Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment: a case study of high-density polyethylene production in Alberta,Canada

Purpose

The aim of this study is to develop and test the applicability of a new subcategory assessment method (SAM) for social life cycle assessment using a case study on high-density polyethylene (HDPE) production by Dow Chemical Canada facility in Alberta, Canada.

Methods

The methodology is characterized by six steps: (1) definition of the goal and scope of the assessment; (2) life cycle inventory data collection including context data at country level and company-specific data for foreground processes; (3) impact assessment where the subcategories’ results for foreground processes at company level are evaluated using a new SAM developed and the country social performance in the different subcategories is evaluated using some assessment intervals; (4) comparing the social performance of foreground processes to the social background context in sector or country; (5) evaluating the social performance of background processes using sector performance evaluation from Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database or country performance evaluation conducted in the study; (6) and discussion and conclusion.

Results and discussion

The method developed was able to identify the subcategories that need high level or some level of improvements along the cradle-to-gate life cycle of HDPE. In addition, the stakeholders with high negative effect were highlighted in every life cycle stage. Through this approach, Dow Chemical Canada is able to prioritize its actions and focus on the areas where its performance is still low compared to its peers in the sector or compared to the situation in the country. Moreover, through using PSILCA database or country performance evaluation to investigate the social performance of background processes, Dow Chemical Canada can determine the social hotspots areas that need more focus from its suppliers.

Conclusions

Applying the new subcategory assessment approach proposed in this study provides an objective way to assess the subcategories while differentiating between two levels of assessment: (1) the commitment to the social subcategory in the company’s policy (defined as cutoff requirement) and (2) the evidence of good/bad practices of the subcategory. In addition, the comparison of performance of the companies in foreground processes to the social background in sector or country has improved the objectivity further.

     

Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries

Purpose

Informal recycling is one of the most significant activities within waste management systems in low-income countries. The main aspect of a number of recently implemented waste management systems has been to organise the informal recycling sector. The implementation of formalisation is expected to eliminate social problems related to the informal sector, but this has not been precisely measured and evaluated. A lack of methodology to assess social impacts persists, as does the comparison of different formalisation approaches. The goal of this work is to develop a methodological procedure for assessing the contribution of formalised recycling systems in low-income countries in terms of social impacts, in comparison with informal systems.

Methods

Some existing social assessment approaches were evaluated by a review of literature. This investigation focuses on the development of the social life cycle assessment approach, the analysed social aspects, proposed indicators and characterisation models within this framework.

Results and discussion

This study proposes an approach for the social assessment of recycling systems based on formalisation approaches in low-income countries oriented towards the social life cycle assessment methodology (sLCA). The approach developed considers 3 social impact categories, 9 social subcategories and 26 semi-quantitative indicators for the assessment of the social impacts on formalised recyclers. It includes a characterisation procedure that takes into consideration the application of a score system and the calculation of average scores at both the indicator and subcategory levels.

Conclusions

This research shows that it would be feasible to apply a sLCA-based methodology to evaluate recycling systems based on formalisation of the informal sector. The impact categories and subcategories identified represent the social problems of informal recyclers. The 26 semi-quantitative indicators and the proposed characterisation approach attempt to measure the social impacts that currently are only qualitatively assumed. The applicability and validation of the indicators and characterisation procedure will be determined by further research. The methodology developed will be tested using data from three recycling systems in Peruvian cities.     

An Italian tomato “Cuore di Bue” case study: challenges and benefits using subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment

Purpose

The main purpose of this study is to present an implementation of the subcategory assessment method (SAM) to the life cycle of an Italian variety of tomato called “Cuore di Bue” produced by an Italian cooperative. The case study was used to use the methodology proposed in compliance with the guidelines of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) in order to highlight issues for the improvement of SAM. A summary of strengths and weaknesses of the methodology as well as the social performance of the considered Italian tomato is an important result of this case study.

Methods

The methodology used is based on SAM. The UNEP/SETAC guidelines of S-LCA and the complementary methodological sheets were used as main references to carry out SAM, and it was used to assess the social performances of Cuore di Bue. The focus was on the assessment of the following three out of five stakeholder groups presented in the guidelines: workers, local community and consumers. Specific questionnaires have been developed to collect the inventory data related to each stakeholder group and along the product life cycle.

