Social LCA

Pre-proceeding People and Places

for Partnership
6th Social LCA
Conference

6th SocSem
Pescara, Italy
September 10-12, 2018

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite
 Collection FruiTrop Thema

Social LCA
People and Places for Partnership

Pre-proceedings of the
6th Social Life Cycle Assessment
Conference

S-LCA 2018 – September 10-12, 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite
 Collection FruiTrop Thema:

Social LCAs — Socio-economic effects in value chains (2013)

Social LCA in progress — Pre-proceedings of the 4th International

Seminar in social LCA (2014)

Social LCA — Researcher School Book

Social evaluation of the life cycle, application to the agriculture
and agri-food sectors

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

2
Thema
 Introduction

Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) is officially recognised to be part of Life Cycle
Thinking (LCT) and is rapidly emerging as an essential approach for both private and
public sectors. Indeed, social life-cycle information is more and more crucial to guide
policy decisions and business strategies. Policy makers have to promote sustainable
consumption and production strategies to respond to national and international social
challenges, by gathering baseline and future-oriented impact information for market-
oriented policies and developing strategies for resource efficiency and eco-design. Private
businesses have to improve efficiency to boost margins and competitiveness, while
contributing to sustainability maximizing economic and social value.

The aim of the 6th International Conference on S-LCA "People&Places4Partnership"

is to discuss about its key role as a decision-making tool in the definition of strategies
for sustainability, thus supporting both public and private businesses in making more
informed decisions. Benefits will be: better sustainable policies, more sustainable business
strategies, sustainable product design and improved life quality driven choice.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 3

Thema
 Acknowledgements

The Organisers appreciate all the valuable support provided

by the Scientific Committee: Henrikke Baumann, Catherine
Benoit, Andreas Ciroth, Elisabeth Ekener, Matthias Finkbeiner,
Sara Russo Garrido, Jacquetta Lee, Catherine Macombe, Bernard
Mazijn, Luigia Petti, Peter Saling, Marzia Traverso, Cassia Maria Lie
Ugaya, Alessandra Zamagni. We would like to thank them for their
commitment and support. A special thanks to Catherine Macombe,
Catherine Sanchez and Denis Loeillet for having taken great care
of the editing and printing of these Proceedings. We would also
like to express our gratitude to Monica Serreli for always being
there and for her technical support, to Ioannis Arzoumanidis for his
great availability to listen and contribute to solving problems and
to Manuela D’Eusanio for the logo and web-site design. Finally, we
would like to thank the Sponsors who have helped to make this
Conference happen: Apicoltura Luca Finocchio, Aptar, ArcelorMittal,
Bureau Veritas, Cirad, Ecoinnovazione, Department of Economic
Studies of the University “G. d’Annunzio”, Marramiero Winery, PRé
Sustainability, RWTH Aachen, Steelcase.

Luigia Petti, Marzia Traverso, Alessandra Zamagni

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 4

Thema
 Sponsors
in alphabetical order
Apicoltura Luca Finocchio (Italy)
Aptar (Italy)
ArcelorMittal
Bureau Veritas
CIRAD (France)
Ecoinnovazione (Italy)
G d'Annunzio University, Department of Economic Studies (Italy)
Marramiero winery (Italy)
PRé Sustainability
RWTH Aachen (Germany)
Steelcase

Scientific Committee
Luigia Petti ("G. D'Annunzio" University, Italy)
Marzia Traverso (RWTH Aachen University, Germany)
Alessandra Zamagni (Ecoinnovazione, Italy)
Henrikke Baumann (Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden)
Catherine Benoit (Harvard University/NewEarth, USA)
Andreas Ciroth (Green Delta, Germany)
Elisabeth Ekener (Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden)
Matthias Finkbeiner (Technische Universität Berlin, Germany)
Sara Russo Garrido (CIRAIG, Canada)
Uday Gupta (Mahindra Sanyo Special Steel Pvt Ltd, India)
Jacquetta Lee (University of Surrey, UK)
Catherine Macombe (IRSTEA, France)
Bernard Mazijn (Ghent University, Belgium)
Serenella Sala (European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Italy)
Peter Saling (BASF SE, Germany)
Cassia Maria Lie Ugaya (Universidade Tecnologica Federal Do Paraná, Brazil)

Organising Committee
Ioannis Arzoumanidis ("G. D'Annunzio" University, Italy)
Manuela D'Eusanio ("G. D'Annunzio" University, Italy)
Silvia Di Cesare ("G. D'Annunzio" University, Italy)
Luigia Petti ("G. D'Annunzio" University, Italy)
Andrea Raggi ("G. D'Annunzio" University, Italy)
Monica Serreli (work and organisational psychologist, Italy)
Marzia Traverso (RWTH Aachen University, Germany)
Alessandra Zamagni (Ecoinnovazione, Italy)
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 5

Thema
 Themes

Part 1: Methodological developments and tool focus

• 1A Positive social impacts
• 1B Inventory database
• 1C Characterising social impacts
• 1D Type I and Type 2 in Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (S-LCIA)
• 1E Sector-specific approaches
• 1F Future scenarios of countries and development of social indicators
• 1G Complementarity and overlapping between Environmental and Social LCA
• 1H Presentation and interpretation of results of Social LCA

Part 2: Contextualising S-LCA scientifically

• 2C S-LCA in LCSA
• 2D Social Sciences studies on product life cycles

Part 3: Fields of applications

• 3A Circular economy: innovations and other applications cases
• 3B Social Organisational LCA
• 3C Policy and Social LCA
• 3D Social LCA in procurement and design
• 3F Strategic priorities of industry in Social Impacts

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 6

Thema
 Table of contents
(only the first author is quoted)

Part 1: Methodological developments and tool focus........................... 11

• Structure of a Net Positive analysis for supply chain social impacts (C. Benoit Norris)......................... 12
1A • To assess use phase impacts in S-LCA (E. Ekener)............................................................................................. 13
• Consistent Assessment of Positive Impacts (Diana Indrane)........................................................................ 18
1B • Preliminary evaluation of data collection methods for SLCA studies (R. Trevisani Juchen)................. 22
• Influence diagrams and scoping for social LCA, an example
from sustainable minings (A. Ciroth).................................................................................................................... 28
• Proposal of social indicators to assess the social performance of waste
management systems in developing countries: a Brazilian case study (V. Ibañez-Forés)................... 32
• Social sustainability assessment of Calabrian olive growing (N. Iofrida)................................................. 33
• Integrating active impacts in sustainability assessment in product
(manufacturing) life cycle (M. Kumar).................................................................................................................. 38
• The Social Value of Products: What can it be and can it enrich
1C Social life cycle assessment? (S. Russo Garrido).................................................................................................. 43
• Social Analysis within the SEEbalance® for a detailed assessment of
social impacts of products and processes (P. Saling)...................................................................................... 47
• Discussing Features of Social Measures Important in SLCA
Impact Indicators’ Selection (Y. Soltanpour)........................................................................................................ 52
• Including governance and economic aspects to assess and explain
social impacts: a methodological proposal for S-LCA (S. Sureau).............................................................. 57
• Sustainable Guar Initiative (SGI) – social impact characterization of
an integrated sustainable project (M. Vuaillat)................................................................................................. 63
• Towards a taxonomy for social impact pathway indicators (B. P. Weidema)............................................ 66
• Development of S-LCIA models: a review of multivariate data
1D analysis methods (J. Bonacina de Araujo).............................................................................................................. 67
• Using DALY for Assessing Human Health Impacts of Conflict Minerals (A. Furberg)........................... 72
• Perspectives in the application of social life cycle analysis to waste management (J. Mery).......... 76
• Social LCA of sorting centres for WEEE reuse in Greece (K. Abeliotis)....................................................... 81
• Assessing the Social Sustainability of Frugal Products (L. Simoes)............................................................ 86
• Social Life Cycle Assessment addressed to the valorisation of wine
1E production waste and residues – A review with methodological clues (O. Grech)............................. 92
• Small but Complex: Assessing Social Impacts on Smallholders
in Agri-food Sector (D. Indrane).............................................................................................................................. 96
• The challenge of quantification: Social Life Cycle Assessment for
advanced biofuel from waste wood integrated in the steel industry (I. Kaltenegger).......................102

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 7

Thema
 • Social performance evaluation of an artisanal apparel brand
in Peru using Social LCA (J. D. Villegas)...............................................................................................................105
1E • Including social aspects in the sustainability management of organisations –
Implications of the application of social life cycle assessment
in the energy industry in Sweden (S. Welling).................................................................................................111

1F • Specific indicators and challenges for the assessment of life cycle

impacts on intangible cultural heritage in South America (F. Eisfeldt)..................................................115
• Integration between the territory indicator of VIVA project
and the social LCA analysis for the wine sector (A. Acampora)..................................................................117
• Functional unit definition criteria in LCA and Social LCA: a discussion (I. Arzoumanidis).................121
1G • Complementarity of social and environmental indicators and risks.
An example of the mining industry (C. Di Noi)...............................................................................................122
• S-LCA in agricultural systems – U.S. corn production as a case study (M. Frank)...............................128
• Integrating odor management tools in Social Life Assessment
in rural area: preliminary study (A. Trivino).......................................................................................................130
• A global effort: 2019 S-LCA Guidelines (C. Benoit Norris)..............................................................................134
• Weighting and scoring in Social Life Cycle Assessment (B. Barros Telles do Carmo)..............................140
• Social Life Cycle Assessment for a Biorefinery Project (E. Cadena)..........................................................141
1H • S- LCA based social sustainability tool for companies (A. Reinikainen)...................................................147
• Generation, calculation and interpretation of social impacts
with the Social Analysis of SEEbalance® (P. Saling).......................................................................................149
• Social life cycle assessment of rural cassava starch factories
in Cauca-Colombia in the post-conflict (L. A. Taborda).................................................................................150
• Pathways to S-LCA Interpretation – where to start (J. Werker)..................................................................155

Part 2: Contextualising S-LCA scientifically.........................................161

• Choice of social indicators within technology development –
the case of mobile biorefineries in Europe (B. Brunklaus)...........................................................................162
2C • Bioeconomy network mapping and assessment of sustainability performance (G. Medyna)......167
• Social life cycle assessment through the framework Multi-Level Social Life Cycle
Assessment of the bioelectricity generation in Floreana Island (M. A. Muñoz Mayorga)...................171
• Beyond a CSR context towards pluralism in SLCA: exploring
2D alternative social theoretical perspectives (H. Baumann)...........................................................................177
• How Product Social Impact Assessment differs from Product Social
Value Assessment and why they complement each other (M. Caraty)..................................................178

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

8 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Part 3: Fields of applications..............................................................185
• The Role Of Social Aspects Evaluation In The Industrial Symbiosis Models (G. Arcese)...................186
• Transitioning towards bioeconomy: assessing the social
dimension through the lenses of the stakeholders (P. M. Falcone)..........................................................189
• Social Life Cycle Assessment of Niobium Mining in Brazil
3A in a Circular Economy context (S. Neugebauer)...............................................................................................194
• Using the social hotspots database to assess the social risks
of prospective value chains: The case of D-Factory (D. Peñaloza)............................................................197
• Assessing fair wages in social life cycle assessment
of agricultural product: case of Thai sugarcane (J. Prasara-A)...................................................................203
• How experiences and existing data of companies can be used to define the
Goal and Scope in a Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (M. D’Eusanio)..............................208
3B • How can Social organizational LCA benefit from existing
and improve future sustainability reporting of companies? (A. Lehmann)...........................................215
• Setting the SOLCA concept framework to the artisanal and
small-scale mining sector: a case study (E. Zerazion)....................................................................................216
• Social risk in raw materials extraction: a macro-scale assessment (U. Eynard)....................................221
3C • The experience of Urban Wellbeing Laboratories. A study of the social, energy
and environmental costs of the food supply chain in Campania Region (C. Vassillo)......................226
• The Product Social Metrics consensus developed by major companies (M. Goedkoop)..................227
• Challenges and opportunities of using Social LCA
3D in the Norwegian construction and public procurement (S. Mamo Fufa).............................................231
• Integrating SLCA in Product Design at Nestlé (U. Schenker)......................................................................236
• Product Social Impact Assessment: a case study from the automotive sector (L. Zanchi).............240
• A new scheme to evaluate socio-economic impacts
of products: a well-being indicator approach (S. Di Cesare).......................................................................241
• What social priorities for agro-business now if the future
3F is realized as planned? (C. Macombe)..................................................................................................................242
• SLCA of events: application of an LCA-based method in
the event impact analysis (J. R. V. Tkatch)....................................................................................................................... 246
• The role of social sustainability in aviation biofuel supply chains (Z. Wang).......................................252
• Towards a harmonized communication of products’ social impacts (M. Traverso)............................255

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 9

Thema
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

10 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Part 1

Methodological developments
and tool focus

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 11

Thema
 Catherine Benoit Norris Session 1A

Structure of a Net Positive analysis

for supply chain social impacts
Catherine Benoit Norris1, Gregory A. Norris1, Lina Azuero2

1
Harvard School of Public Health, New Earth (USA)
2
Dell

Abstract
Net Positive is becoming one of the sustainability buzzwords of this decade. Beyond
the noise, it has the potential to be a transformational movement, helping businesses
to redefine their role in society, their social purpose. As an idea, its simplicity and
candor makes it both extremely attractive and powerful. It poses a great question and
sets a challenge: Can we give more to the environment and society than we take? To
be Net Positive a company’s handprint needs to be greater than its footprint.

