Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA

Purpose

Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is developing rapidly and represents a valuable complement to other life cycle methods. As methodological development continues, a growing number of case studies have noted the need for more scientific rigor in areas like data collection, allocation methods, and incorporation of values and cultural context. This work aims to identify opportunities, especially in the social sciences, to improve rigor in SLCA.

Methods

A review of existing literature and tools is based on both hand coding of the SLCA literature as represented in Web of Science’s “All Collections” database and on computer-aided review of the SLCA and other related literatures (including social impact assessment (SIA), life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), and corporate social responsibility (CSR)) using a text mining technique known as topic modeling. Rapid diagnosing of potentially valuable contributions from literatures outside of SLCA through computer-aided review led to more detailed, manual investigation of those literatures for further insight.

Results and discussion

Data collection can benefit from increased standardization and integration with social science methods, especially frameworks for surveys and interviews. Sharing examples of questionnaires and ethics committee protocols will likely improve SLCA’s accessibility. SIA and CSR also represent empirical data sources for SLCA. Impact allocation techniques can benefit from reintegration with those in ELCA, in particular by allocating (when necessary) at facility—rather than product—level. The focus on values and subjectivity in SLCA is valuable not only for SLCA but also for other methods, most notably ELCA. Further grounding in social science is likely to improve rigor in SLCA.

Conclusions

SLCA is increasingly robust and contributing to interdisciplinary discussions of how best to consider social impacts. This work makes three major recommendations for continued growth: first, that SLCA standardize human subject research used for data gathering; second, that SLCA adopt allocation techniques from ELCA; and third, that SLCA continue to draw on social science and other literatures to rigorously include value systems.

     

Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment

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).

     

From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA

Purpose

Practitioners of life cycle assessment (LCA) acknowledge that more input from social scientists can help advance the cause of life cycle management (LCM). This commentary offers a social science perspective on a long-running question within LCA, namely, how the field should manage not only stakeholders’ values but also those of practitioners themselves.

Methods

More than 60 interviews were conducted with LCA practitioners and their industry clients. Qualitative data were also collected through participant observation at several LCA and LCM conferences, a study of the field’s history, and extensive content and discourse analysis of LCA publications and online forums.

Results and discussion

Results show that LCA practitioners’ values are informed partly by the knowledge acquired through their LCA work. At the same time, LCA standards and professional norms implicitly advise practitioners to keep those values out of their work as much as possible, so as not to compromise its apparent objectivity. By contrast, many social scientists contend openly that value-based judgments, based on “situated knowledge,” can actually enhance the rigor, accountability, and credibility of scientific assessments.

Conclusions

LCA practitioners’ own situated knowledge justifies not only the value choices required by LCA but also their evaluative judgments of contemporary life cycle-based sustainability initiatives. This more critical voice could advance the goals of LCM while also boosting the credibility of LCA more generally.

     

Social life cycle assessment of average Irish dairy farm

Purpose

The majority of sustainability studies of dairy farms focused on environmental performance and profitability; however, social aspect has been hardly assessed. This study aims to investigate the social impacts of dairy farm via a case study using a social life cycle assessment framework.

Methods

The assessment was carried out applying the social LCA Guideline by UNEP-SETAC. Nineteen suitable social indicators were selected from four stakeholder categories of the guideline. Characterization and normalization were further developed based on data availability. National farm survey data was used as foreground data for farm activities, supplemented with background data from public database and life cycle working environment (LCWE) data by Gabi database. All indicators were divided into three groups: functional unit-related quantitative indicators, non-functional unit-related quantitative indicators and semi-quantitative indicators.

Results and discussion

Irish dairy farming has positive social impacts on value chain actors and society, predominantly positive impacts for local community and generally positive values for workers. The main negative impacts are health and safety issue, equal opportunity for workers, and safe and healthy living conditions for the local community. Possible actions to improve the social performance include introducing more efficient and robotic milk production systems; applying better handling methods and using real time decision support to operational management for emissions reduction.

Conclusions

This study is the first attempt of social LCA in Ireland. It demonstrated a possible method to carry out SLCA for Irish dairy sector. The results identified the positive and negative social hotspot of dairy farm with recommendation for future improvement.