Results and discussion

SAM of Cuore di Bue showed a range of values, between 2 and 3 (C-B) for consumer stakeholder group and mainly 3 (B) for the local community and worker stakeholders. Because the best performance (A) is related to a numerical value of 4, better performances were not identified, owing to no propagation of actions in the value chain. The collective bargaining, transparency, feedback mechanism and privacy are the subcategories with the worst performance, but at the same time with more potential for improvements.

Conclusions

The implementation of SAM on Cuore di Bue allowed us to demonstrate how SAM transforms qualitative data into semi-quantitative information through a score scale that can help a decision maker achieve a product overview. SAM has been implemented on Cuore di Bue; the product assessment, the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology are identified and discussed as well. It has been possible to present the best and worst performances in product life cycle, by identifying the phase or the subcategories with good or bad performance. However, in this case study, as the same company owns most of the product life cycle taken into account, the majority of social performances are identical, and this may represent a limit of the methodology or that more organisations along the life cycle must be taken into account (for example, energy, distribution).

     

Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling systems in low income countries: three Peruvian case studies

Purpose

In a previous phase of this work, a methodology oriented towards social Life Cycle Assessment (sLCA) was developed to assess the social impact of formalised recycling systems in low income countries. To support this, a literature review of social impact assessment methodologies was carried out incorporating the social issues of both the informal and the implemented, formal recycling approaches. The goal of this study is to determine the feasibility of applying this methodology by assessing the current social impacts of three Peruvian recycling systems based on two formalisation approaches. A further goal is to identify and measure the social impacts of the formalisation procedures, thereby confirming or rebutting the expectations and forecasts of organisations (NGOs, Local Authorities, Ministries & Business) involved in the implementation.

Methods

The methodology developed was applied to three Peruvian recycling systems which had been formalised using two different approaches. One approach utilizes cooperation with recyclers’ associations and the second one, operated by the municipality uses formalised recyclers as employees. Interviews were conducted with local recycling system stakeholders in order to collect data to assess fulfilment of the social criteria. Three impact categories and 9 subcategories were analysed using 26 indicators. To transform the qualitative information into numerical values, a score system 1 or 0 for the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of social criteria was applied. After obtaining the indicators’ average scores, further characterisation by social impact subcategory was effected. The final scores for the subcategories show the fulfilment or otherwise of all social criteria related to the subcategory.

Results and discussion

The assessment substantiates similar negative impacts of both formalisation approaches for the social subcategories discrimination, recognised employment relationships and fulfilment of social benefit, physical working conditions and education. The formalisation based on cooperation with recyclers’ associations reveals a positive social impact for freedom of association and collective bargaining, psychological working conditions and social acceptance whereas the method operated by the municipality scores better for working time and minimum, fair incomes. Regarding the methodology, no difficulties were detected in applying the indicators.

Conclusions

It can be concluded that although sLCA was originally used to analyse products and production processes, it is feasible to adapt it for the social assessment of recycling systems based on formalisation of the informal sector in low income countries. A comparison of current social impacts between different formalisation approaches using this methodology is also viable. A further conclusion is that it is feasible to measure the social impacts of formalisation approaches using the selected indicators and characterisation procedure. Social issues such as anti-discrimination policies, employment terms, payment of social benefits, preventive policies, occupational and health training and adult education can be improved following the evaluation.     

Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

In social life cycle assessment (SLCA), to measure the social performance, it is necessary to consider the subcategory indicators related to each stakeholder dimension, such as workers, local community, society, consumers and value chain participants. Current methods in SLCA scientific literature consider a standard arbitrary linear score set to translate qualitative performances into a quantitative assessment for all subcategory indicators, i.e., it translate a A, B, C, D scoring into a 4, 3, 2, 1 ordinal scale. This assumption does not cover the complexity of the subcategory indicators in the social life cycle assessment phase. The aim of this paper is to set out a customized scoring and weighting approach for impact assessment in SLCA beyond the assumption of arbitrary linearity and equal weighting.