The Net Positive Project and Harvard SHINE have worked to clarify the Principles and
methodology that can make the Net Positive concept both actionable and valid.
This includes defining handprints in a measurable way. In this paper, we advance
and demonstrate methods that can be used to assess social Net Positive impacts.
Reviewing and building on social life cycle assessment, we introduce a structure
for Net Positive analysis of social impacts. This framework is meant to be practical,
actionable and comprehensive. In order to focus on applicability, we also discuss
methods, models and data collection.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

12 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Elisabeth Ekener Session 1A

To assess use phase impacts in S-LCA

Elisabeth Ekener1, Elena Mokeeva-Hansson1, Catherine Macombe2

1
KTH Royal Institute of technology, SEED dept., Stockholm (Sweden)
2
Irstea – Centre de Montpellier (France)

Introduction
In the ongoing work to further develop the S-LCA methodology, based on the
S-LCA guidelines developed by the UNEP/SETAC (Benoît, Norris et al. 2010, UNEP/
SETAC 2010), a number of S-LCA researchers have highlighted that the use phase
of a product has not been sufficiently addressed (Jørgensen, Hauschild et al. 2009,
Ekener-Petersen and Finnveden 2013, Chhipi-Shrestha, Hewage et al. 2015, Sureau,
Mazijn et al. 2017). Only a few aspects – health and safety, feedback mechanism,
consumer privacy, transparency and end of life responsibility – are considered, i. e.
mostly addressing the relation between the consumer and the producer/retailer. The
exclusion of core issues of the use phase impacts in S-LCA studies may be problematic.
To give a full and comprehensive picture of the overall social impacts caused by the
existence of a given product by S-LCA, all relevant life cycle phases, including the use
phase, should be covered. The use phase in S-LCA has been recognized as profoundly
different compared to other phases, demanding a special approach which has not
been developed yet (Macombe, Lagarde et al. 2013). Preferably, such an approach
should be a generally applicable method, and searching for useful approaches in
other disciplines could be the first step (Ekener-Petersen 2013).

The aim of this paper is to examine ways for assessing the use phase in S-LCA and
proposing a methodology for that purpose. This is done by defining a potential
methodology and applying and testing it in a case study on a mobile phone.

Methods
As social impacts on users are effecting human beings, thus on an individual level, the
impacts of usage depend not only on the way of use, but also on the status of the user
(e.g. health status, emotional vulnerability etc.) (Vanclay 2002). This is also underlined
by Mathe (2014), who states that it is on the operational level the way an activity
affects human well-being is determined. This idea is also supported by Macombe,
Lagarde et al. (2013) and Wangel (2016), who argues that S-LCA needs to be based on
social sciences in order to conceptualize social impacts.

The main approach applied for developing use phase assessment methodology
uses Grounded Theory (GT) (Strauss and Corbin 1967). GT is a methodology for
developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered through

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 13

Thema
 Elisabeth Ekener Session 1A

interviews. Theory developed through this method can state consequences and
related to them conditions, therefore, the practitioner is able to assert predictability
for it. The practitioner begins from individual cases or incidents and gradually builds
abstract categories. These categories synthesize and interpret data, helping to identify
patterned relationships within them. Semi-structured interviews are conducted to
collect data, based on open ended questions with a flexible structure that are aimed
to explore certain issues; however an interview is not limited to those.

We used GT approach for guiding both the data collection and data analysis from
semi-structured interviews. The choice for respondents was determined to create a
diverse sample, in terms of gender, age and nationality. However, all the respondents
presently reside in a Western Europe country. This is a limit of this study, as an increased
variety within the sample of prospects might bring a larger range of usages and
improve the robustness of the findings, making them more generalizable to wider
population (Thiétart 2014).

The interviewer asked the respondents opening questions: What are your experiences
from using the mobile phone? What benefits you have or what are things that you are
not happy with? We are particularly interested in your personal feelings when using the
phone. Please compare with an ordinary mobile phone, if you ever had one. Recording
the audio from the interview was vital for further analysis.

The analysis of interviews focused on the identification of services mentioned. A tree

of services was built, showing the hierarchy of services, provided by the smartphone.
Then, the social issues were allocated to the different groups of services, according to
the verbatim, with an indication whether they are felt positive or negative by users. In
fact, we used two different concepts to deal with social issues. In the verbatim, users
explained general social consequences of using a mobile phones (for instance “It is
about getting antisocial, but not doing that on purpose”). Meanwhile, users describe
the consequences in terms of their own experience (for instance “It is a personal
satisfaction to be happy with having the answer at the moment I had the question”).
This is actual social impact of the use: the ones that tell us about a feeling or other
phenomenon experienced which is caused by the phone use. We considered only
the social consequences and social impacts which reflect the change from using
this particular group of services compared to a reference scenario offering the same
function/service.

Finally, in order to classify the identified social impacts and define impact categories,
the impacts were linked to capabilities as they have been interpreted by (Grisez, Boyle
et al., 1987, complemented by Reitinger, Dumke et al., 2011). Capabilities approach
is a concept used for addressing the questions of what is important in a human life.
Reitinger, Dumke et al. (2011) imply that in S-LCA both functioning and freedoms
should constitute the informational base of evaluation, and they are both captured
in the notion of capability, making it applicable for S-LCA. Capabilities approach has
since been employed in S-LCA studies by Holger, Jan et al. (2017) and (Wangel 2016).

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

14 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Elisabeth Ekener Session 1A

In the latter, the capabilities were linked to valuable functioning of a school lunch,
where the functioning was based on literature and expert judgment by the author.

In our study we used the list of capabilities proposed by Grisez, Boyle et al. (1987), with
an additional category fairness suggested by Reitinger, Dumke et al. (2011):

1. Life itself: its maintenance and transmission, health and safety

2. Knowledge & aesthetic experience: knowing reality, appreciating beauty and
anything that engages us to know and feel
3. Work and play: transforming the natural world in order to express meanings
and serve purposes
4. Friendship: various forms of harmony between and among individuals and
groups of persons
5. Self-integration: inner peace opposed to inner conflicts between one’s
judgements and choices and among feelings
6. Self-expression (or practical reasonableness): harmony among one’s judgments,
choices and performances
7. Transcendence: harmony with some more-than-human source of meaning and
value
8. Fairness: equal opportunity and fair processes.

Interpretations of their explanations are made by the authors of this paper

The data collection from interviews and analysis resulted in the identification of
services from mobile phone. The services were grouped according to their main
functions, which allows us distinguish four different devices:

1 – services for communication purposes (keeping in touch),

2 – services now available in mobility, “Internet on the go” (information & tasks),
3 – services for entertainment purposes and
4 – basic functionalities available in mobility

Social consequences and social impacts from using the services were extracted from
analysis of the interviews transcriptions. Finally, the identified social impacts were
linked to capabilities based on the verbatim and thus were allocated into impact
categories.

Discussion and conclusion

When it comes to the applicability of this method on a generic level in S-LCA, GT
approach has some drawbacks. It requires substantial resources, time and knowledge
and expertise for both data collecting and analysis, which might be considered not
practically possible by a practitioner.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 15

Thema
 Elisabeth Ekener Session 1A

Another limitation of the study is the Western context of use covered by the answers
of the respondents. For a broader coverage of potential social impacts, especially
capturing the expected different but substantial social impacts in developing
countries, the geographical scope of the study, and the variety and diversity of
interviewees, would needed to be expanded.

To be able to assess the use phase social impacts in conjunction with the assessment
of the other phases in the life cycle, and to conclude on the collection of impacts
from the full life cycle, a connection between our proposed approach and the current
approaches in the Guidelines must be made. The capabilities affected by the use in
this study could be added into the assessment framework in the Guidelines as new
subcategories linked to the category Consumer. This would allow for a more full
assessment of the use phase impacts than what was previously possible. Applying
this framework will make the assessment result more comprehensive and relevant
when trying to determine the social impacts from a product or service in a life cycle
perspective. Thus, the GT approach has a potential to become a generic method for
the use phase assessment in S-LCA. However, further research is needed to simplify
the method and improve its applicability.

References
Benoît, C., G. A. Norris, S. Valdivia, A. Ciroth, A. Moberg, U. Bos, S. Prakash, C. Ugaya and T.
Beck (2010). "The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!" The
international journal of life cycle assessment 15(2): 156-163.
Chhipi-Shrestha, G. K., K. Hewage and R. Sadiq (2015). "‘Socializing’sustainability: a critical
review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method." Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy 17(3): 579-596.
Ekener-Petersen, E. (2013). Tracking down Social Impacts of Products with Social Life Cycle
Assessment. Doctoral, KTH Royal Institute of Tecnology.
Ekener-Petersen, E. and G. Finnveden (2013). "Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part
1: a case study of a laptop computer." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18(1):
127-143.
Grisez, G., J. Boyle and J. Finnis (1987). "Practical principles, moral truth, and ultimate ends." Am.
J. Juris. 32: 99.
Holger, S., K. Jan, Z. Petra, S. Andrea and H. Jürgen-Friedrich (2017). "The Social Footprint of
Hydrogen Production-A Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) of Alkaline Water Electrolysis."
Energy Procedia 105: 3038-3044.
Jørgensen, A., M. Z. Hauschild, M. S. Jørgensen and A. Wangel (2009). "Relevance and feasibility
of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective." The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 14(3): 204.
Macombe, C., V. Lagarde, A. Falque, P. Feschet, M. Garrabé, C. Gillet and D. Loeillet (2013). "Social
LCAs: socio-economic effects in value chains." FruiTrop, Montpellier, CIRAD.
Mathe, S. (2014). "Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the
S-LCA participatory approach." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19(8): 1506-
1514.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

16 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Elisabeth Ekener Session 1A

Reitinger, C., M. Dumke, M. Barosevcic and R. Hillerbrand (2011). "A conceptual framework for
impact assessment within S-LCA." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 16(4): 380-
388.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1967). "Discovery of grounded theory."
Sureau, S., B. Mazijn, S. R. Garrido and W. M. Achten (2017). "Social life-cycle assessment
frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic
impacts." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment: 1-17.
Thiétart, R.-A. (2014). "Méthodes de recherche en management." Paris, Dunod.
UNEP/SETAC (2010). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/Earthprint.
Vanclay, F. (2002). "Conceptualising social impacts." Environmental Impact Assessment Review
22(3): 183-211.
Wangel, A. (2016). "Back to basics—the school lunch." The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment: 1-7.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 17

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1A

Consistent Assessment of Positive Impacts

Diana Indrane1, Mark Goedkoop2, Ilonka de Beer3

1
Valmiera (Latvia)
2
PRé Sustainability
3
Sandalfon Sustainability

Introduction
Social Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) strives to consider both positive and negative
impacts of the product life cycle. The UNEP/SETAC Guidelines describes positive
impacts as performance beyond compliance with local laws, international agreements
or certification schemes (UNEP/SETAC, 2009). It is understood that positive impacts
should provide additional benefits to the addressed stakeholders and recognise not
only achievement of minimum benchmark.

In the Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessments (PSIA), positive impacts are
assessed alongside negative impacts. Data is interpreted, and scores are attributed to
each social topic in relation to a five-point scale (Fontes, 2016). The proposed scales
are described in generic levels: (i) -2 non-acceptable performance, (ii) -1 intermediate
negative performance, (iii) 0 aligned with international standards, (iv) +1 intermediate
positive performance and (v) +2 ideal performance (ibid.).

In the initial process of developing the PSIA method, no formal guiding principles
were used to establish reference scales for qualitative assessment. Defining a positive
impact as intermediate positive performance and ideal performance appears to be too
vague and leaves each position open for interpretation. Moreover, the lack of specific
guiding principles has led to some inconsistencies in the reference scales presented
throughout the Handbook. For certain social topics, benchmarks representing
positive impacts, capture compliance instead of the best practices e.g. the benchmark
“Normal working week does not exceed legal limit or 48 hours for hourly workers.
Overtime is voluntary and compensated at premium rate” is considered as the ideal
performance for social topic “Working hours” (Fontes, 2016). This distinction appears
to be odd as compensation of the overtime is regulated by appropriate laws and
should be considered as compliance. Moreover, the reference scales presented in the
PSIA method are contradicting with the description of positive impacts outlined in
PSIA.

Thus, this paper explores ways how to systematically address positive impacts in the
Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment. The aim is to explore applicability
of Theory of Change (ToC) and how the principles can be transferred to the Product
Social Impact Assessment.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

18 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1A

Methods
The literature concerning positive impacts in SLCA have been reviewed to better
define positive impacts in PSIA and create a clearer understanding of aspects that
should be assessed at the upper levels of reference scales. ToC has been adopted as
guiding principle for establishing consistent reference scales for each of the social
topics presented in PSIA.