     

Ecological modernization,techno-politics and social life cycle assessment: a view from human geography

Purpose

Although Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is a growing field of inquiry and intervention, to date, there has been a dearth of engagement between this field and critical social scientists interested in questions of the societal impacts of goods and services. In response, this paper is written from the perspectives of two human geographers, new to the field of SLCA. Our aim is to offer an ‘outsiders’ perspective of, and commentary on, the growing field of SLCA, which we frame as a form of political intervention that seeks to have real-world impacts on the lives and futures of diverse peoples and places.

Methods

To address these questions, we explore SLCA’s underpinning assumptions by critically reviewing the worldviews that inform its methods, including debates in the literature about sustainable development and corporate social responsibility.

Results and discussion

SLCA’s normative and practical applications resonate strongly with an ecological modernization framework. This framework forwards social change via incremental and institutional interventions that promotes continued development, and privileges objectivity, impartiality and the search for a totalizing knowledge of the impacts of good and services.

Conclusions

Exploring SLCA’s epistemological foundations illuminates, and in turn, can help to address some of the key challenges SLCA currently faces. Drawing attention to SLCA’s inheren raison d’etre encourages more debate about the overall intentions and limits of the field, and represents not a weakness but rather its inherent quality of exploring the complex world of social impacts.

     

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.

     

The EcoSpold 2 format—why a new format?

Purpose

This paper introduces the new EcoSpold data format for life cycle inventory (LCI).

Methods

A short historical retrospect on data formats in the life cycle assessment (LCA) field is given. The guiding principles for the revision and implementation are explained. Some technical basics of the data format are described, and changes to the previous data format are explained.

Results

The EcoSpold 2 data format caters for new requirements that have arisen in the LCA field in recent years.

Conclusions

The new data format is the basis for the Ecoinvent v3 database, but since it is an open data format, it is expected to be adopted by other LCI databases. Several new concepts used in the new EcoSpold 2 data format open the way for new possibilities for the LCA practitioners and to expand the application of the datasets in other fields beyond LCA (e.g., Material Flow Analysis, Energy Balancing).

     

Bridge processes: a solution for LCI datasets independent of background databases

Introduction

New platforms are emerging that enable more data providers to publish life cycle inventory data.

Background

Providing datasets that are not complete LCA models results in fragments that are difficult for practitioners to integrate and use for LCA modeling. Additionally, when proxies are used to provide a technosphere input to a process that was not originally intended by the process authors, in most LCA software, this requires modifying the original process.

Results

The use of a bridge process, which is a process created to link two existing processes, is proposed as a solution.

Discussion

Benefits to bridge processes include increasing model transparency, facilitating dataset sharing and integration without compromising original dataset integrity and independence, providing a structure with which to make the data quality associated with process linkages explicit, and increasing model flexibility in the case that multiple bridges are provided. A drawback is that they add additional processes to existing LCA models which will increase their size.

Conclusions

Bridge processes can be an enabler in allowing users to integrate new datasets without modifying them to link to background databases or other processes they have available. They may not be the ideal long-term solution but provide a solution that works within the existing LCA data model.

     

In search of income reference points for SLCA using a country level sustainability benchmark (part 1): fair inequality. A contribution to the Oiconomy project

Purpose

This paper is part 1 of our twin articles on income reference points for Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). Preventative costs based LCA systems, such as the EcoCost system and the Oiconomy system, need targets (performance reference points) to determine the marginal preventative costs, the costs of the most expensive measure that globally needs to be employed to reach the target. To extend the EcoCost system for social issues, targets are required for issues like fair wages and fair inequality of wages, issues for which no agreed standard, no effect level or target exists. One way of setting targets is to take best practices as benchmark, e.g. the practices of a group of best performing countries. The purpose of this part 1 article is to first develop a well-founded benchmark group of the 20 % best performing countries and thereafter propose a well-founded target for the issue of inequality for preventative costs based SLCA, which can also serve as performance reference point for SLCA in general and for other uses. In part 2, for the same purposes and using the same benchmark group, we propose targets for fair minimum wages for every country.