Methods

This method overcomes the linearity assumption and develops specific value functions for each subcategory indicator and an approach to establish the weighting factors between the indicators for each social dimension (workers, local community, and society). The value function and weighting factors are based on the considered opinions of SLCA experts in Québec.

Results and discussion

The results show that value functions with different shapes used to score the performance of the product within each subcategory indicator influence SLCA results and have the potential to reverse the conclusions. The customized score is more realistic than the linear score because it can better capture the complexity of the subcategory indicators based on SLCA expert judgment.

Conclusions

Our approach addresses a methodological weakness of the impact assessment phase of SLCA through a more representative performance of the potential social impacts based on the judgment of the SLCA expert rather than a simplified assumption of linearity and equal weighting among indicators. This approach may be applied to all types of product systems.

Recommendations

The value functions and weighting factors cannot be generalized for all cases and the proposed approach must be adapted for each study. We stopped at the aggregation of the subcategory indicators based on expert judgment at the stakeholder level. If a complete aggregation in a single score is required, we recommend developing a framework that accounts for the value judgment of the decision-maker rather than the SLCA expert.

     

Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials

Purpose

Sustainability analysis should include the assessment of the environmental, social, and economic impacts throughout the life cycle of a product. However, the social sustainability performance assessment is seldom carried out during materials selection due to its complex nature and the lack of a social life cycle assessment tool. This study presents a single score-based social life cycle assessment methodology, namely social sustainability grading model, for assessing and comparing the social sustainability performance of construction materials using a case study on recycled and natural construction materials.

Methods

The proposed method is developed based on the methodological framework provided by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry guidelines published in 2009 and the methodological sheets published in 2013, the indicators and sustainability reporting guidelines provided by the Global Reporting Initiatives and ISO 26000 for social responsibility of products, and the indicators provided by the Hong Kong Business Environment Council Limited for construction sustainability. A twofold research approach is proposed in this model: the first one is the qualitative research based on expert interviews to identify, select, and prioritize the relevant subcategories and indicators, and the second one is the operational research based on the case-specific survey to collect the required data. A social sustainability index was proposed for the interpretation of the results effectively. A case study on construction materials was conducted to illustrate the implementation of the method using case-specific first-hand data.

Results and discussion

The major outcome of this study is the systematic development of a social sustainability assessment tool based on the established standards and guidelines. The case study showed that four subcategories are crucial social concerns for construction materials (i.e., health and safety issues of the materials, health and safety of workers, company’s commitment to sustainability, and company’s policies on energy and water consumption). Based on the sustainability index proposed, using recycled aggregates from locally generated waste materials scored higher (about 31–34%) social sustainability than using imported natural aggregates. In addition, recycled aggregates and natural aggregates achieved “sustainable” and “neutral” rating sustainability levels, respectively. However, several subcategories (e.g., health and safety, working hour, forced work, training and social benefits of workers, and quality of the materials and information disclosing to public) are still needed to improve the social sustainability performance of recycled aggregates.

Conclusions

An integrated social life cycle assessment method is presented in this study for assessing the social sustainability of construction materials. In addition, the reported case study in this paper is one of the first attempts for social sustainability assessment of recycled construction materials, and the method can be applied to other recycled materials/products for comparative analysis. However, several critical factors, such as integration in other life cycle methods and software, sensitivity analysis, and more case studies, are still needed for further improvement of the developed method.

     

Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials

Purpose

Sustainability of a material-based product mainly depends on the materials used for the product itself or during its lifetime. A material selection decision should not only capture the functional performance required but should also consider the economical, social, and environmental impacts originated during the product life cycle. There is a need to assess social impacts of materials along the full life cycle, not only to be able to address the “social dimension” in sustainable material selection but also for potentially improving the circumstances of affected stakeholders. This paper presents the method and a case study of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) specialized for comparative studies. Although the authors’ focus is on material selection, the proposed methodology can be used for comparative assessment of products in general.