Defining positive impacts

Review report on positive impacts in SLCA papers and case studies by Di Cesare et
al. (2016) revealed that the concept of positive impacts is not clearly defined within
SLCA methodology and no shared definition can be deducted. Authors define positive
impacts in a number of different ways that mainly fall under two categories: “The net
positive effect of an activity on a community and the well-being of individuals and
families” and “An improvement related to the previous situation”. Interestingly, the
method by Ciroth and Franze (2011) considers the absence of negative issues as a
positive impact. However, study carried out by Di Cesare et al. (2016) emphasise that
absence of negative impacts should not be regarded as positive impacts but neutral,
which also supported by statements made in the UNEP Guidelines.

In accordance to the definitions listed above, this paper views positive impacts as
those relating to activities that add/provide value to stakeholders and looks beyond
mere compliance. Considering this, assessment of positive impacts in PSIA would
now focus on whether supply chain actors are promoting good practices, carrying
out interventions to improve conditions and whether the undertaken interventions
are creating positive value for stakeholders. The reference scales would aim to assess
the effort and will of supply chain actors to manage given social issues (Are the supply
chain actors able to make improvements and are they willing to?). Hence, to achieve
an ideal performance or positive impact, value chain actors would need to actively
contribute.

Establishing consistent refence scales

To establish consistent reference scales for each social topic presented in PSIA, more
detailed guiding principles are needed. As each intervention undertaken by the
companies to promote good practices can be observed and measured at different
points along an impact pathway, we decided to focus on certain points for each
level on the reference scales. That is, interventions undertaken to improve working
conditions were linked with the Theory of Change. In the literature, ToC is defined
as “A causal flow that illustrates how a proposed set of interventions and inputs
will result in specific outputs contributing to different outcomes leading to certain
impacts” (Sustainable Food Lab, 2014).

We decided to assess the ideal performance as an output from conducted interventions,

as it is harder to disentangle the specific effects from interventions on outcome
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 19

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1A

1 2 3 4 5
Input Activity Output Outcome Impact

Theory The resources The activities The results of Changes in the Goal-level
of change necessary to
carry out an
whose effects
are to be
the activity in
the question
lives of the
target
changes in the
lives of the
activity analyzed and population target
measured population

1 2 3 4 5
Input Activity Output Outcome Impact
Smallholder
Example: Investments, Training, Smallholders Smallholders Improving
Training Technical adopt better experience quality of
Education & training materials, assistance practices increased smallholder’s
Man-hours productivity and livelihoods
quality

Figure 1: Illustration of Theory of change

or impact level. That is, while the link between the carried-out activities and their
immediate effects are relatively easy to recognise, this link is harder to acknowledge if
performance is measured further down the impact pathway. Moreover, outcomes and
impacts can take many years to evolve and manifest. That said, if the Theory of Change
for certain interventions is clear, then it is recommended to measure further along the
impact pathway e.g. Outcomes or Impacts.

The inclusion of stakeholder experiences and satisfaction with the undertaken

interventions and application of though practices served as a way to assess outputs.
The approach aims to give voice to the affected stakeholder group. Moreover, the
reference scales consider whether good practices are supplemented by continuous
improvement and sharing/reporting of the best practices, whereas, the intermediate
positive performance was determined on Input and Activity level. More detailed
guiding principles for establishing reference scales are described in Table 1.

Additionally, the table outlines the general criteria that have to be met for each level
on the references scales. For levels 0 and -1, multiple options have been described
depending on whether interventions are undertaken or not. For example, the first
situation when a score of 0 can be assigned is if the local conditions are satisfactory
or for certain social topics, certifications can serve as sufficient proof of compliance.
In the second situation, interventions are undertaken to improve local conditions
(inputs or activities), however, no follow-up assessment is conducted to understand
whether stakeholders are satisfied with provided interventions. That is, the usefulness
of the activities is not clear.

Conclusions
Scrutiny of literature sources revealed that the concept of positive impacts is not
clearly defined within SLCA methodology and no shared definition can be deducted.
For the purpose of the further development of the PSIA method, positive impacts
are described as activities that provide value to stakeholders and looks beyond mere
compliance.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

20 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1A

Reference Location on Guiding principles

scales impact pathway
+2 3 Useful (to the stakeholders) and tailored interventions
that have resulted in positive outputs; resources are used,
knowledge is applied.
+1 1-2 Stakeholders find the interventions useful, tailored to local
conditions and needs.
0 1-2 Interventions are made, but no monitoring or assessment of
impacts, satisfaction or relevance.
0 0 No interventions, but also no significant issues reported. OR
Credible certifications for the topic are applicable.
-1 1-2 Risks are known, opportunities identified, and actions are
taken. However, the situation is still not compliant.
-1 0 Risks are known, opportunities identified, but no interventions.
-2 0 No interventions; Silent and or beneficial complicity. Likely to
be high risk, or no data.

Table 1: Guiding principles for establishing reference scales developed based on Theory of Change

Guiding principles for establishing consistent references scales were proposed

based on the Theory of Change. Application of ToC in reference scale development
enabled us to clearly define how positive impacts will be addressed in PSIA. Assessing
intermediate positive performance and ideal performance at different points on
the impact pathway, allowed us to create a separation between the upper levels of
reference scales.

The next steps are to use these guidance principles to revise and streamline the
reference scales presented in PSIA for each of the social topics. Furthermore,
applicability of the revised reference scales should be tested on case studies prior to
making the method made public. Additionally, the method should be subjected to
external review process.

References
Di Cesare, S., Silveri, F., Sala, S., & Petti. L. (2016). Positive impacts in social life cycle assessment:
state of the art and the way forward. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-016-1169-7
Fontes, J. (2016). Handbook-for-Product-Social-Impact-Assessment-3.0, 1–146.
Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Green Delta and Federal Public
Planning Service Sustainable Development, Berlin
Sustainable Food Lab. (2014). Performance Measurement in Smallholder Supply Chains: A
practitioners guide to developing a performance measurement approach. Retrieved from
http://www.sustainablefoodlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Performance-Measurement-
Practitioners-Guide-SFL-2014.pdf
UNEP/SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Management (Vol.
15). https://doi.org/DTI/1164/PA
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 21

Thema
 Rodrigo Trevisani Juchen Session 1B

Preliminary evaluation of data

collection methods for SLCA studies
Rodrigo Trevisani Juchen1, Jaylton Bonacina de Araujo1,
Arij Mohamad Radwan Omar Chabrawi2, Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya1

1
Federal University of Technology - Paraná, Curitiba (Brazil)
2
University of Brasilia – Federal District, Brasilia (Brazil)

Introduction
For the evaluation of the social impact caused by products and organizations, UNEP
and SETAC (BENOÎT et al., 2010) have created a series of guidelines for Social Life
Cycle Assessment (SLCA) followed by the publication of Methodological sheets for
subcategories of social LCA (BENOÎT-NORRIS et al., 2011) which presents suggestions
of specific and generic indicators for each of the sub-categories of the stakeholders:
Worker, Consumer, Local Community, Society and Actors in the Value Chain. The
sheets contain the base definition of indicators and justify each subcategory in its
relevance to sustainable development. The SLCA can use generic data, which is not
specific to organizations, such as country or sector data, and has been used in studies
with the use of SHDB database (BENOÎT-NORRIS et al., 2012). These data demonstrate
a broad and widespread social scenario for a sector or region.

Although LCA studies traditionally use generic data (e.g. databases or literature),
foreground data are usually data specific to the processes that are within the company's
sphere of influence. This is also true in the case of SLCA, which uses specific data, which
can for example be obtained primarily with focus groups of the organization's workers
or with the local community surrounding the plant.

For the collection of SLCA data, UNEP and SETAC (BENOÎT et al., 2010) presented some
suggestions, but there is no consensus on how to perform the acquisition of this
information, especially in the case of qualitative and subjective data.

Given the importance of collecting data for the social inventory and in order to
contribute constructively to the scientific community, the objective of the present
study is to analyze the data collection methods used in SLCA case studies.

Method
Initially, criteria for analyzing the case studies were drawn from the UNEP / SETAC
(2009) guidelines and the social research conduct method (REA and PARKER, 2014),
which are:

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

22 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Rodrigo Trevisani Juchen Session 1B

i) stakeholders and subcategories included: Across the entire product lifecycle

chain, social impacts can be seen in 5 stakeholders, who are Workers, Society,
Consumer, Local Community and Value Chain Actors and 31 subcategories;

ii) collection instrument: Once the study deemed necessary the specific
information of the product or company and thus decided to perform the
primary collection, this work observed the availability of the method of
collection, for example, the questionnaires used;

iii) sampling: The range of data collected is always evaluated in one study. The
ideal number can be determined from a statistical concept or the availability of
data. For this review, we note the transparency of the researchers' information
regarding the definitions of samples;

iv) application of triangulation: To check the veracity of information, a triangulated

data discriminates coherence and cohesion in empirical research, comparing
information from different sources, where it is possible to identify distortions
or discrepancies. For this criterion, it was identified if there was triangulation;

v) data quality analysis: This item can be defined based on quality criteria such as
temporal correlation, scientific robustness or methodological transparency.
The analysis of the studies consisted in verifying that the studies performed
the data quality analysis.

Then, some case-studies of SLCA published in scientific journals were randomly

selected to apply the criteria.

Finally, the methods were analyzed according to some principles of the global
LCA database (UNEP, 2011) that were pertinent to data set: Accuracy, Relevance,
Consistency, Materiality and Practicality.

Preliminary results
We evaluated 11 studies, each with different scopes (products, organizations and
in distinct regions), whose listing is presented in Table 1, with data from each study
related to the evaluated criteria.

Stakeholders and subcategories included

All studies follow the methodology published in the guidelines when addressing
social stakeholders listed by UNEP and SETAC (2009), but only 4 (36%) studies work
considering all of them (FRANZE and CIROTH, 2011) (CIROTH, A, FRANZE, J., 2011)
(HOSSEINIJOU, MANSOUR, SHIRAZI, 2014) and (RAMIREZ et al., 2016).

The other studies include workers as the principal scope of the study (100%), being
the second and third the most common stakeholders the Local Community (63%) and
Society (54%), but there is rarely data collection from the Value Chain and Consumers.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 23

Thema
 Rodrigo Trevisani Juchen Session 1B

Source Stakeholders Traingulation Data Questionnaire Data type

Quality availability
Albrecht et al., Workers No No No Generic
2013
Aparcana and Workers Yes No Yes Specific
Salhofer, 2013
Arcese et al., Worker / Local No No Yes Specific
2013 Community
CIROTH, A. and All of them Yes Yes No Specific and
FRANZE, J., 2011 Generic
De Luca et al., Workers / local No No No Specific and
2015 Community / Generic
Society
Foolmaun and Workers / Local No No Yes Specifc
Ramjeeawon, Community /
2013 Society
Franze and All of them No No No Generic
Ciroth, 2011
Chang et al., Workers No No No Generic
2015
Hosseinijou et All of them No No No Generic
al., 2014
Souza et al., Workers No No No Generic
2016
Ramirez et al., All of them Yes Yes No Specific
2016

Table 1: SLCA studies evaluated

As a result, for the subcategories, the indicators that make up the Workers' stakeholder
are also the most used. This may be justified in view of the fact that the subcategories
of this interested party generally present a more objective and easily available
indicator in data libraries (e.g. worked hours).

Also, for the subcategories it is possible to note one more detail, the adaptation or
inclusion of a subcategory not listed in the guidelines. For example, SOUZA et al. (2016)
used the subcategory Education, however, in UNEP and SETAC (2009), education is
only one of the points included in the subcategory of Immaterial Resources.

Collection and sampling tool

According to Rea and Parker (2014), it is important to define the sampling and the
form of data collection. Of all the articles evaluated, only 9% of the studies evaluated
described the sampling in detail, by number and characteristics of the group of
interest (FOOLMAUN and RAMJEEAWON, 2013).

Regarding the form of specific data collection, 36% of the studies opted for the use
of questionnaires. However, APARCANA and SALHOFER, 2013, ARCESE, LUCCHETTI,
MERLI, 2013, FOOLMAUN and RAMJEEAWON, 2013 and RAMIREZ et al., 2016 presented

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

24 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Rodrigo Trevisani Juchen Session 1B

how the subcategories were translated for the elaboration of the questionnaire, and
only Ramirez et al. (2016) did the interviews on the site.

Analysis of data quality

Regarding data quality analysis, UNEP and SETAC (2009) recommend it to be

performed. However, few studies have implemented this practice. Ciroth and Franze
(2011), who represent 9% of the studies evaluated, adapted quality criteria to be
used in the study. However, the authors used generic data to complement the lack of
primary data, and the differentiation of this practice in data quality analysis was not
presented.