Methods

A benchmark group of countries for the setting of targets was determined by an assessment of available country performance indicators, based on 5 criteria. Thereafter, we derived a proposal for a maximum inequality ratio based on existing democratically determined inequality ratios in the benchmark group.

Results and discussion

The Sustainable Society Index–Human Wellbeing proved the best indicator for a country benchmark for preventative cost-based SLCA. Using the average of maximum democratically determined income differences in a benchmark group of countries determined by this index, a performance reference point for SLCA for the issue of fair inequality was derived and proposed, resulting in a maximum ratio of income differences for governmental institutions of 14.1, for government ruled companies of 18.3 and for industry of a factor 23.8.

Conclusions

It proved possible to derive a target for maximum inequality of wages, based on democratic choices in a benchmark group of the 20 % best performing countries. The target for governmental institutions may be called objective, and proposed augmentations for government ruled companies and industry, though value choices, seem reasonable for the consumer who requires prevention of all possible harm as consequence of his purchase choices and who, as a voter, contributes to governmental standards.

     

Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA

Purpose

Multifunctionality in life-cycle assessment (LCA) is solved with allocation, for which many different procedures are available. Lack of sufficient guidance and difficulties to identify the correct allocation approach cause a large number of combinations of methods to exist in scientific literature. This paper reviews allocation procedures for recycling situations, with the aim to identify a systematic approach to apply allocation.

Methods

Assumptions and definitions for the most important terms related to multifunctionality and recycling in LCA are given. The most relevant allocation procedures are identified from literature. These procedures are expressed in mathematical formulas and schemes and arranged in a systematic framework based on the underlying objectives and assumptions of the procedures.

Results and discussion

If the LCA goal asks for an attributional approach, multifunctionality can be solved by applying system expansion—i.e. including the co-functions in the functional unit—or partitioning. The cut-off approach is a form of partitioning, attributing all the impacts to the functional unit. If the LCA goal asks for a consequential approach, substitution is applied, for which three methods are identified: the end-of-life recycling method and the waste mining method, which are combined in the 50/50 method. We propose to merge these methods in a new formula: the market price-based substitution method. The inclusion of economic values and maintaining a strict separation between attributional and consequential LCA are considered to increase realism and consistency of the LCA method.

Conclusions and perspectives

We identified the most pertinent allocation procedures—for recycling as well as co-production and energy recovery—and expressed them in mathematical formulas and schemes. Based on the underlying objectives of the allocation procedures, we positioned them in a systematic and consistent framework, relating the procedures to the LCA goal definition and an attributional or consequential approach. We identified a new substitution method that replaces the three existing methods in consequential LCA. Further research should test the validity of the systematic framework and the market price-based substitution method by means of case studies.

     

Sustainability governance service providers: the role of third-party product certification in facilitating corporate life cycle management

Purpose

This article aims to analyze the role that third-party product sustainability certifications play in supply chain sustainability governance and hence the impact that they may have on facilitating corporate life cycle management (LCM). Particular emphasis is given to exploring the extent to which such schemes allow firms to outsource the work of communication, motivation, enablement, and control of sustainability-related information and performance upstream in the supply chain.

Methods

The research design is based on a comparative case study methodology. The corporate practices of sourcing the sustainability certified products in the food retailing and textile sectors are compared, to explain when third-party product sustainability certification reduces the corporate need to engage in collaborative relationships with suppliers, thereby reducing efforts associated with implementation of corporate life cycle management.

Results and discussion

In our study, we found evidence that affirms the role of third-party product sustainability certification in reducing corporate necessity to actively engage with coordination of sustainability issues upstream in the supply chain. However, we also identified a range of factors—the intention of the buying company, the supply chain context, and the design of the certification scheme—that influence the extent, to which third-party product sustainability certification replaces the corporate need for additional work to facilitate supplier compliance. Some of these factors, e.g., the design of the certification scheme, are new and have been underexplored in the supply chain management and value chain governance literature yet.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that corporate LCM practitioners should consider third-party sustainability certification as an instrument for the transfer of significant life cycle information along the supply chain and as a tool to facilitate corporate life cycle management. The extent to which third-party product sustainability certification would be able to facilitate corporate life cycle management depends not only on whether certification requirements are based on the LCA studies but also on the market scope of the certification schemes, the scope of the certification requirements, and the architecture of the certification management services. If these parameters are aligned with corporate ambitions and allow buyers to fully outsource the work associated with communication, motivation, enablement, and control of sustainability-related information and supplier performance, the life cycle management can be exercised by companies by simply choosing to procure sustainability certified products.

