Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA

Purpose  

In May 2009, the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (the Guidelines) were launched at the occasion of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 (Social Responsibility) meeting in Quebec City, Canada. Developed by a United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (“UNEP/SETAC”) Life Cycle Initiative project group on Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), the Guidelines provide a framework to assess social impacts across product life cycles. A year later, the Methodological Sheets for the Subcategories of Social LCA (“the Methodological Sheets”) are being made available to support practitioners engaging in the field. The Methodological Sheets provide practical guidance for conducting S-LCA case studies by offering consistent, yet flexible assistance.     

A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands

Purpose  

There is a need to assess social impacts of products along the full life cycle, not only to be able to address the “social dimension” in sustainability, but also for potentially improving the circumstances of affected stakeholders. This paper presents a case study for a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) based on the recently published “Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products” developed by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) working group. General aim is to “try out” the proposed method. The case study itself compares the impacts of rose production in Ecuador with the Netherlands. Furthermore, the objective is to identify differences and similarities in environmental and social life cycle modelling and both social and environmental hot spots in each of the life cycles.     

Tourism LCA: state-of-the-art and perspectives

Background, aim and scope  

Records over the last decades indicate a high growth rate for tourism, making it one of the most important industries in the world economy. Since estimates outline a consolidation of this trend, an accurate identification and assessment of the environmental impacts related to the life cycle of tourist products is increasingly necessary. By reviewing and comparing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) case studies in the tourism sector, this paper aims to identify life cycle approaches that may be used as a basis for the subsequent development of sectorial Life Cycle Thinking guidelines.     

Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes

Background, aims, and scope  

Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is a tool assessing the social aspects of products and services. This article is a step forward from the Guidelines and wishes to clarify the different impact assessment (IA) methods covered in the Guidelines and how these different methods would provide different types of information regarding the social aspects of the product system.     

Methodologies for social life cycle assessment

Goal, Scope and Background  

In recent years several different approaches towards Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) have been developed. The purpose of this review is to compare these approaches in order to highlight methodological differences and general shortcomings. SLCA has several similarities with other social assessment tools, although, in order to limit the expanse of the review, only claims to address social impacts from an LCA-like framework are considered.     

Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative workshop and a few updates from recent developments

Purpose

The paper provides a late report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative workshop “Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)—where we are, trends, and next steps;” it embeds this report into recent development with regard to the envisaged development of global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators and related methodologies.

Methods

The document is the output of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s workshop on “Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps.” The presentations and discussions held during the workshop reviewed the first two phases of the Life Cycle Initiative and provided an overview of current LCIA activities being conducted by the Initiative, governments and academia, as well as corporate approaches. The outcomes of the workshop are reflected in light of the implementation of the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative.

Results

The range of views provided during the workshop indicated different user needs, with regards to, amongst other things, the required complexity of the LCIA methodology, associated costs, and the selection of LCIA categories depending on environmental priorities. The workshop’s results signified a number of potential focus areas for Phase 3 of the Initiative, including capacity building efforts concerning LCIA in developing countries and emerging economies, the preparation of training materials on LCIA, the production of global guidance on LCIA, and the potential development of a broader sustainability indicators framework.

Conclusions

These suggestions have been taken into account in the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative in two flagship projects, one on global capability development on life cycle approaches and the other on global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators. In the context of the latter project, first activities are being organized and planned. Moreover, UNEP has included the recommendations in its Rio + 20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and SETAC through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains.     

Back to basics—the school lunch

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - The effort to develop social life cycle assessment (Social LCA) along the same principles and procedural steps as LCA has met serious challenges...     

An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe

Purpose

The year-round supply of fresh fruit and vegetables in Europe requires a complex logistics system. In this study, the most common European fruit and vegetable transport packaging systems, namely single-use wooden and cardboard boxes and re-useable plastic crates, are analyzed and compared considering environmental, economic, and social impacts.

Methods

The environmental, economic, and social potentials of the three transport packaging systems are examined and compared from a life cycle perspective using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Working Environment (LCWE) methodologies. Relevant parameters influencing the results are analyzed in different scenarios, and their impacts are quantified. The underlying environmental analysis is an ISO 14040 and 14044 comparative Life Cycle Assessment that was critically reviewed by an independent expert panel.

Results and discussion

The results show that wooden boxes and plastic crates perform very similarly in the Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential categories; while plastic crates have a lower impact in the Eutrophication Potential and Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential categories. Cardboard boxes show the highest impacts in all assessed categories. The analysis of the life cycle costs show that the re-usable system is the most cost effective over its entire life cycle. For the production of a single crate, the plastic crates require the most human labor. The share of female employment for the cardboard boxes is the lowest. All three systems require a relatively large share of low-qualified employees. The plastic crate system shows a much lower lethal accident rate. The higher rate for the wooden and cardboard boxes arises mainly from wood logging. In addition, the sustainability consequences due to the influence of packaging in preventing food losses are discussed, and future research combining aspects both from food LCAs and transport packing/packaging LCAs is recommended.