Methods

The method is based on UNEP/SETAC “guidelines for social life-cycle assessment of products” and includes four main phases: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life cycle impact assessment, and life cycle interpretation. However, some special features are presented to adjust the framework for materials comparison purpose. In life cycle inventory analysis phase, a hot spot assessment is carried out using material flow analysis and stakeholder and experts’ interviews. Based on the results of that, a pairwise comparison method is proposed for life cycle impact assessment applying analytic hierarchy process. A case study was conducted to perform a comparative assessment of the social and socio-economic impacts in life cycle of concrete and steel as building materials in Iran. For hot spot analysis, generic and national level data were gathered, and for impact assessment phase, site-specific data were used.

Result and discussion

The unique feature of the proposed method compared with other works in S-LCA is its specialty to materials and products comparison. This leads to some differences in methodological issues of S-LCA that are explained in the paper in detail. The case study results assert that “steel/iron” in the north of Iran generally has the better social performance than “concrete/cement.” However, steel is associated with many negative social effects in some subcategories, e.g., freedom of association, fair salary, and occupational health in extraction phase. Against, social profile of concrete and cement industry is damaged mainly due to the negative impact of cement production on safe and healthy living condition. The case study presented in this article shows that the evaluation of social impacts is possible, even if the assessment is always affected by subjective value systems.

Conclusions

Application of the UNEP/SETAC guidelines in comparative studies can be encouraged based on the results of this paper. It enables a hotspot assessment of the social and socio-economic impacts in life cycle of alternative materials. This research showed that the development of a specialized S-LCA approach for materials and products comparison is well underway although many challenges still persist. Particularly characterization method in life cycle impact assessment phase is challenging. The findings of this case study pointed out that social impacts are primarily connected to the conduct of companies and less with processes and materials in general. These findings confirm the results of Dreyer et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97, 2006). The proposed approach aims not only to identify the best socially sustainable alternative but also to reveal product/process improvement potentials to facilitate companies to act socially compatible. It will be interesting to apply the UNEP/SETAC approach of S-LCA to other materials and products; materials with a more complex life cycle will be a special challenge. As with any new method, getting experience on data collection and evaluation, building a data base, integrating the method in software tools, and finding ways for effective communication of results are important steps until integrating S-LCA in routine decision support.     

Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer

Purpose

A generic hotspot assessment of social impacts from a product was conducted, using a laptop computer as a case. The aims of the case study were to identify social hotspots of the laptop and to test and evaluate the methodology.

Methods

The case study was based on the social LCA methodology described in the Guidelines for social LCA and included the product system from ‘cradle to grave’ as well as the impacts on all relevant stakeholders. We focused on a simplified list of materials and used mainly country-specific data.

Results and discussion

A new method for impact assessment of hotspots was developed. The total activity in each phase was distributed among countries. The countries were divided into groups related to the extent of activity in the product system, as well as to their performance on a subcategory. High values in both groups were highlighted and hotspots were identified. The results revealed some hotspots, some hot countries and some hot issues, all indicating a risk of negative social impacts in the product system of a laptop. It also identified workers and the local community as the stakeholders most at risk of negative social impacts. Among the hotspots identified, the following subcategories were of importance: safe and healthy living conditions, social benefit/social security, access to material resources, involvement in areas with armed conflicts, community engagement (lack of), corruption, and access to immaterial resources.

Conclusions

The study showed it is possible to conduct a social LCA on a generic complex product using the Guidelines, even though data collection was impaired by lack of data and low data quality. It identified methodological issues that need further attention, for example the indicator impact pathways. Still, it is clear that new insights can be gained by social LCA, where the life cycle perspective and the systematic approach help users identify potentially important aspects that could otherwise have been neglected.     

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

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 semi-quantitative 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 semi-quantitative 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.

     

Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia

Purpose

This study aims to investigate the social implications of palm oil biodiesel via a case study using a life cycle assessment framework.

Methods

The case study was conducted in Jambi Province of Indonesia and involved several stakeholders, such as value chain actors, employees, local community members, government, and nongovernmental organization representatives related in palm oil industry. The assessment was carried out using social criteria developed by adopting the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry/United Nations Environment Programme Code of Practice, supplemented by an expert survey, and supported by literature review. Stakeholders’ perspectives were evaluated by determining the gaps between expected and perceived quality of each social criterion, which are gauged using seven-point Likert scale.