     

In search of income reference points for SLCA using a country level sustainability benchmark (part 2): fair minimum wage. A contribution to the Oiconomy project

Purpose

This paper is part 2 of our twin articles on income reference points for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). The purpose of this article is to provide a well-founded fair minimum wage standard, which enables the determination of the preventative costs for the impact category of unfair prices for labour in preventative costs-based SLCA.

Methods

A five-step procedure was followed, comprising of (1) definition of the impact category and characterization factor, (2) a literature survey on standards and practices on fixing of minimum and living wages, (3) our proposal of a fair minimum wage based on the principles set in ILO conventions, the $2 World Bank moderate poverty line and a country level benchmark, (4) a literature study on current sub-fair wages and (5) a proposal of how to use the findings. For justification of the results, the results were compared with other systems and tested the sensitivity of the results to changes in the composition of the benchmark group of countries.

Results and discussion

Because literature showed that an absolute minimum wage is only suited for the lowest-income countries and relative minimum wage only for higher income countries, this paper proposes a relative system, bottom cutoff by an adjusted absolute minimum wage. The mean proportion of the minimum wage of the gross national income (GNI) per capita in a benchmark group of the top 20 % performing countries in the Sustainable Society Index—Human Development, is used as the relative principle for a fair minimum wage. The proposed absolute minimum wage is based on the 2005 World Bank $2 (PPP) poverty line. The proposed relative system, based on 2011 data, is 44.4 % of a country’s GNI per capita and the proposed absolute minimum wage is $1547 (PPP) per year and $0.830 (PPP) per hour.

Conclusions

A well-founded set of fair minimum wage targets is proposed for 183 countries to be used in SLCA and beyond. We also propose to use the difference between actual payment and a target determined according to the here presented methods as the measure in preventative costs-based LCA, such as the EcoCost system and the Oiconomy system.

     

Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels

Purpose

This paper seeks ways to address positive social impacts in social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and attempts to answer two questions: How can the SLCA methodology be improved in order to systematically identify all potential positive impacts in the supply chain? How can positive impacts be taken into consideration along with negative impacts in SLCA? In order for SLCA to be an attractive tool, it needs to provide users with the possibility to include positive impacts, not as variables stipulating lack of negative impacts but rather as fulfilment of positive potentials.

Methods

By scrutinising the social impacts addressed in the SLCA UNEP/SETAC Guidelines today and reviewing approaches for positive impacts in other research fields, a developed approach to capture and aggregate positive social impacts in SLCA is proposed. To exemplify the application, the case of vehicle fuels is used to investigate the possibilities of addressing positive impacts in SLCA. This includes a literature review on potential positive social impacts linked to vehicle fuels.

Results and discussion

The subcategories in the SLCA Guidelines are proposed to be divided into positive and negative impacts and complemented with some additional positive impacts. Related indicators are proposed. A draft approach for assessing positive impacts is developed where the proposed indicators are categorised in four different levels, from low to very high potential positive impact. The possibility to aggregate positive social impacts is discussed. Besides multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), few useful ideas for aggregating positive impacts in SLCA were found in the literature that mostly focused on surveys and monetarisation. Positive social impacts linked to vehicle fuels (fossil fuels and biofuels) are identified, and the proposed approach is schematically applied to vehicle fuels.

Conclusions

The SLCA methodology may be refined in order to better identify and assess positive impacts, and approaches developed for capturing and aggregating such impacts are proposed. Challenges of aggregating positive and negative social impacts still remain. The knowledge on social impacts from vehicle fuels could be improved by applying the proposed approach. However, the approach needs more development to be practically applicable.

