Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
See, for example, Weidema and Ekvall (2009) for details.
The producer being affected by small changes in demand
More details can be added to the example, but as this example is only meant as an explanation, they are of no importance for this case.
Area of protection is a term originally defined in environmental LCA to represent the classes of environmental endpoints that society wants to protect (Udo de Haes et al. 1999).
See ‘UNEP Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products’ (Benoît and Mazijn 2009).
References
Barrientos S, Smith S (2007) Do workers benefit from ethical trade? Assessing codes of labour practice in global production systems. Third World Q 28:713–729
Bartley T (2005) Corporate accountability and the privatization of labor standards: struggles over codes of conduct in the apparel industry. Res Polit Sociol 14:211–244
Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP, Nairobi, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
Bezuidenhout A, Jeppesen S (2011) Between the state, market and society: labour codes of conduct in the Southern African garment industry. Submitted to Dev. South Africa
Bolwig S, Ponte S, du Toit A, Riisgaard L, Halberg N, Matose F (2010) Integrating poverty and environmental concerns into value-chain analysis. A conceptual framework. Dev Pol Rev 28:173–194
Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:88–97
Humphrey J, Schmitz H (2000) Governance and upgrading: linking industrial cluster and global value chain research. University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Jørgensen A, Le-Boqc A, Nazakina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:96–103
Jørgensen A, Hauschild M, Jørgensen MS, Wangel A (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:204–214
Jørgensen A, Finkbeiner M, Hauschild M (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:376–384
Kruse SA, Flysjö A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz AJ (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:8–18
Lobel O (2010) Crowding out or ratcheting up? Fair trade systems, regulations and new governance. University of San Diego. Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Research paper no. 10–023. At: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1612986. Accessed 21 Jan 2011
Locke R, Qin F, Brause A (2006) Does monitoring improve labour standards? Lessons from Nike. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, working paper no. 24. John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
Lund-Thomsen P (2008) The global sourcing and codes of conduct debate: five myths and five recommendations. Dev Change 39:1005–1018
Montero D (2006) Nike's dilemma: is doing the right thing wrong? The Christian Science Monitor. At: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1222/p01s03-wosc.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2011
O'Rourke D (2000) Monitoring the monitors: a critique of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) labor monitoring. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Working paper
Pruett (2005) Looking for a quick fix: how weak social auditing is keeping workers in sweatshops. Clean Clothes Campaign. At: http://www.eu-china.net/web/cms/upload/pdf/materialien/ccc_2005_quick_fix_08-04-29.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2011
Riisgaard L, Bolwig S, Ponte S, Du Toit N, Halberg N, Matose F (2010) Integrating poverty and environmental concerns into value-chain analysis. A strategic framework and practical guide. Dev Pol Rev 28:195–216
Schmidt I, Meurer M, Saling P, Kicherer A, Reuter W, Gensch C (2004) SEEbalance—managing sustainability of products and processes with the socio-eco-efficiency analysis by BASF. Greener Manag Int 45:79–94
Spillemaeckers S, Vanhoutte G, Taverniers L, Lavrysen L, van Braeckel D, Mazijn B, Rivera JD (2004) Integrated product assessment—the development of the label ‘Sustainable Development’ for products ecological, social and economical aspects of integrated product policy. Belgian Science Policy, Belgium
Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:66–74
Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96, Special issue
Weidema BP, Ekvall T (2009) Consequential LCA. Chapter for CALCAS (Co-ordination Action for Innovation in Life-Cycle Analysis for Sustainability) deliverable D18 “Guidelines for applications of deepened and broadened LCA”. At: http://www.lca-net.com/files/consequential_LCA_CALCAS_final.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2011
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Julie Parent from UQAM, Montreal, Canada; participants at the Second International Seminar on SLCA held in Montpellier, France, in 2011 and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jørgensen, A., Dreyer, L.C. & Wangel, A. Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 828–839 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0408-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0408-9