The option to investigate the effect of possible data variation (sensitivity analysis) was
also considered as quality analysis, present in the studies of (HOSSEINIJOU, MANSOUR,
SHIRAZI, 2014 and MORIIZUMI, MATSUI, HONDO, 2010).

Triangulation application

UNEP and SETAC (2009) also suggest that triangulation is performed, which allows the
construction of coherence and cohesion in empirical research, comparing information
from different sources, in which it is possible to identify distortions or discrepancies.
Among the analyzed studies, only (CIROTH, A., FRANZE, J., 2011) and (RAMIREZ et
al., 2016) did the triangulation, and the first authors compared the data collected
in the industries with the generic data obtained from various reports or surveys in
the regional industries of the same sectors while the latter compared primary data
obtained from different actors (e.g, checked data from managers, workers and union).

Analysis of studies according to principles of Shonan Guidance

Even all authors are using the SLCA, the wide diversity of methods presented for
collection of specific data for the inventory is evident. Differences already begin
when one chooses to work with some of the stakeholders, thus eliminating several
subcategories, resulting in a "bottleneck" in the research, which can lead to a limitation
when comparing with the principles of Materiality and Completeness.

At the same time, data triangulation and data quality analysis are techniques that
could corroborate with the Accuracy of the data.

In addition, the lack of clear procedures in the way of conducting data collection
may result in a lack of Consistency. From the studies analyzed, it was noticed that the
Transparency of the method of obtaining generic data is clearer than the studies that
collected specific data.

Despite the advantage of using specific data, obtaining it usually takes more time,
costs and stress for the research team than generic data. Thus, studies that opt for
generic data value by Practicality, however, reduce the Relevance of the study.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 25

Thema
 Rodrigo Trevisani Juchen Session 1B

Conclusion
Watching the applied work of SLCA, are notable differences between the practices
addressed in data acquisition. In general, the studies do not follow all UNEP / SETAC
guidelines and there is a lack of information about collecting data method, as well as
the definition of the sample and questionnaire used. Thus, it is necessary to define
aspects necessary for the acquisition, in order to have greater transparency of studies
and reliability of information for SLCA.

The concern with the application of triangulation and data quality is precarious in its
majority. Such practices with a database reinforce the robustness of a study, but are
still largely ignored by researchers.

Also notable, each researcher finds his own way of work, that best suits him. Doing that,
he accomplishes one or two principles found in the Shonan guidance, which were all
developed as a final factor for datasets. The database managers should provide users
with a suitable quality and sufficiently documented for future independent research,
because these principles have only one fundamental task of bringing all this large
data to an effectively access and applicability in SLCA.

For the continuation of this work, it is suggested continuation of bibliographic review

of data collecting. The complete understanding of state of art is crucial to identify the
pros and cons of what has been used by the researchers, so far. And based on that, the
elaboration of a proposal of methodology including triangulation and quality of data
and fulfilling the principles listed by UNEP / SETAC is necessary, in order to clarify and
improve, as far as possible, the steps of a data collection.

Reference
Albrecht, S., Brandstetter, P., Beck, T., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., Grönman, K., Baitz, M., Deimling,
S., Sandilands, J., Fischer, M., 2013. An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for
fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1549–1567. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-013-0590-4
Aparcana, S., Salhofer, S., 2013. Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment
of recycling systems in low income countries: three Peruvian case studies. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 18, 1116–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0559-3
Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M., Merli, R., 2013. Social Life Cycle Assessment as a Management Tool:
Methodology for Application in Tourism. Sustainability 5, 3275–3287. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su5083275
Chang, Y.-J., Sproesser, G., Neugebauer, S., Wolf, K., Scheumann, R., Pittner, A., Rethmeier, M.,
Finkbeiner, M., 2015. Environmental and social life cycle assessment of welding technologies.
Procedia CIRP 26, 293–298.
CIROTH, A., FRANZE, J., 2011. LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook – Consideration of Social and
Environmental Impacts along the entire Life Cycle.
De Luca, A.I., Iofrida, N., Strano, A., Falcone, G., Gulisano, G., 2015. Social life cycle assessment
and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

26 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Rodrigo Trevisani Juchen Session 1B

Italy. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 11, 383–396.

Foolmaun, R.K., Ramjeeawon, T., 2013. Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle
assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 18, 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2
Franze, J., Ciroth, A., 2011. A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 16, 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0266-x
Hosseinijou, S.A., Mansour, S., Shirazi, M.A., 2014. Social life cycle assessment for material
selection: a case study of building materials. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 620–645. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-013-0658-1
Ramirez, P.K.S., Petti, L., Brones, F., Ugaya, C.M.L., 2016. Subcategory assessment method for
social life cycle assessment. Part 2: application in Natura’s cocoa soap. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21,
106–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0964-x
Souza, A., Watanabe, M.D.B., Cavalett, O., Ugaya, C.M.L., Bonomi, A., 2016. Social life cycle
assessment of first and second-generation ethanol production technologies in Brazil. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1112-y

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 27

Thema
 Andreas Ciroth Session 1C

Influence diagrams and scoping for social LCA,

an example from sustainable minings
Andreas Ciroth

GreenDelta, Berlin (Germany)

Introduction
Social LCA is a technique typically intended to provide a holistic assessment of social
impacts over the entire supply chain and life cycle. However, social LCA has limitations,
for a variety of reasons:
• Social LCA typically does not deal with risk and chances1
• Social LCA typically does not model local situations in high resolution, and thus
tends to overlook specific local conditions
• Social LCA is a rather technical approach with high data needs, which are especially
difficult to satisfy in regions where social LCA is new and no background databases
are available; as a consequence, immediate improvement in perilous situations
might be better achieved with more “hands-on” tools
• Social LCA results have the issue to be difficult to understand, and alternative
approaches such as CSR, labelling, or local social impact assessments, are at times
applied instead

In this situation, it is interesting to investigate, for a given issue, the ideal portfolio of
tools to be used, including social LCA, but not necessarily limited to it. Moreover, in
every social LCA, it is as first step important to specify goal and scope for the further
analysis, and it is worthwhile to be aware of aspects which have an influence on the
overall social impacts of an investigated product. So far, goal and scope in social LCA is
conducted typically without a diagram or visualization of relations between different
aspects to be decided about in goal and scope. We introduce influence diagrams and
advanced hot spot analysis as a means to both “tailor” the approaches to be applied
for assessing the social sustainability of a given situation, and also to shape goal and
scope of a social LCA, where social LCA is part of said portfolio.

Approach
Causal loop and influence diagrams are a common tool in modelling and systems
analysis and often described in literature [1-3]. They typically serve to better

1  We are aware that some databases and studies are calling the indicators used “risk for …”, to highlight
that the indicators do not reflect a deterministic impact; however, we mean here an explicit, direct treatment
of risks similar to risk assessments for example.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

28 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Andreas Ciroth Session 1C

understand the system under study, and more specifically to identify elements in the
system that have a stronger influence on system results and, ideally, also on system
stability.

A typical use of causal loop diagrams is qualitative modelling. They help in structuring
a topic, and thus can be used as first step of a more detailed analysis and system
assessment. Despite these points, applications to Life Cycle and Sustainability
Assessment are scarce to non-existent. For social analysis, however, several applications
exist, reflecting also the wider scope of a typical social impact study, e.g. [4-5].

We develop and present a causal loop diagram for sustainability assessment of mining
in general, and apply this to specific mine sites in Finland, Portugal, and South Africa,
where this approach is currently applied, led by GreenDelta, in the European H2020
research project ITERAMS.

Results and interpretation

For the diagram, we developed specific archetypes, i.e. elements with a specific
function, which are adapted to the specific idea of modelling sustainability impacts.
These archetypes are:

• endpoints: Endpoints are impacts on local community, workers, and so forth (Fig. 1)

+ Local
community
impacts
+
++ + +

Figure 1: Local community impacts as one of the endpoints in the diagram.

• life cycle connection points: The model primarily addresses the mine, which makes
sense as the remaining life cycle model is linear; life cycle connection points are
used to link “local” requirements of the foreground, mine system to the supply
chain
• arrows are used to show relations, a positive relation between a and b means that
with an increase of a, b increases; a negative relation means that with an increase
of a, b decreases (Fig. 2)
-
+

Waste water
output +

Figure 2: Arrows showing positive (blue) and negative (green) relations in the diagram.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 29

Thema
 Andreas Ciroth Session 1C

• further elements in the diagram are input variables, conditions that cannot be
changed but have impact on results potentially, stocks within the system (which
include in-system variables with a certain value) and risks as a specific type of
stocks.

An analysis of the diagram shows relations within the system, and hot spots and main
drivers for impacts. Fig. 3 shows a simple example for contribution to impacts on
workers, from a mine.

process security measures evaporation from process

good technology choice, water cleaning
(process security measures)
risk from process operation
(water cycle process stability)
workers impacts
(water quality)
water cleaning performance
water cycle process stability
(water quality)
(water cleaning performance) water quality

Figure 3: Causes for worker impacts of a generic mine.

The analysis also shows which tools are suitable for addressing the hot spots and
main drivers which exist according to a defined broader goal and scope, considering
a portfolio of social life cycle assessment to analysis of economic performance to risk
assessment; also more regional approaches, such as Social Impact Assessment, can
contribute important insights, which can be detected via the qualitative diagrams.

Conclusions and future developments

In the presentation, the developed causal loop diagram and the approach for
obtaining the diagram for the case will be explained, with results from the ITERAMS
project. Results are quite promising and we believe that using causal loop diagrams in
sustainability and life cycle assessments helps to clarify selection of the (combination
of ) appropriate tools for the assessment, and further, helps to structure the goal and
scope setting in LCA.

We believe that influence diagrams, common in systems theory and general modelling,
are an interesting idea to be brought into social LCA and Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment more in general, since they help to get a better understanding of
the interrelations of the investigated system, beyond the quite simple linear life
cycle assessment model, towards life cycle systems thinking, and towards a truly
comprehensive and yet efficient modelling and assessment.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

30 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Andreas Ciroth Session 1C

References
[1] Bala B.K., Arshad F.M., Noh K.M.: Causal Loop Diagrams. In: System Dynamics. Springer Texts
in Business and Economics. Singapore, 2017, pp 37-51
[2] Bossel, H.: Modellbildung und Simulation, Kassel 1994
[3] Sterman, J.: Business Dynamics, Boston 2000.
[4] Nkambule, N.P: Measuring The Social Costs Of Coal-Based Electricity Generation In South
Africa, dissertation, 2015
[5] Pollard, S., H. Biggs, and D. R. Du Toit. 2014. A systemic framework for context-based decision
making in natural resource management: reflections on an integrative assessment of water and
livelihood security outcomes following policy reform in south Africa. Ecology and society 19(2):
63. Http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-06312-190263

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 31

Thema
 Valeria Ibañez-Forés Session 1C

Proposal of social indicators to assess the social

performance of waste management systems in
developing countries: a Brazilian case study
Valeria Ibañez-Forés1, María D. Bovea1, Claudia Coutinho-Nóbrega2

1
Dept. Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain)
2
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidade Federal da Paraiba, João Pessoa (Brazil)

Abstract
The Brazilian National Solid Waste Policy Law promotes sustainable integrated solid
waste management nationally, and is committed to improve “informal” recyclable
waste pickers’ socio-economic conditions. This has led municipalities to develop
waste management strategies to incorporate “informal” waste pickers into the “formal”
system. In order to measure the social improvement achieved by this action, it is
necessary to define a set of indicators capable of quantifying the social performance of
waste management systems that adapt specifically to developing countries.

In this study, a set of social impact categories, indicators and metrics capable of assessing
the socio-economic and labour conditions of the different stakeholders involved in the
life cycle of a municipal solid waste management (MSWM) system is proposed. Then
they are applied to a case study in the city of João Pessoa, Paraíba (Brazil). João Pessoa
is one of the pioneering Brazilian cities to incorporate a door-to-door selective waste
collection system managed by the previous “informal” waste pickers, reorganised into
associations or cooperatives of collectors of recyclable materials. Although this waste
collection system has steadily expanded around the city until the present-day, it has
never been analysed from a social perspective.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

32 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Iofrida N. Session 1C

Social sustainability assessment

of Calabrian olive growing
Iofrida N.1, Strano A.1, Gulisano G.1, Falcone G.1, Silveri F.2, Petti L.2,
De Luca A.I.1

1
Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, AGRARIA Department, Feo di Vito (Italy)
2
“G. D’Annunzio” University, Department of Economic Studies, Pescara (Italy)

Introduction
Assessing sustainability became of utmost importance in many fields of study and
companies are striving to add new “sustainability qualities” to their businesses and
products. As well, consumers shifted their attention from environmental issues to
social impacts concerns, such as working conditions, wage fairness, gender equity,
and so on. Among these social concerns, the physical and psychosocial factors in the
work environment are under the attention of the EU policies as well as at companies
level, but there is a lack of tools to put them in practice, first of all validated and
userfriendly assessment methodologies (EUOSHA, 2012; Tomaschek et al., 2018).
According to Tomaschek et al. (2018), until now, most of job assessment tools for work-
related risk factors have been based on self-reports more than analytical observations,
but such instruments can possibly suffer from low reliability due to bias resulting from
observers’ individualities.