Conclusions

For all three systems, optimization potentials regarding their environmental life cycle performance were identified. Wooden boxes (single use) and plastic crates (re-usable) show preferable environmental performance. The calibration of the system parameters, such as end-of-life treatment, showed environmental optimization potentials in all transport packaging systems. The assessment of the economic and the social dimensions in parallel is important in order to avoid trade-offs between the three sustainability dimensions. Merging economic and social aspects into a Life Cycle Assessment is becoming more and more important, and their integration into one model ensures a consistent modeling approach for a manageable effort.     

Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation of municipal solid waste management scenarios based on the midpoint and endpoint approaches

Purpose  

Few studies have examined differing interpretations of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results between midpoints and endpoints for the same systems. This paper focuses on the LCIA of municipal solid waste (MSW) systems by taking both the midpoint and endpoint approaches and uses LIME (Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on Endpoint Modeling, version 2006). With respect to global and site-dependent factors, environmental impact categories were divided into global, regional, and local scales. Results are shown as net emissions consisting of system emissions and avoided emissions.     

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.     

Comparison of environmental impact and external cost assessment methods

Background, aim, and scope  

Impact assessment can be completed with the help of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) as a part of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and External Cost Assessment methods. These methods help, for project and product classifications, to protect human health and the environment. Comparison of different impact assessment methods along parallel evaluations of real air pollution case studies helps to detect similarities and dependencies between them. The comparison helps and supports the work in both areas by mutually exploiting the merits of both methods. On the other hand, the detected similarities and dependencies also support the accuracy of the assessment work.     

Psychosocial risk factors’ impact pathway for social life cycle assessment: an application to citrus life cycles in South Italy

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) was the last tool to be developed within the framework of life cycle thinking, and since the beginning,...     

MEXALCA: a modular method for the extrapolation of crop LCA

Purpose  

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is widely used for the environmental assessment of food products, but difficulties arise when evaluating large portfolios of food products or when faced with a diversity of sources of ingredients and/or frequent changes of suppliers. In such situations, a specific, in-depth assessment of each ingredient is not feasible, and screening approaches using a few LCIA (Life Cycle Impact Assessment) results are not recommended. The goal of this paper is to propose an intermediate solution between a screening assessment using limited data and specific LCA for all products considering all sources of ingredients.     

The formulation of life cycle impact assessment framework for Malaysia using Eco-indicator

Background, aim, and scope  

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an emerging supporting tool designed to help practitioner in systematically assessing the environmental performance of selected product’s life cycle. A product’s life cycle includes the extraction of raw materials, production, and usage, and ends with waste treatment or disposal. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) as a part of LCA is a method used to derive the environmental burdens from selected product’s stages. LCIA is structured in classification, characterization, normalization and weighting. Presently most of the LCIA practices use European database to establish the characterization, normalization and weighting value. However, using these values for local LCA practice might not be able to reflect the actual Malaysian’s environmental scenario. The aim of this study is to create a Malaysian version of normalization and weighting value using the pollution database within Malaysia.     

The evolution of life cycle assessment in European policies over three decades

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are increasingly considered pivotal concept and method for supporting...     

Life-Cycle based methods for sustainable product development

Sustainability-a term originating from silviculture, which was adopted by UNEP as the main political goal for the future development of humankind-is also the ultimate aim of product development. It comprises three components: environment, economy and social aspects which have to be properly assessed and balanced if a new product is to be designed or an existing one is to be improved. The responsibility of the researchers involved in the assessment is to provide appropriate and reliable instruments. For the environmental part there is already an internationally standardized tool: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is the logical counterpart of LCA for the economic assessment. LCC surpasses the purely economic cost calculation by taking into account hidden costs and potentially external costs over the life cycle of the product. It is a very important point that different life-cycle based methods (including Social Life Cycle Assessment) for sustainablity assessment use the same system boundaries.     

Simplified fate modelling in respect to ecotoxicological and human toxicological characterisation of emissions of chemical compounds

Purpose  

The impact assessment of chemical compounds in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) requires a vast amount of data on the properties of the chemical compounds being assessed. The purpose of the present study is to explore statistical options for reduction of the data demand associated with characterisation of chemical emissions in LCIA and ERA.     

A novel social life cycle assessment method for determining workers’ human development: a case study of the sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - The social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodology needs to advance in its methodological development, mainly regarding the impact assessment...     

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.