,

Valdivia

et al. 2010

Int J Life Cycle Assess

450

307

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, we will continue investigating S-LCA methodology in general, on which several literature reviews have been written, e.g. (Jørgensen et al 2008; Macombe et al 2013; Benoît and Vickery-Niederman 2011; Chhipi-Shrestha et al 2015; Swarr 2009; Hsu et al 2013; Hauschild et al 2008; Benoît Norris 2012; Hutchins and Sutherland 2008; Jørgensen et al 2010b; Finkbeiner et al 2010). Not included in these reviews is preventative cost-based LCA (Vogtländer et al 2000), extended to S-LCA by Croes and Vermeulen (2015).…”

Section: Results—literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification of corruption in preventative cost-based S-LCA: a contribution to the Oiconomy project

Croes¹,

Vermeulen²

2018

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Corruption is one of the key social aspects, heavily impacting all three Planet-, People- and Prosperity sustainability pillars and is therefore essential to be included in S-LCA. The objective of this article is to consider the available options to quantify corruption in preventative cost-based S-LCA, and to make a first proposal for quantification. Methods Literature was investigated on potential S-LCA assessment methods of corruption. To date, such literature is hardly available, so more generally, S-LCA methods were assessed on described concepts and ideas, and assessed on five criteria. Following this, using the obtained conclusions and ideas, a proposal for the quantification of corruption for the preventative cost-based Oiconomy system was developed, following the five-step Oiconomy method (Croes and Vermeulen in J Clean Prod 102:178–187, 2015 ). Results and discussion Based on some examples, Dreyer et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259, 2010 ) argue that various social aspects, including corruption, are better assessed by companies’ preventative efforts than by their impact. Therefore, modifying a method developed by Dreyer et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259, 2010 ), an indicator is proposed provided by the product of the marginal preventative costs and the quality of a companies’ preventative governance. For the aspect of corruption, the internationally accepted target is “zero tolerance.” Literature shows that the ultimate business choice under pressure of corruption is “not doing the business.” Because profitability is the main driver for companies, refraining from the business is proposed as the marginal preventative measure, and the related profit as the maximum quantitative indicator for S-LCA. For the risk factor, a technique is proposed based on scoring a company’s governance quality by checking the four Plan-Do-Check-Act effort classes of common risk-based certification standards’ criteria. Conclusions Our assessment shows a definite need for the inclusion of the aspect of corruption in S-LCA, but no options for a reasonably certain assessment are available for the aspect of corruption in impact-based S-LCA, also suitable for the preventative cost-based Oiconomy system. However, based on literature-derived ideas and principles, for the Oiconomy system, we could propose both a performance reference point and marginal preventative costs as a quantitative measure for corruption. The proposed measure is not paying the bribe, but the proposed indicator is a governance quality-dependent fraction of the consequentially lost profit margin. Consequences, limitations and possible objections to our proposed methods are discussed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11367-018-1507-z) contains supplementary material, which is avai...

show abstract

Societal life cycle assessment—could you repeat the question?

Cited by 31 publications

References 21 publications

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!

Quantification of corruption in preventative cost-based S-LCA: a contribution to the Oiconomy project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About