The aim of the present study is to apply a Social Life Cycle Assessment methodology
to assess physical and psychological risk factors affecting workers in an objective and
quantitative way, highlighting those conditions attributable to the functioning of the
life cycle, having possible consequences on workers’ health.

Social Life Cycle Assessment is the last tool developed within the framework of Life
Cycle Thinking, and many methodologies have been proposed (Di Cesare et al., 2016;
Petti et al., 2016), but most of them are epistemologically far from its environmental
and economic peers. The methodology here proposed is the Psychosocial Risk Factor
impact pathway (Gasnier, 2012; Silveri et al., 2014; De Luca et al., 2018), that enable to
account the amount of hours of exposure to a possible health risk in terms of odds
ratio (OR).

The case study is the oil olive production in the hilly areas of Calabria region (South
Italy). In the Mediterranean basin, olive growing is the most important agricultural
activity, fostering the survival of rural economies. In Calabria region, is the most
diffused crop, with 184.596,37 hectares cultivated with oil and table olive orchards
(ISTAT, 2012). Hilly areas are mainly devoted to the production of high quality products,
and represents 66% of the regional olive groves surfaces. Small and medium-scale
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 33

Thema
 Iofrida N. Session 1C

farms have to deal not only with the market challenges balancing profitability, quality,
but also with the new consumer’s requirements oriented toward new sustainable
qualities in terms of healthy and socially responsible production. "Musculoskeletal
diseases" is the most frequently reported work-related health problem followed
by stress and anxiety (Tomaschek et al., 2018). Occupational diseases and injuries
are considered one of the principal cause for working absences and compensation
expenses, representing therefore a real socio-economic issue for all actors involved
(Chang et al., 2016).

In this study, the oil olive growing systems in Calabrian hilly areas have been assessed
and compared, distinguishing three main typologies of soil management that also
identify three typologies of farming systems.

Theoretical background
Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is the last methodology among life cycle tools, and
the most controversial. It did not reach a methodological consensus on many issues,
such as the focus of the assessment, the source of impacts, the impact assessment
method and the epistemological bases underpinning the methodological choices
(Iofrida et al., 2016; De Luca et al., 2018).

The present study applies a Psychosocial Risk Factors (PRF) pathway (Gasnier, 2012;
Silveri et al.,2014; De Luca et al., 2018), that allows to predict possible impacts on health
on the workers directly involved in the life cycle of a product. PRFs can be described
as “those aspects of work planning and management - and their relative social and
environmental contexts - that can potentially lead to physical or psychological
damages” (Cox and Griffiths, 1995:69). Decent work, especially in agriculture, is the
principal goal of many international organizations and policies (such as ILO, the
International Labour Organization). Especially in agriculture, particular working
conditions occur and they can threaten workers’ safety, in terms of ergonomics,
exposure to hazardous products, diseases and accidents, and psychosocial risks.

Material and methods

A field and desk territorial survey from previous studies about Calabrian olive growing
(De Luca et al., 2018) provided the preliminary data about olive growing consistency
and typology of farming systems applied. Interviews to sector operators were also
conducted to define the typologies of agricultural operations and working tasks.
Among these last, it emerged that one of the main issues, in hilly areas, regards weed
control, directly linked to soil degradation, erosion, and, therefore, reduction of soil
fertility. Mechanical weeding can probably worsen erosion in hilly areas due to the soil
disturbance, but chemical weeding can have effects on human health and toxicity. In
fact, epidemiological studies have found associations between the use of agricultural
chemicals and mortal diseases such as cutaneous melanoma, non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma, renal cell carcinoma, gastric cancer and Parkinson’s disease, among others
(Fritschi et al., 2005; Elbaz et al., 2009; Fortes et al., 2016).
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

34 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Iofrida N. Session 1C

The goal and scope of this study was to highlight the negative impacts on workers’
health directly linked to the functioning of the agricultural phase of the olive growing’s
life cycle (50 years). Data were gathered from previous studies, i.e. from a sample of
30 farms located in hilly areas of Calabria that were considered representative of the
area of study, with an average surface of cultivated area of 5 hectares. Data concerned
oil olives production, inputs consumption, machinery use, typology of tasks, duration,
and working conditions. Direct interviews were also conducted with farmers, to make
the inventory the most adherent to regional realities. Once data were gathered, three
scenarios have been defined according to the possible farming typologies, with
specific reference to the weed management. The SLCA here presented has been
developed through the following steps:

1. The inventory step consisted in the compilation of 18 sheets, one per each
phase per each scenario; every operation was qualified and quantified in
terms of working hours needs;
2. A literature review among medical and epidemiological studies, to find
correlations and associations between particular working conditions and
human diseases, by means of the OR, a statistical measure of the intensity of
association (e.g. Siegrist, 1996; Fritschi et al., 2005; Elbaz et al., 2009; Fortes et
al., 2016).
3. The ORs have been classified in classes of strength of association: weak,
moderate and strong;
4. A Psychosocial Risk Factors Matrix was built, putting in relation each working
condition with a health risk;
5. The quantification of possible social impacts in terms of working hours per
each health disease.

Results
During the impact assessment phase, 14 situations of risk have been identified, linked
to 12 possible health disorders or diseases, with moderate and/or strong association.

Every working task (tillage, shredding, pruning, pesticide application, harvesting, etc.)
has been linked to a psychosocial risk factor (noise, vibration, high physical demand,
pesticide exposure, outdoor working environment, etc.), and the total amount of
exposure hours were calculated distinguishing moderate association (1,3<OR<1,7)
and strong association (1,7<OR<8)

Considering the total amount of working hours, the LDMT (Low Dosage - Minimum
Tillage) is the scenario that entails less exposure to possible PRF. The most affecting
impact category in all scenarios is the back pain (musculoskeletal disorders): the CF
(Conventional Farming) scenario shows the worst result, with 2.468 million hours of
exposure during the whole life cycle, while LDMT is the best one.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 35

Thema
 Iofrida N. Session 1C

a b

2.47E+09
3.00E+09

2.40E+09
Strong association 3.00E+09 Strong association
Moderate association Moderate association
2.50E+09 2.50E+09

1.66E+09

1.63E+09
2.00E+09 2.00E+09

1.23E+09

1.23E+09
1.27E+09

1.27E+09

1.17E+09
1.20E+09

1.06E+09
9.98E+08
1.06E+09
9.98E+08
1.50E+09 1.50E+09

Hours
1.00E+09

3.78E+08
1.00E+09
3.78E+08
Hours

1.94E+08
1.70E+08
1.27E+08

8.65E+07
2.05E+08

1.94E+08

4.39E+07
1.27E+08

1.27E+06

6.36E+05
8.65E+07
6.44E+07
4.24E+07
5.00E+08

2.12E+07
5.00E+08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

c
2.43E+09

3.00E+09 Strong association

Moderate association
2.50E+09 a) PRF impact pathway of the Conventional
1.64E+09

2.00E+09 Farming scenario;

1.25E+09

1.25E+09
1.18E+09

b) PRF impact pathway of the Low Dosages -

9.98E+08

1.50E+09

1.00E+09
Minimum Tillage scenario;
3.78E+08
Hours

1.94E+08
1.86E+08
1.27E+08

c) PRF impact pathway of the Organic

4.32E+07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

5.00E+08

0.00E+00
Farming - Zero Tillage scenario

Figure 1: Evaluation and comparison of the three scenarios

However, taking into consideration possible mortal diseases such as the cutaneous
melanoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, renal cell carcinoma, and the Parkinson’s
disease, the OFZT (Organic Farming - Zero Tillage) scenario is absolutely the best one,
due to the absence of organophosphate pesticides and glyphosate exposure.

Conclusions and future developments

The PRF impact pathway here proposed allowed assessing those social impacts directly
linked to the functioning of the olive growing life cycle, by quantifying the hours of
possible exposure. Scenarios have been compared objectively, recurring to previous
medical and epidemiological scientific studies. This methodology is epistemologically
in line with other life cycle tools, such as LCA, because it allows to outline cause-effect
relationships between working situations and workers’ health. The main asset of the
PRF impact pathway stays in the prediction of possible consequences of the products’
life cycle. It is possible to extend this typology of assessment to other products or
services, as well as including more typologies of stakeholders such as consumers, local
residents and the like.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

36 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Iofrida N. Session 1C

References
Chang, YJ, Nguyen, TD, Finkbeiner, M, Krüger, J 2016. Adapting Ergonomic Assessments to
Social Life Cycle Assessment. Procedia CIRP, 40, 91-96.
Cox, T, Griffiths, A 1995. The nature and measurement of work stress: theory and practice.
In: Wilson, J, and Corlett, N (Eds) The Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics
Methodology. London: Taylor & Francis.
De Luca, AI, Falcone, G, Stillitano, T, Iofrida, N, Strano, A, Gulisano, G 2018. Evaluation of
sustainable innovations in olive growing systems: A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment case
study in southern Italy. J. Clean. Prod., 171: 1187-1202.
Di Cesare, S, Silveri, F, Sala, S, Petti, L 2016. Positive impacts in social life cycle assessment: state
of the art and the way forward. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1169-7
Elbaz, A, Clavel, J, Rathouz, PJ, Moisan, F, Galanaud, JP, Delemotte, B, Tzourio, C 2009.
Professional exposure to pesticides and Parkinson disease. Annals of Neurology, 66(4), 494–504.
EU-OSHA 2012. Management of Psychosocial Risks at Work: An Analysis of the Findings of the
European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks. European Agency for Safety and
Health at Work, Luxembourg.
Fortes, C, Mastroeni, S, Segatto, MM, Hohmann, C, Miligi, L, Bakos, L, Bonamigo, R 2016.
Occupational Exposure to Pesticides With Occupational Sun Exposure Increases the
Risk for Cutaneous Melanoma. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 58(4). http://doi.org/10.1097/
JOM.0000000000000665
Fritschi, L, Benke, G, Hughes, A M, Kricker, A, Turner, J, Vajdic, CM, Fritschi, J. 2005. Occupational
exposure to pesticides and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Amer. J. Epid. 162(9), 849–857.
Gasnier, C 2012. Etude de l’impact des conditions de travail sur la santé dans la perspective de
développer des pathways en ACV sociale. Bilan de recherche de stage (March - October 2012).
Altran and IRSTEA.
Iofrida, N, De Luca, AI, Strano, A, Gulisano, G 2016. Can social research paradigms justify the
diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1-17. http://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-016-1206-6
ISTAT 2012. 6th Italian agriculture census. http://dati-censimentoagricoltura.istat.it/
Petti, L, Serreli, M, Di Cesare, S 2016. Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4.
Siegrist , J 1996. Adverse health effects of high effort/low reward conditions. J. Occup. Health
Psy. 1(1), 27-41.
Silveri, F, Macombe, C, Gasnier, C, Grimbhuler, S 2014. Anticipating the psychosocial factors
effects in social LCA. Proceedings of SETAC Europe 24th Annual Meeting, May 11-15, Basel.
Tomaschek, A, Lanfer, SSL, Melzer, M, Debitz, U, Buruck, G 2018. Measuring work-related
psychosocial and physical risk factors using workplace observations: a validation study of the
“Healthy Workplace Screening.” Saf. Sci. 101, 197–208. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.006

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 37

Thema
 Manish Kumar Session 1C

Integrating active impacts in sustainability assessment

in product (manufacturing) life cycle
Manish Kumar1, Monto Mani2

1
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing (India)
2
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Centre for Sustainable Technologies & Centre for Product
Design and Manufacturing (India)

Introduction
Sustainability assessment (SA) has received immense attention among manufacturing
industries as it improves their environmental-performance, visibility, thereby
providing a market competitive edge. This has led researchers to explore various
dimensions of sustainability for impacts occurring in and beyond the purview of
manufacturing. Recent developments in sustainability measures suggest a need for
systems based (holistic) approach to integrate (and not substitute) the reductionist
approach with existing SA practices (Sala, Farioli, and Zamagni 2013). Reductionist
approach is efficiency based where impacts per product are reduced or minimized.
A shift from reductionist approach towards holistic perspective and applicable tools,
equal focus on theory and practice is evident from recent literature. The focus of
assessment practices on effectiveness along with traditional efficiency measures is
much needed (Hauschild 2015). Effectiveness measures aims to objectively assess the
benefits, and impacts occuring due to a product, discerned during the use phase of
a product. Social dimension of sustainability has received less attention as compared
to economic and environmental dimensions in existing SA tools as (1) data for use
phase of products is not available for any stakeholder, (2) product’s characteristics
are different, and (3) users and circumstances of product use varies (Saling, Kicherer,
and Reuter 2004). The relationship between manufacturing and social impacts is
not clear yet, as empirical data linking social impacts to manufacturing actions is
lacking (Sutherland et al. 2016). Few studies have focused on the causal link between
manufacturing activities and social impacts; social impacts are linked to company’s
conduct and not the individual industrial process (Dreyer, Hauschild, and Schierbeck
2006), whereas (Schmidt et al. 2004) hold circumstances of production and disposal
responsible for social impacts. Existing social-life cycle assessment methods is limited
to factory workers while impacts on various stakeholders in other life cycle stages
(post-manufacturing) are not considered for assessment (Wu, Yang, and Chen 2014).