Results and discussion

Twenty-four social criteria were developed and aggregated into five social impact categories: human rights, working condition, cultural heritage, social–economic repercussion, and governance. These criteria have been weighted, useful for further application in multicriteria decision analysis. The results of the stakeholders’ survey reveal the critical social hotspots, which are the issues within the impact categories of working conditions and cultural heritage.

Conclusions

In order to achieve the social equitability of palm oil biodiesel, which is an important pillar to sustainability, efforts must be put to address these social hotspots through actions in various policy level.     

Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment

Purpose

Sustainability assessment in life cycle assessment (LCA) addresses societal aspects of technologies or products to evaluate whether a technology/product helps to address important challenges faced by society or whether it causes problems to society or at least selected social groups. In this paper, we analyse how this has been, and can be addressed in the context of economic assessments. We discuss the need for systemic measures applicable in the macro-economic setting.

Methods

The modelling framework of life cycle costing (LCC) is analysed as a key component of the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework. Supply chain analysis is applied to LCC in order to understand the relationships between societal concerns of value adding and the basic cost associated with a functional unit. Methods to link LCC as a foreground economic inventory to a background economy wide inventory such as an input–output table are shown. Other modelling frameworks designed to capture consequential effects in LCSA are discussed.

Results

LCC is a useful indicator in economic assessments, but it fails to capture the full dimension of economic sustainability. It has potential contradictions in system boundary to an environmental LCA, and includes normative judgements at the equivalent of the inventory level. Further, it has an inherent contradiction between user goals (minimisation of cost) and social goals (maximisation of value adding), and has no clear application in a consequential setting. LCC is focussed on the indicator of life cycle cost, to the exclusion of many relevant indicators that can be utilised in LCSA. As such, we propose the coverage of indicators in economic assessment to include the value adding to the economy by type of input, import dependency, indicators associated with the role of capital and labour, the innovation potential, linkages and the structural impact on economic sectors.

Conclusions

If the economic dimension of LCSA is to be equivalently addressed as the other pillars, formalisation of equivalent frameworks must be undertaken. Much can be advanced from other fields that could see LCSA to take a more central role in policy formation.     

Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective

Background, aim, and scope

Methodology development should reflect demands from the intended users: what are the needs of the user group and what is feasible in terms of requirements involving data and work? Mapping these questions of relevance and feasibility is thus a way to facilitate a higher degree of relevance of the developed methodology. For the emerging area of social life cycle assessment (SLCA), several different potential user groups may be identified. This article addresses the issues of relevance and feasibility of SLCA from a company perspective through a series of interviews among potential company users.

Methods and materials

The empirical basis for the survey is a series of eight semi-structured interviews with larger Danish companies, all of which potentially have the capacity and will to use comprehensive social assessment methodologies. SLCA is not yet a well-defined methodology, but still it is possible to outline several potential applications of SLCA and the tasks a company must be able to perform in order to make use of these applications. The interviews focus on the companies’ interest in these potential applications and their ability and willingness to undertake the required work.

Results

Based on these interviews, three hypotheses are developed relating to these companies’ potential use of SLCA, viz.: (1) needs which may be supported by SLCA relate to three different applications, being comparative assertions, use stage assessments, and weighting of social impacts; (2) assessing the full life cycle of a product or service is rarely possible for the companies; and (3) companies see their social responsibility in the product chain as broader than dictated by the product perspective of SLCA. Trends for these three hypotheses developed on the basis of the opinions of the interviewees. Also, factors influencing the generalization of the results to cover other industries are analyzed.

Discussion

Full comparative assertions as known from environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) may be difficult in a company context due to several difficulties in assessing the full life cycle. Furthermore, the comparative assertion may potentially be hampered by differences in how companies typically allocate responsibility along the product chain and how it is done in SLCA, creating a boundary setting issue. These problems do, only in a limited degree, apply for both the use stage assessment and the tool for weighting social issues.