     

Regionalization of agri-food life cycle assessment: a review of studies in Portugal and recommendations for the future

Purpose

One of the main trends in life cycle assessment (LCA) today is towards increased regionalization in inventories and impact assessment methods. LCA studies require the collection of activity data but also of increasingly region-specific background data to accurately depict supply chain processes and enable the application of an increasing number of geographically explicit impact assessment models. This is particularly important for agri-food products. In this review, we assess progress in Portugal towards this goal and provide recommendations for future developments.

Methods

We perform a comprehensive review of available LCA studies conducted for Portuguese agri-food products, in order to evaluate the current state of Portuguese agri-food LCA. Among other issues, we assess availability of data, methods used, level of regionalization, impact assessment model relevance and coherence for inter-product comparability. We also provide conclusions and recommendations based on recent developments in the field.

Results and discussion

We found 22 LCA studies, covering 22 different products. The analysis of these studies reveals limitations in inter-study comparability. The main challenges have to do with a lack of country-specific foreground data sources applied consistently in the studies found, with discrepancies in impact assessment categories, and with the use of simple functional units that may misrepresent the product analyzed.

Conclusions

We conclude that Portuguese agri-food LCA studies do not have a systematic and country-scale approach in order to guarantee regional accuracy and comparability. We propose a research strategy to engage the Portuguese agri-food LCA community in devising a consistent framework before practical application studies are conducted.

     

Using life cycle sustainability assessment to trade off sourcing strategies for humanitarian relief items

Purpose

While interest in supply chain sustainability has risen over the past few years in academic and business worlds, very little research has been conducted on sustainability in humanitarian supply chains, specifically. This study aims to contribute to the development of the field by conducting a life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) of sourcing scenarios for a core relief item in a humanitarian supply chain.

Methods

This paper is structured according to the LCSA framework developed by Guinée et al. (Environ Sci Technol 45(1):90–96, 2011). The relief item analyzed is a kitchen set supplied by a UN agency. Environmental, social, and economic impacts of two sourcing scenarios for a kitchen set are mapped: one international and one local. Sources of data include interviews, company records, and online databases. Results are analyzed using the ReCiPe method to assess environmental impact and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) guidelines to assess social impact.

Results and discussion

We show how LCSA can be used to map the sustainability of two sourcing scenarios for kitchen sets in a humanitarian supply chain along triple bottom line dimensions. We report findings on sourcing scenarios for distribution to two refugee camps in Kenya: one from a supplier in India and one from a supplier in Kenya. We use an environmental life cycle analysis (LCA), a social LCA, and a life cycle costing (LCC) to analyze differences and similarities. We find that local sourcing is preferred over international sourcing on two out of the three sustainability dimensions—environmental and social impacts. Humanitarian organizations may further use this paper as a guideline to develop their own sustainability assessments of supply chain scenarios.

Conclusions

The results of our study provide a fresh, sustainability-focused perspective on the debate over international vs. local procurement. This paper is the first to apply LCSA to a humanitarian context. It also addresses a void in the sourcing literature by determining the sustainability impacts of different sourcing strategies. The study evaluates only two sourcing options and also uses a limited number of data sources.

     

On the boundary between economy and environment in life cycle assessment

Purpose

We investigate how the boundary between product systems and their environment has been delineated in life cycle assessment and question the usefulness and ontological relevance of a strict division between the two.

Methods

We consider flows, activities and impacts as general terms applicable to both product systems and their environment and propose that the ontologically relevant boundary is between the flows that are modelled as inputs to other activities (economic or environmental)—and the flows that—in a specific study—are regarded as final impacts, in the sense that no further feedback into the product system is considered before these impacts are applied in decision-making. Using this conceptual model, we contrast the traditional mathematical calculation of the life cycle impacts with a new, simpler computational structure where the life cycle impacts are calculated directly as part of the Leontief inverse, treating product flows and environmental flows in parallel, without the need to consider any boundary between economic and environmental activities.

Results and discussion

Our theoretical outline and the numerical example demonstrate that the distinctions and boundaries between product systems and their environment are unnecessary and in some cases obstructive from the perspective of impact assessment, and can therefore be ignored or chosen freely to reflect meaningful distinctions of specific life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. We show that our proposed computational structure is backwards compatible with the current practice of LCA modelling, while allowing inclusion of feedback loops both from the environment to the economy and internally between different impact categories in the impact assessment.