Impacts associated with a product during its life cycle can be classified as embodied
and active impacts. Embodied impacts are caused during the realization of a product,
while active impacts occur during the use and post-use phases of a product life cycle
(Kumar and Mani 2017). Current sustainability assessment practices take in to account
embodied impacts (impacts which have already happened) throughout the product
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

38 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Manish Kumar Session 1C

life cycle, whereas active impacts (that are ongoing and likely to happen in future) are
not considered in many tools. For instance automobiles manufacturing have improved
over years with the help of new manufacturing techniques and research in material
science. This improvement has resulted in light weight, improved fuel economy and
material efficiency. Environment in which automobiles operates, has also changed
over years due to increased congestion, low travel speed ; resulting in increased use
of air conditioning and hence more emissions. Such cases of active impacts are not
looked upon in assessment measures.

Existing assessment practices are efficiency based which are not adequate for holistic
sustainability assessment with increasing evidence of rebound effect. Rebound effect is
net increase in energy consumption driven by increasingly affordable energy efficient
appliances. Adequate information about active impacts associated with products
is not available in literature which can be utilized for SA practices in the realization

Embodied Impacts Active Impacts

Process Related Process Related Product Related
Post Manufacturing
During Manufacturing Operations Use Phase
Operations
Environmental Economic Social Acute Chronic Use Phase EoL Phase
Energy Manufacturing Employee Workplace Cases of Exposure Chemical
consumption cost health and injuries/ cancer due to material leaching into
safety Occupational to certain used in groundwater
Water Profit etc. Health and processes products
consumption Customer safety risks and Discarded
satisfaction material Impacts materials
Raw material Health issues uses etc. caused due from
usage Product from certain to product appliances
responsibility materials etc. failure affecting
Natural land
use Customer human
Reduced health etc.
health and “use life” of
Solid waste safety etc.
generation products

Gaseous and Impacts

liquid emissions caused due
etc. to behavioral
change
Impacts
caused due
to lack of
safety and
certification
standards
etc.
Efficiency measures Effectiveness measures

Table 1: Product life cycle impacts overview

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 39

Thema
 Manish Kumar Session 1C

(design and manufacturing) and use and disposal of a product. Table 1 presents the
concept of embodied and active impacts with the help of few examples. Overlap in
embodied and active impacts is noticable e.g. employee and customer health and
safety in embodied impacts are similar to acute post-manufacturing phase impacts
and use phase impacts. Also, existing SA methods include categories of impacts listed
in table 1 ; e.g. Life cycle costing (LCC) assesses all costs related to a product, Working
environment LCA (WE-LCA) specifically focuses on working environment social
impacts, sLCA aims to assess both positive and negative social and socio-economic
impacts etc. The distinction between embodied and active impacts discussed here is
important as active impacts are not ordinarily foreseen by current LCA practices. Also,
the list of active impacts identified till now is not exhaustive. Current paper focuses
on identification of active impacts for a product manufactured using 3D printing
throughout its life cycle, with an aim to subsequently develop a framework to capture
the same.

Main Text
Active Impact in Product Life Cycle

Active impacts as the name suggests, are related to activity associated with a product,
and can also be called current or ongoing impacts. Active impacts in a product life
cycle can be related to the product or the (manufacturing) process. Such impacts
occur throughout the product life cycle. Product related active impacts are caused
during the use and post use phases e.g. BPA exposure to humans in not a new concern,
as plenty of studied has reported harmful impacts of BPA, where it has become
a public health concern because of its widespread use and exposure (Huang et al.
2012) ; concentrations of lead metal in toys is yet another potential health concern for
children ; Duncan (2006) presented detailed list of several such impacts caused due to
use of daily household products. The study presented list of such impacts and verified
using blood and urine tests ; traces of industrial chemicals (e.g. phthalates, dioxins,
metals, PBDE’s, PCB’s) were found in human tissue. Impacts related to a manufacturing
activity can be classified into acute and chronic depending on the intensity and
duration of exposure.

Case Study : 3D printing manufactured product

3D printing has evolved in last few years for building prototypes to large scale
manufacturing. It is recognised as next industrial revolution with application in
electronics, personal products, healthcare, automobiles, construction and aerospace/
defence (Gao et al. 2015). Though it is going to make technology accessible to
masses as common individuals will be able to access and use it at home as well as
at workplaces, this might result in generation of huge amount of waste, if we look at
behavioral aspects of users e.g. multiple trial for 3D printing etc. Also, as a rebound
effect, it is most likely to increase raw material consumption. Assessment measures in
3D printing process are currently focused on embodied impacts. Detrimental effects

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

40 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Manish Kumar Session 1C

of exposure to operator during operation phase for a 3D printing process have been
studied by (Stephens et al. 2013) (Deng et al. 2016) (Scungio et al. 2017) & (Zontek et
al. 2017). At home this could inadvertently expose children and homemakers. Need
for investigating chronic health impacts of 3D printing process is suggested (Huang
et al. 2013), as such impacts would be more significant at home than for a factory
environment. Table 2 presents embodied and active impacts occuring during a
product life cycle in case of product manufactured using 3D printing.

Continent
Geography Country
(G1, G2,
G3, G4...) City
Industry
Raw Material Manufacturing Use End of Life
Live Cycle Phase
Extraction
Carcinogenic Due to Toxicity due
chemical material to material
Active Impact
solvents used on degradability waste
the processes
Energy, water, material,
Embodied Impact NA
occupational health and safety
Stakeholders Workers Workers Consumers, Society,
(First order) society workers
Stakeholders Worker's Worker's Coming Coming
(Second order) family family generations generations
Efficiency Measures Effectiveness Measures

Table 2: Embodied and Active impacts for 3D printed product

Conclusions and future developments

The issues related to occurrence of various kind of active impacts are raised in this
paper. Preliminary work to include such impacts is to create a structured systems
framework to perceive and assess active impacts. Linkages between active impacts
and manufacturing activity are yet not very clear from literature, as very few case
studies on assessment of social impacts of manufacturing processes are available
(Sutherland et al. 2016). There are evidences that material and processing choices are
responsible for such impacts. A framework to capture data requirements to calculate
such impacts might help to include them into existing SA practices in product life
cycle.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 41

Thema
 Manish Kumar Session 1C

References
Deng, Yelin, Shi-Jie Cao, Ailu Chen, and Yansong Guo. 2016. “The Impact of Manufacturing
Parameters on Submicron Particle Emissions from a Desktop 3D Printer in the Perspective of
Emission Reduction.” Building and Environment 104:311–19.
Dreyer, Louise, Michael Hauschild, and Jens Schierbeck. 2006. “A Framework for Social Life Cycle
Impact Assessment (10 Pp).” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11(2):88–97.
Duncan, David Ewing. 2006. “The Pollution within.” Retrieved March 12, 2018 (http://ngm.
nationalgeographic.com/2006/10/toxic-people/duncan-text).
Gao, Wei et al. 2015. “The Status, Challenges, and Future of Additive Manufacturing in
Engineering.” Computer-Aided Design 69:65–89.
Hauschild, Michael Z. 2015. “Better–but Is It Good Enough? On the Need to Consider Both Eco-
Efficiency and Eco-Effectiveness to Gauge Industrial Sustainability.” Procedia CIRP 29:1–7.
Huang, Samuel H., Peng Liu, Abhiram Mokasdar, and Liang Hou. 2013. “Additive Manufacturing
and Its Societal Impact: A Literature Review.” The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 67(5–8):1191–1203. Retrieved September 20, 2017 (http://link.
springer.com/10.1007/s00170-012-4558-5).
Huang, Y. Q. et al. 2012. “Bisphenol A ( BPA ) in China : A Review of Sources , Environmental
Levels , and Potential Human Health Impacts.” Environment International 42:91–99. Retrieved
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.04.010).
Kumar, Manish and Monto Mani. 2017. “A Methodological Basis to Assess and Compare
Manufacturing Processes for Design Decisions.” Pp. 301–11 in Research into Design for
Communities, Volume 2: Proceedings of ICoRD 2017, edited by A. Chakrabarti and D.
Chakrabarti. Singapore: Springer Singapore. Retrieved (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-
3521-0_26).
Sala, Serenella, Francesca Farioli, and Alessandra Zamagni. 2013. “Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment in the Context of Sustainability Science Progress (Part 2).” The International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment 18(9):1686–97.
Saling, Peter, Andreas Kicherer, and Wolfgang Reuter. 2004. “SEEbalance ® : Managing
Sustainability of Products and Processes with the Socio-Eco- Efficiency Analysis by BASF.”
(March).
Schmidt, Isabell et al. 2004. “Managing Sustainability of Products and Processes with the Socio-
Eco-Efficiency Analysis by BASF.” Greener Management International 45:79–94.
Scungio, Mauro, Tania Vitanza, Luca Stabile, Giorgio Buonanno, and Lidia Morawska. 2017.
“Characterization of Particle Emission from Laser Printers.” Science of the Total Environment
586:623–30.
Stephens, Brent, Parham Azimi, Zeineb El Orch, and Tiffanie Ramos. 2013. “Ultrafine Particle
Emissions from Desktop 3D Printers.” Atmospheric Environment 79:334–39.
Sutherland, John W. et al. 2016. “CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology The Role of
Manufacturing in Affecting the Social Dimension of Sustainability.” 65:689–712.
Wu, Ruqun, Dan Yang, and Jiquan Chen. 2014. “Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited.”
Sustainability 6(7):4200–4226.
Zontek, Tracy L., Burton R. Ogle, John T. Jankovic, and Scott M. Hollenbeck. 2017. “An Exposure
Assessment of Desktop 3D Printing.” Journal of Chemical Health and Safety 24(2):15–25.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

42 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Sara Russo Garrido Session 1C

The Social Value of Products: What can it be and

can it enrich Social life cycle assessment?
Sara Russo Garrido1, Luce Beaulieu1, Breno Barros Telles do Carmo2

1
Université du Québec à Montréal and CIRAIG, Montréal (Canada)
2
Federal University of Semiarid, Engineering Center, Rio Grande do Norte (Brazil)

Introduction
Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) has traditionally been chiefly oriented towards
identifying negative social performances/impacts across the life cycle of products
and services. Moreover, SLCA studies often exclude the use phase, as well as the
stakeholder category ‘consumers’, in large part because their associated indicators
are very limited. In response to these shortcomings, a growing number of actors are
exploring the concept of social value of materials and products (PSV) (SOVAMAT, 2017;
Caraty, 2014). The underlying rationale is that, if indeed the production of materials
and products generate some negative social impacts across supply chains, once they
are in use, these materials and products must bear some social value for individuals
and communities.

What is the social value of products? How to define it and to quantify it? How could
companies draw on the concept of social value to better ascertain the SLCA of their
products? These questions are extremely relevant to the field of Social Life Cycle
Assessment (SLCA). Gaining a better understanding of product social value may help
in developing new and relevant impact subcategories, in particular those associated
with a product’s use phase and the stakeholder category ‘consumer’. Drawing on a
project carried out by the CIRAIG for a group of 5 multi-national companies (Nestlé,
Umicore, Solvay, Arcelor-Mittal, and Veolia), this presentation will focus on these
questions.

The presentation will be divided in three parts. The first part of the presentation will
provide a working definition for ‘product social value’ and identify its key constitutive
components. Second, we will discuss some initial findings with regards to the
question of how the social value of products could be measured. Here, a glimpse
at the experimental pilot case studies undertaken in this project will be presented,
together with our insights on the strengths and weaknesses in the experiment. Lastly,
we will discuss whether and how the concept of product social value can help enrich
SLCA’s methodological framework. More specifically, we will discuss whether ‘product
social value’ can help identify new impact subcategories pertaining to stakeholders
during the use phase

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 43

Thema
 Sara Russo Garrido Session 1C

Defining product social value

Our work presents the outcome of an extensive literature review on the subject on
‘product social value’ and its related concepts, which spans a number of fields, such
as sociology, anthropology, marketing, management, design, and psychology. There
is no clearly defined literature or known theories specifically on ‘product social value’.
Therefore we explored the possible meanings of this term, mostly by exploring the
meaning of its constitutive terms (value, social, social value, product, etc.) and delving
into the literature on customer value1. The definitions encountered show a propensity
for authors in different disciplines to identify different – yet often overlapping
– aspects as being associated with the concept of the social value of material and
immaterial things.

One point of convergence is the fact that authors put forward the idea that social value
is what concerned individuals, groups and societies perceive as being socially valuable.
It is deeply rooted into “what matters to people”. Another point of convergence is the
notion that what individuals/groups perceive as socially valuable in a product, is the
product’s ability to enhance personal well-being and/or collective well-being. Taking
these perspectives into account, a proposed working definition was developed,
placing the concepts of personal well-being and collective well-being at its centre.