Conclusion

Despite these difficulties, it is concluded that all three applications of SLCA may be possible for the interviewed companies, but it seems the tendency is to demand assessment tools with very limited life cycle perspective, which to some extent deviate from the original thought behind the LCA tools as being holistic decision aid tools.

Perspectives

It is advocated that there is a need to focus more on questions regarding the relevance and feasibility of SLCA from several different perspectives to direct the future methodology development.     

Evaluating the Sustainability SWOT as a streamlined tool for life cycle sustainability assessment

Purpose

From a management perspective, there are two main issues in the life cycle sustainability assessment framework which require further work: (1) the approaches to quicken the resource-consuming inventory and assessment process and (2) the easy-to-understand communication of the results. This study aims at contributing to these needs for quicker and cost-efficient ways to draft strategies that include the life cycle perspective and encompasses all three dimensions of sustainability in an easily communicable way. The focus of the study is on a streamlined, rapid assessment the tool proposed by Pesonen (2007) called the Sustainability SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) and on the empirical testing of whether or not it is understood in the corporate world and if it leads to concrete changes in either strategic- or operative-level activities.

Methods

The data for the research were empirically collected from a survey targeted to representatives of organizations having used the Sustainability SWOT within the last 5 years. The primary findings, i.e., the generated changes or improvements, were reflected in the various levels of cooperation in a network (along the value chain, in end users, in the institutional framework).

Results and discussion

The results of the analyses of both the usability of the Sustainability SWOT in business as well as the suggested assessment framework leading to any actual changes were promising. It is encouraging that the streamlined approach tailored according to the logic of business decision-makers (i.e., inclusion of the SWOT) is able to find the acceptance and understanding of that vital group. Remarkably, many changes were initiated—not only at an operative level but also at a strategic level and in the entire value chain—by carrying out an exercise such as the Sustainability SWOT.

Conclusions

The Sustainability SWOT has proven to be usable and able to generate changes and improvements along the value chain and, in some cases, in the institutional context as well.     

Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius

Purpose

Improper disposal of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles constitute an eyesore to the environmental landscape and is a threat to the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. It is therefore imperative to determine a suitable disposal method of used PET bottles which not only has the least environmental load but at the same time has minimum harmful impacts on peoples employed in waste disposal companies. In this respect, the present study investigated and compared the environmental and social impacts of four selected disposal alternatives of used PET bottles.

Methods

Environmental impacts of the four disposal alternatives, namely: 100 % landfilling, 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling, 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling, were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:2006) and with the support of SimaPro 7.1 software. Social life cycle assessments were performed based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. Three stakeholder categories (worker, society and local community) and eight sub-category indicators (child labour, fair salary, forced labour, health and safety, social benefit/social security, discrimination, contribution to economic development and community engagement) were identified to be relevant to the study. A new method for aggregating and analysing the social inventory data is proposed and used to draw conclusions.

Results and discussion

Environmental life cycle assessment results indicated that highest environmental impacts occurred when used PET bottles were disposed by 100 % landfilling while disposal by 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling gave the least environmental load. Social life cycle assessment results indicated that least social impacts occurred with 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling. Thus both E-LCA and S-LCA rated 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling to be the best disposal option.

Conclusions

Two dimensions of sustainability (environmental and social) when investigated using the Life Cycle Management tool, favoured scenario 4 (75 %?% flake production and 25 % landfilling) which is a partial recycling disposal route. One hundred percent landfilling was found out to be the worst scenario. The next step will be to explore the third pillar of sustainability, economic, and devise a method to integrate the three dimensions with a view to determine the sustainable disposal option of used PET bottles in Mauritius.     

Life cycle assessment evaluation of green product labeling systems for residential construction

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be utilized to holistically evaluate novel trends in the construction industry and the associated environmental impacts. Green labels are awarded by several organizations based on single or multiple attributes. The use of multi-criteria labels is a good start to the labeling process as opposed to single criteria labels that ignore a majority of impacts from products. Life cycle thinking, in theory, has the potential to improve the environmental impacts of labeling systems. However, LCA databases currently are lacking in detailed information about products or sometimes provide conflicting information.