Conclusions

Our proposed computational structure for LCA facilitates consistent, explicit and transparent modelling of the feedback loops between environment and the economy and between different environmental mechanisms. The explicit and transparent modelling, combining economic and environmental information in a common computational structure, facilitates data exchange and re-use between different academic fields.

     

The main challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA) to support the social impacts analysis of product-service systems

Purpose

This paper aims to investigate the applicability of social life cycle assessment (SLCA) to the social impacts analysis of product-service systems (PSS). The purpose is to discuss the main challenges for this approach to comparing PSS business model alternatives and analyzing the social consequences of PSS introduction into the market.

Methods

Two PSS solutions were considered to investigate the applicability and the challenges for SLCA when applied to PSS assessment. A comparative analysis was discussed based on UNEP/SETAC guidelines. The subcategories and social indicators suggested in the guidelines were analyzed, and the indicators considered suitable for the comparison of PSS alternatives, considering the use phase, were identified. Other indicators from the PSS literature were also added to those from the guidelines. To analyze the consequences of PSS implementation, the applicability of consequential SLCA was discussed.

Results and discussion

The main results pointed out that only a few indicators in the SLCA guidelines could be used for comparative PSS analysis. This occurred because only some of the guidelines could be linked to the processes of each PSS. Other indicators identified in the PSS literature are suggested to complement the comparative analysis of PSS alternatives. Concerning the effects of PSS introduction, it can cause social impacts with regard to the company and stakeholders directly involved in the changes in addition to the effects that may occur in other products and services systems as a result of consumers’ behavior and PSS interaction in the market. The consequential modeling is suggested as appropriate for this analysis.

Conclusions

The SLCA approach can be considered suitable for PSS social issues analysis, although there are limitations for a full analysis in this study. Some major challenges for its applicability were identified. First, PSS functional unit modeling should be investigated considering all PSS elements (products and services) and the functions provided by the system. Second, only few indicators in the guidelines were considered appropriate for PSS comparative analysis before its introduction. Finally, concerning consequential SLCA, this could be explored in the context of PSS, but there is still scarce research on this subject. In short, to establish SLCA as a useful and applicable methodology to assess the social impacts of a PSS, further research is required, especially regarding the consequential SLCA.

     

Geopolitical-related supply risk assessment as a complement to environmental impact assessment: the case of electric vehicles

Purpose

Introducing a geopolitical-related supply risk (GeoPolRisk) into the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework adds a criticality aspect to the current life cycle assessment (LCA) framework to more meaningfully address direct impacts on Natural Resource AoP. The weakness of resource indicators in LCA has been the topic of discussion within the life cycle community for some time. This paper presents a case study on how to proceed towards the integration of resource criticality assessment into LCA under the LCSA. The paper aims at highlighting the significance of introducing the GeoPolRisk indicator to complement and extend the established environmental LCA impact categories.

Methods

A newly developed GeoPolRisk indicator proposed by Gemechu et al., J Ind Ecol (2015) was applied to metals used in the life cycle of an electric vehicle, and the results are compared with an attributional LCA of the same resources. The inventory data is based on the publication by Hawkins et al., J Ind Ecol 17:53–64 (2013), which provides a current, transparent, and detailed life cycle inventory data of a European representative first-generation battery small electric vehicle.

Results and discussion

From the 14 investigated metals, copper, aluminum, and steel are the most dominant elements that pose high environmental impacts. On the other hand, magnesium and neodymium show relatively higher supply risk when geopolitical elements are considered. While, the environmental indicator results all tend to point the same hotspots which arise from the substantial use of resources in the electric vehicle’s life cycle, the GeoPolRisk highlights that there are important elements present in very small amounts but crucial to the overall LCSA. It provides a complementary sustainability dimension that can be added to conventional LCA as an important extension within LCSA.

Conclusions

Resource challenges in a short-term time perspective can be better addressed by including social and geopolitical factors in addition to the conventional indicators which are based on their geological availability. This is more significant for modern technologies such as electronic devices in which critical resources contribute to important components. The case study advances the use of the GeoPolRisk assessment method but does still face certain limitations that need further elaboration; however, directions for future research are promising.