Subsequently, these central concepts were fleshed out (e.g., what are the key
constitutive aspects of personal and collective well-being?), drawing on relevant
social sciences theoretical frameworks, such as the work of Max-Neef (1991) on
identifying human fundamental needs, Narayan’s (2000) work on the key components
of well-being, Boztepe’s (2007) work on the user experience of a product, as well as the
multiple capitals model (OECD, 2011; Garrabé, 2012). This allowed ultimately for the
development of a preliminary framework identifying the key constitutive components
of ‘product social value’.

How to measure product social value

Beyond developing a working definition, our work also focused on understanding
how product social value could be measured. This led us to explore how people (at
the individual or group level) attribute product social value onto products. Results
from our literature review suggested that individuals and groups are unlikely to come
to the same conclusions on the social value of a given product, as their decision-
making processes are different. While it would have been relevant to explore both
individual and group attribution of social value, our work focused mostly on the
individual component, as exploring groups’ decision making processes demanded a
much greater time investment.

A glimpse at the experimental pilot case studies undertaken in this project will be
presented, together with our insights on the strengths and weaknesses in the

1  Focus on the literature on customer value was deemed relevant, given the obvious link between cus-
tomers and users of a product.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

44 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Sara Russo Garrido Session 1C

experiment. The pilots focused on testing the feasibility of applying our product social
value preliminary framework onto three types of products: a bottled beverage, an
automotive catalyzer, and a break-wall. The pilots aimed at illustrating the interplay of
key constitutive components of the framework when applied by consumers, through
an multicriteria decision-making assessment (MCDA)-based methodology.

Social value and SLCA

Lastly, our work explored how a better understanding of PSV can inform the
methodological approach in SLCA. The first question to address was whether product
social value –as defined in the project – was a good port of entry to enrich SLCA
thinking on social impacts. On the whole, we believe it was. Product social value
and social impacts in SLCA both draw on the concepts of human well-being and
development. However, the points of reference they call upon, are different.

While ongoing debates exist in the SLCA field on the nature of potential social
impacts and the impact subcategories which should be considered, the UNEP-SETAC
SLCA Guidelines provide a certain common ground through its definition of impact
subcategories in accordance with approaches from the field of Corporate Social
Responsibility and International Development – both aspiring to a certain degree of
universalism. In contrast, ‘product social value’ – as defined in this project – is much
more aligned with the well-being and user experience literature. Moreover, product
social value is much more relative in its approach, as it is closely tied to “what people
value” – which can change, depending on people’s underlying values, and is still very
much up to debate.

This being said, the work on product social value brings a few immediate considerations
to the fore, namely that thinking about product social value can help improve our
thinking around stakeholder categories. SLCA practitioners usually consider only
one stakeholder during the use phase: the consumer. However, the present project
suggests that we should also consider impacts onto local community and society
during the use phase. Indeed, our working definition and framework proposed, as
well as our results from our pilots studies suggest that individuals are likely to reflect
upon the social value of a product on collective well-being, during the use phase.

Our work on product social value also points to a path towards potentially developing
more relevant impact subcategories for the ‘consumer’ stakeholder category. Can
thinking about key components of well-being or user-experience factors help us
better define relevant subcategories for this stakeholder? We believe on the whole
that it might be.

Conclusion
In short, the work presented explores the concept of PSV, some insights into how to
measure it, and possible linkages with SLCA methodology. While the work presented
identifies some aspects that might be key to assessing product social value, it also
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 45

Thema
 Sara Russo Garrido Session 1C

highlights that more research is needed in order to identify which aspects are more
important than others. Deductive reasoning will be necessary to tackle this type of
work – our experience suggests that tools and approaches from the fields of marketing
and anthropology might be well positioned to undertake this type of exercise.

References
BOZTEPE, S. (2007). User Value : Competing Theories and Models. International Journal of
Design 1(2) p.55-63.
Caraty, Mélodie, 2015. The social value of steel. Conference presentation at 4the SLCA Seminar,
Montpellier, France.
GARRABÉ, M. (2012). Modèle à capitaux multiples et analyse sociale du cycle de vie des
capacités : méthodologie générale, 44 p. [en ligne]. Disponible: http://www.michel-garrabe.
com/pdf/modele_capitaux.pdf
Max-Neef (1991) on identifying human fundamental needs, Narayan’s (2000) work on the key
components of well-being,
NARAYAN, D., CHAMBERS, R., SHAH, M.K. et PETESCH, P. (2000). Voices of the poor: Crying out for
change. New York, Oxford University Press for the World Bank, p.
OECD (2011). Compendium of OECD well-being indicators, p. [en ligne]. Disponible: http://
www.oecd.org/std/47917288.pdf
SOVAMAT, 2017. Accessed at: www.sovamat.org, on Jan.10, 2017.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

46 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Peter Saling Session 1C

Social Analysis within the SEEbalance® for a detailed

assessment of social impacts of products and processes
Peter Saling, Ana Alba Perez, Peter Kölsch, Thomas Gruenenwald

BASF SE, CDS/S, Ludwigshafen (Germany)

Introduction
The SEEbalance® (the trademark was just given for the wording, the method can be
applied in general, without restriction beyond the normal procedures of citation)
methodology, evaluates the ecological and economic consequences of alternate
products or processes while simultaneously integrating findings on their impact on
society into the analysis. Social criteria and objectives – such as education, health
or working conditions – are becoming increasingly important which is why these
factors are also addressed by the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals). For this
reason, social aspects also have an increasing impact on marketing and management
decision-making processes.

When BASF introduced its SEEbalance® methodology in 2005, the possibility to

integrate all three dimensions of sustainability into one weighted result was an
absolute novelty. Back then, all indicators were evaluated quantitatively, which was
especially challenging in case of the social analysis.

The amount of data on relevant social indicators has often been insufficient, especially
concerning data on social factors on a global scale. Interpreting the results has
thus occasionally posed a challenge. The perception of social factors has changed
enormously. Those factors have for instance gained prominence and become more
tangible also because of the clear target definition set by the SDGs. Because of the new
developments in the area of Social indicators assessment, e.g. in the Roundtable for
Product Social Metrics or the “World Business Council for Sustainable Development”
(WBCSD), the SEEbalance® method was revised and transferred to a new assessment
system.

SEEbalance® still makes use of BASF’s Eco-Efficiency Analysis method to evaluate

environmental factors and costs of a product. However, the social dimension will
be evaluated through a so-called “social analysis” which is based on a two-stage
procedure. In both stages, social conditions for workers, consumers and society are
analyzed and evaluated.

The questions which needed to be answered in the development of the method

were on one hand how to assess social impacts in a meaningful way by utilization
of relevant information. Furthermore, how to identify relevant social topics for
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 47

Thema
 Peter Saling Session 1C

companies, countries with a meaningful set of social indicators. Thirdly the question
needed to be answered, how the different types of information can be combined in an
overall result for the Social Analysis and how to link and integrate it with results from
the environmental and costs assessment.

The aggregation and partially weighting steps needed to be developed as well. The
harmonization of different data sets in a coherent assessment system that allows
combinations of different information on social topics on different levels, was another
challenge.

Methods
A so-called „Social Life Cycle Assessment” in which information from specific data
bases and company information are evaluated and made transparent represents
the first stage. In addition to that, the second stage consists of a so-called “Social
Hot Spot Assessment”. In this stage, central social hotspots along the corresponding
value chain are assessed and evaluated. Hotspots are for instance characterized by
issues such as working conditions, health care, human rights, or aspects concerning
the equality of men and women in a certain country or industry. Comparing specific
products of the same kind which can be produced in manifold ways and, above all,
in different locations can serve as an example: apart from environmental factors and
costs, the social conditions in each particular location are integrated into the analysis.
Among those are issues such as the fair pay of local workers, regulated working hours,
a functioning health care system or similar matters. The results of the social analysis
and the Eco-Efficiency Analysis together constitute the SEEBALANCE® methodology

SEEbalance® thus enables a direct comparison between different alternatives. Apart

from obtaining precise statements on the alternative with the best results in each
category, customers also receive information on the potential for optimization
of each of the three dimensions which can be derived separately, with the goal of
increasing sustainability along the value chain. Additionally, the methodology allows
for a comparison of single criteria with the SDGs which, for instance, results in direct
statements on how the SDGs are being addressed by a certain product.

Social Life Cycle Assessment

In the Social Life Cycle Assessment, data along the supply chain in a LCA approach
are collected and assessed. Different levels of the assessment are applied, beginning
from specific company related data via regional data and regional average data. The
results of the assessment are expressed in a specific 4 folded color code from “Red”
via “Orange” and “Yellow” to “Green”. In a system boundary sheet, the major impacts
for different life cycle steps can be displayed, linked with further detailed information
(Figure 1).

The impact categories that are assessed in the SLCA were derived from the Roundtable
of Social Product out of the Metrics Handbook of Product Social Impact Assessment
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

48 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Peter Saling Session 1C

Raw materials
Step 3 Step 4
Alternative Step 1 Step 2
1
European use statistics & World production statistics European use statistics & Ecovadis company score
Maplecroft country risk & Maplecroft country risk Maplecroft country risk card

Medium risk High risk High risk Low risk

Raw materials
Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Alternative Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
2
Statistics & Statistics & World statistics Maplecroft Maplecroft Maplecroft country risk
Maplecroft Maplecroft & Maplecroft country risk country risk
country risk country risk country risk

High risk High risk High risk High risk High risk High risk

Figure 1: System boundaries with assessed life cycle steps

(PSIA) and the WBCSD publication “Social Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products - A
guideline by the chemical sector to assess and report on the social impact of chemical
products, based on a life cycle approach” (WBCSD 2016).

The assessment of the social topics based on these publications was developed in
that way, that different available databases and data systems as in Ecovadis, Reprisk or
Maplecroft are used. The indicators chosen from different data sources fit well together
so that a coherent assessment on different data levels is possible. Three stakeholder
groups as “workers” “communities” and consumers are covered. The focus is on the
workers due to the fact, that most of the product related aspects can be dedicated to
this stakeholder group.

Social Hot Spot Assessment

In addition to the Social LCA, a social Hot Spot Assessment is performed to highlight
specific life cycle steps with detailed information. It follows several steps to find
relevant Hotspots for every alternative that is assessed in the study. Firstly, for a deep
dive into social hotspot(s) of the value chain, the significant value chain steps need to
be identified. After that decision, an expert evaluation of relevant topics considering
the SDGs is performed. The definitions of the SDG help to find key aspects that should
be considered. In the analysis, main social focus topics discussed by stakeholders,
societies, NGO etc. will be selected and highlighted. If there is a negative effect found,

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 49

Thema
 Peter Saling Session 1C

• GDP per capita in the

region in focus is
among the lowest in
the country
Desktop research
and primary • The literacy rate is 7 Measures concept
information percent below the
national average Recommendations
Field research
• Groundwater has
excessive levels of
microbial
contaminants

Identification Link to SDG Improvement

opportunities

Figure 2: Results and measures concept from the Social Hot Spot Assessment

it will be linked to the most relevant SDG. That gives a good overview in a kind of
a SDG mapping. In displaying the results, the most significant SDG effects will be
summarized and linked to recommendations and measures for further improvement
activities (Figure 2).

Future developments
The new SEEBALANCE was developed for the assessment of social indicators
within new frameworks and requirements in industry but as well from different
stakeholders. Several examples were created to test the method and identify
improvement potentials. Different data assessments were checked and it was found,
that the new Social Analysis delivers quite meaningful results that help to improve
products and processes along the supply chain concerning social impacts. In the
future developments, the new Social Analysis will be integrated into the AgBalance
for the Agrosector as well. Additionally, new opportunities for data gathering, data
integration and interpretation will be checked and implemented.