Method

This study compares generic and green-labeled carpets, paints, and linoleum flooring using the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) LCA database. The results from these comparisons are not intuitive and are contradictory in several impact categories with respect to the greenness of the product. Other data sources such as environmental product declarations and ecoinvent are also compared with the BEES data to compare the results and display the disparity in the databases.

Results

This study shows that partial LCAs focused on the production and transportation phase help in identifying improvements in the product itself and improving the manufacturing process but the results are uncertain and dependent upon the source or database. Inconsistencies in the data and missing categories add to the ambiguity in LCA results.

Conclusions

While life cycle thinking in concept can improve the green labeling systems available, LCA data is lacking. Therefore, LCA data and tools need to improve to support and enable market trends.     

Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments

Purpose

In the recently published ??Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products??, it is stated that the ultimate objective of developing the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is to promote improvements of social conditions for the stakeholders in the life cycle. This article addresses how the SLCA should be developed so that its use promotes these improvements.

Methods

Hypotheses of how the use of SLCA can promote improvement of social conditions in the life cycle are formulated, after which theories and empirical findings from relevant fields of research are used to address the validity of these hypotheses.

Results

Three in some cases potentially overlapping SLCA approaches are presented, assumed to create a beneficial effect in the life cycle in different ways. However, empirical and theoretical findings show that the beneficial effects proposed to arise from the use of each of these three approaches may all be problematic. Some of these problems may be mitigated through methodological modifications.

Conclusions

Given the significant problems in relation to creating an effect through the use of the SLCAs, and given the significant practical problems in applying the SLCAs, it is questioned whether the development of SLCA is a fruitful approach for improving social conditions in the product life cycle.     

Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the process industry: a review

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is a well-established analytical method to quantify environmental impacts, which has been mainly applied to products. However, recent literature would suggest that it has also the potential as an analysis and design tool for processes, and stresses that one of the biggest challenges of this decade in the field of process systems engineering (PSE) is the development of tools for environmental considerations.

Method

This article attempts to give an overview of the integration of LCA methodology in the context of industrial ecology, and focuses on the use of this methodology for environmental considerations concerning process design and optimization.

Results

The review identifies that LCA is often used as a multi-objective optimization of processes: practitioners use LCA to obtain the inventory and inject the results into the optimization model. It also shows that most of the LCA studies undertaken on process analysis consider the unit processes as black boxes and build the inventory analysis on fixed operating conditions.

Conclusions

The article highlights the interest to better assimilate PSE tools with LCA methodology, in order to produce a more detailed analysis. This will allow optimizing the influence of process operating conditions on environmental impacts and including detailed environmental results into process industry.     

Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1

Purpose

Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definition of a common scientific paradigm in which integration and interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to sustainability assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for sustainability assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive sustainability assessment.

Methods

The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on sustainability assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those life cycle based, supports the discussion on the main challenges for a comprehensive and robust approach to sustainability assessment. Starting from the results of the meta-review, we identified specific features of sustainable development-oriented methods: firstly, highlighting key issues towards robust methods for SS and, secondly, capitalising on the findings of each review’s paper. For each issue, a recommendation towards a robust sustainability assessment method is given. Existing limitations of sectorial academic inquiries and proposal for better integration and mainstreaming of SS are the key points under discussion.

Discussion

In the reviewed papers, LCT and its basic principles are acknowledged as relevant for sustainability assessment. Nevertheless, LCT is not considered as a reference approach in which other methods could also find a place. This aspect has to be further explored, addressing the lack of multi-disciplinary exchange and putting the mainstreaming of LCT as a priority on the agenda of both life cycle assessment and sustainability assessment experts. Crucial issues for further developing sustainability assessment methodologies and methods have been identified and can be summarised as follows: holistic and system wide approaches, shift from multi- towards trans-disciplinarity; multi-scale (temporal and geographical) perspectives; and better involvement and participation of stakeholders.

Conclusions

Those are also the main challenges posed to LCSA in terms of progress of ontology, epistemology and methodology in line with the progress of SS. The life cycle-based methodologies should be broadened from comparing alternatives and avoiding negative impacts, to also proactively enhancing positive impacts, and towards the achievement of sustainability goals.