References
Benoit, C. and Vickery-Niederman, G., Social sustainability assessment literature review, The
Sustainability Consortium, (2010).
Ekener-Petersen E., Finnveden G, Potential hotspots identified by social LCA –Part 1: a case
study of a laptop computer, IntJ Life Cycle Assessment, 18(2013) 127-143.
Fontes J., Bolhuis A., Bogaers K. Saling P., van Gelder R., Traverso M., Das Gupta J., Bosch H.,
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

50 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Peter Saling Session 1C

Morris D., Woodyard D., Bell L., van der Merwe R., Laubscher M., Jacobs M., Challis D.; Handbook
of Product Social Impact Assessment. http://product-social-impact-assessment.com. 2016.
[Accessed Aug 10, 2016]
Hosseinijou S., Mansour S., Shirazi M., Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case
study of building materials, IntJ Life Cycle Assessment, 19(2014) 620-645.
Kölsch, D., Saling P., Kicherer, A., Grosse-Sommer, A. How to Measure social Impacts? What is the
SEEbalance® about? – Socio-Eco-Efficiency Analysis: The Method. In: International Journal of
Sustainable Development. Int. J. Sustainable Development, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2008, 1-23.
Saling P, Kicherer, A.; Dittrich-Kraemer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt
S, Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF – The method, Int J. LCA 7 (4), 2002, 203-218.
Schmidt I., Meurer M., Saling P. Kicherer A, Reuter W, Gensch, CO, SEEbalance - Managing
Sustainability of Products and Processes with the Socio-Eco-Efficiency Analysis by BASF, Greener
Management International, Greenleaf publishing Sheffield, S. Seuring (guest editor), Issue 45,
Spring 2004, 79 - 94.
Saling P, Grosse-Sommer A, Alba-Perez A, Kalisch D, Using the Eco-Efficiency Analysis and
SEEbalance in the Sustainability Assessment of Products and Processes. In: Sustainable
Neighbourhood, from Lisbon to Leipzig through Research, 4th BMBF-Forum for Sustainability,
Leipzig, Germany, May, 2007, pp 8-10.
Saling P, Pierobon M, Measuring the sustainability of products: The Eco-Efficiency and
SEEBALANCE® analysis, LCM 2011, Berlin, http://www.lcm2011.org/papers.html, 21.11.2011
Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products, United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), 2009, ISBN: 978-92-807-3021-0
WBCSD: Alvarado C., Brown A., Hallberg K., Nieuwenhuizenn P., Saling P., Chan K., Das Gupta J.,
Morris D., Nicole G., Wientjes F., Dierckx A., Garcia W., Combs C., Kilgore A., Satterfield B., Haver
S., Jostmann T., Vornholt G., Bergman U., Feesch J., Whitaker K., Kiyoshi M., Govoni G., Mehta R.,
Menon A., Sen S., Upadhyayula V., Bande M., Coërs P., Debecker D., Poesch J., Viot J.F.; Social Life
Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products - A guideline by the chemical sector to assess and report
on the social impact of chemical products, based on a life cycle approach, November 2016,
www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/1918/24428, Accessed November 30, 2017, ISBN 978-
2-940521-52-4

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 51

Thema
 Yazdan Soltanpour Session 1C

Discussing Features of Social Measures Important

in SLCA Impact Indicators’ Selection
Yazdan Soltanpour1-2, Iuri PERI1, Leïla Temri2

1
University of Catania, Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment (Italy)
2
SupAgro, Montpellier (France)

Introduction
There have been several attempts to formalize Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA)
methodology and make it as robust as the environmental part of Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA). "Guidelines for SLCA of products" (UNEP/SETAC, 2009) and progressively "The
Methodological Sheets for Sub-categories in SLCA" (UNEP/SETAC, 2013) have provided
recommendations on how to conduct the first two phases of SLCA (i.e., goal and scope
definition and life cycle inventory). The research on the third phase (life-cycle impact
assessment) was, at that time, not considered sufficiently mature to be included
(Sureau et al. 2017). With S-LCA conceived by the same practitioners who created LCA,
it is not surprising that they attempted to model social impacts in the same way it
was done for environment alone (Iofrida et al. 2017). Most of the applications take
into account values, stakeholders’ perceptions, subjectivities, and participation in an
interpretivist way, but often without clarifying the theoretical underpinnings (Iofrida
et al. 2017). In the following we attempt to clarify the role of these features of societal
measures in the selection of the end-point social impact indicators in SLCA.

Subjectivity
The construction of the subcategories and the related characterization models will
inevitably include value judgments and assumptions (UNEP, 2009). It should be
stressed that the way in which an instrument is implemented will lead to different
results in terms of social impact (Rey-Valette & Cunninghum, 2003). The SLCA
guidelines (UNEP, 2009) recommend to cover at least the subcategories mentioned
to prevent using S-LCA results on a few limited topics for social marketing aims while
not addressing core issues. Nonetheless, concerning UNEP/SETAC (2009, 2013) 31
sub categories of assessment, for general applicability, require large amounts of data
which are not always available, and there is a large influence of the subjectivity of the
individual researcher (Blom and Solmar 2009; van Haaster et al. 2017).

Environmental LCA uses quantitative and comparable indicators to provide a simple

representation of the environmental impacts from the product life cycle. This poses a
challenge to the social LCA framework because due to their complexity, many social
impacts are difficult to capture in a meaningful way using traditional quantitative

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

52 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Yazdan Soltanpour Session 1C

single-criterion indicators (Dreyer et al. 2010). Consensus on a single end-point SLCA

measure would not be finalized unless its goal is well defined. Researchers agree on
the goal of SLCA on that to assess the social impacts of products along their life cycle.
However, the variables that are to be considered as social is yet to be agreed upon.

Diversity of Social Values

Contextual values are moral, personal, social, political and cultural values such as
pleasure, justice and equality, conservation of the natural environment and diversity.
In most views, the objectivity and authority of science is not threatened by epistemic,
but only by contextual (non-cognitive) values (Reiss and Sprenger 2017). Social
facets are more influenced by context than environmental or economic ones (Sierra
et al. 2017). Social aspects can be highly diverse and are weighted very differently
by different interest groups and in different countries and regions (Grießhammer
et al. 2006). Therefore, the social (and socio-economic) impacts to be covered in an
assessment and the way this should be done should be case and context specific
(UNEP, 2009).

Ethical issues such as justice, equity and dignity are subject to the society where
they are discussed, i.e. what is considered right in a certain society might not be the
case in another. Therefore, claiming the rightfulness of a society’s (working, living,
institutional) conditions based on other societal values would be invalid. One might
say that the international organizations’ agreements are one good indication of
social values that have to be respected by all the member countries. These values are
however, normative ideals that are projected to become universal. Some societies
might be far from the agreements signed by their countries’ representatives. On
the other hand, the absence of one quality should not be translated as a weakness
since other qualities, not considered in the assessment (i.e. family ties, traditional
mechanisms of social support, …), may compensate them. The social indicators should
have a universal character, no matter where it’s used, they would have the same sense.

Aggregation of data
It is mentioned in the guidelines (UNEP, 2009) that “the action of summing or bringing
together information (e.g. data, indicator results, etc.) from smaller units into a larger
unit (e.g., from inventory indicator to subcategory) in S-LCA may be done at the life
cycle inventory or impact assessment phase of the study and should not be done
in a way that leads to loss of information about the location of the unit processes”.
Modeling or aggregating the results of the subcategories in order to present one result
in terms of well-being has been proposed by Dreyer (2005) and Weidema (2006). While
thinking about aggregating indicators we have to consider the fundamental principle
that objective and subjective dimensions are separate entities that normally bear little
or no relationship to one another, and so must be separately measured (International
Wellbeing Group, 2013). The SLCA subcategories, which have been mainly inspired by
ISO 26000 (2010), are not of one single nature.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 53

Thema
 Yazdan Soltanpour Session 1C

The change in the social indicators should neither be considered negative nor
positive. The value of the change is relative to the future plans of the region, and
whether the change complies with that plan or not makes it positive or negative. If
we don’t know the sense of the effect, adding the data together would give a result
without any sense. Unlike the natural scientist, the social scientist is not interested in
the common or average aspects of the facts under consideration; rather the social
scientist is interested in their characteristic traits, their cultural significance, and their
meaningful interrelationships as defined by the problem in hand (Hekman, 1983).
Furthermore, the statistical feature of social indicators of sustainable development is
to reflect the detail of distributions under different arrangements and not average or
modal situations (Antoine, 1999 in Rey-Valette & Cunninghum, 2003).

Analyzing each single indicator independently can be a solution to avoid the

aggregation problem. Either a comparison of the indicator is carried out between two
alternatives or the situation, the case study is studied before and after the change.
Another solution can be simply limiting the assessment to a single end point indicator.
Endpoint indicators have the advantage that they can reflect the potential damage or
benefit to the Area of Protection, having the advantage, in theory, that no subjective
weighting is needed (Jorgensen et al., 2008).

Rebound effect
The social domain is complex due to the existence of strong interactions between
factors leading to multiplier effects (Rey-Valette & Cunninghum, 2003). Sierra et al.
(2017) outlined that social sustainability assessment has two aspects:1) the social
contribution in terms of how interventions interacts with its context and 2) the
potential benefit distribution effects on a long-term basis balanced with its short-term
contributions. The impact of a single technology at the macro level is generally small,
but could potentially be large (Hasster et al., 2017). Each change in the production
cycle may have its particular effect on the society and each effect, in turn, may create
its own consequences (e.g. change in socio-cultural relations). This stems from the fact
that every product is accompanied by particular production-consumption culture.
Therefore, apart from the main cycle of the product which is analyzed, their rebound
effects have to be considered as well. Weidema (2008) defined rebound effects
for production and consumption changes, as derived changes in production and
consumption when the implementation of an improvement option liberates or binds
a scarce production or consumption factor (money, time, space and technology).

The amplitude of a single change’s rebound effects may vary in different time periods
for the same society as they may become resistant to certain conditions, adopting
strategies which allow them to receive the change more pacifically. Resilience, the
ability to absorb the external changes, depends to the capacity of the society to
undergo or adapt to change. Therefore, the results of assessment can be expected
to be different according to the time of its realization. The assessment carried out
after the adaptation process would result a more stable situation. End-point (or even

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

54 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Yazdan Soltanpour Session 1C

midpoint) indicators may be able to capture a great deal of the effects created by the
change in the system.

Conclusions and future developments:

The search for universal objective social impact indicators continues in SLCA. Diversity
of societal norms in different countries and researchers’ point of view (from different
disciplines) have prolonged the consensus. The end-point social impact indicator
should be able to capture the social effects created in long-term, covering the rebound
effects and the range of affecting factors. In this process we should not forget the
difference between the natural sciences and social sciences in the sense that social
issues are influenced much more by the subjectivity of researchers and the social
context of the impacted population.

References
Blom M, Solmar C, 2009. How to socially assess biofuels, a case study of the UNEP/SETAC code
of practice for socio economical LCA, Master’s thesis in cooperation with the Division of Quality
and Environmental Management at Luleå University of Technology, commissioned by Enact
Sustainable Strategies in Stockholm, Sweden
Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J, 2006. A Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment
(10 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:88–97. doi: 10.1065/lca2005.08.223
Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J, 2010. Characterisation of social impacts in LCA: Part 1:
Development of indicators for labour rights. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
15:247–259 . doi: 10.1007/s11367-009-0148-7
Grießhammer R, Norris C, Dreyer L, et al, 2006. Feasibility Study: Integration of Social Aspects
into LCA
Hekman SJ, 1983. Weber, the Ideal Type, and Contemporary Social Theory. M. Robertson, the
University of Michigan
Iofrida, N, Strano, A, Gulisano, G, De Luca, AI, 2017. Why social life cycle assessment is struggling
in development? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-
1381-0
International Wellbeing Group, 2013. Personal Wellbeing Index: 5th Edition. Melbourne:
Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University (http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/
acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/index.php)
ISO 26000, 2010, Guidance on social responsibility, https://www.iso.org/obp/
ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-1:v1:en
Reiss J, Sprenger J, 2017. Scientific Objectivity. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Winter 2017. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
Rey-Valette H, Cunningham S, 2003. Evaluation of the social impact of fishery management
measures. In: The Introduction of Right-based Management in Fisheries. Bruxelles
Sierra LA, Pellicer E, Yepes V, 2017. Method for estimating the social sustainability of
infrastructure projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 65:41–53 . doi: 10.1016/j.
eiar.2017.02.004

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 55

Thema
 Yazdan Soltanpour Session 1C

Sureau S, Mazijn B, Garrido SR, Achten WMJ, 2017. Social life-cycle assessment frameworks:
a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1336-5
UNEP/SETAC, 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. http://www.cdo.
ugent.be/publicaties/280.guidelines-sLCA.pdf
UNEP/SETAC, 2013. The Methodological Sheets For Subcategories in Social Life Cycle
Assessment (S-LCA).http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_
methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf
van Haaster B, Ciroth A, Fontes J, et al. 2017. Development of a methodological framework
for social life-cycle assessment of novel technologies. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 22:423–440 . doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1162-1
Weidema B, Thrane M, 2007. Comments on the development of harmonized method for
Sustainability Assessment of Technologies (SAT). Sustainability Assessment of Technologies
Weidema BP, 2006. The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact
Assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11:89–96 . doi: 10.1065/
lca2006.04.016
Weidema BP, 2008. Rebound effects of sustainable production, Bridging the Gap; Responding to
Environmental Change – From Words to Deeds”, Portorož, Slovenia, 2008.05.14-16

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

56 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Solène Sureau Session 1C

Including governance and economic aspects

to assess and explain social impacts:
a methodological proposal for S-LCA
Solène Sureau, Wouter M. J. Achten

Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB) (Belgium)

Introduction
Since the 2000’s, S-LCA research goes in various directions and the streamlining of
S-LCA is still ongoing, despite the publication of the Guidelines for S-LCA (Benoît and
Mazijn 2009). Among the main issues are the issues of what is to be assessed and
the inclusion of impact pathways in the impact assessment, as in E-LCA. In this paper,
main conclusions of a state of the art of S-LCA research (Sureau et al. 2017; Sureau and
Achten, upcoming) on those two issues are summarized, as a basis for our approach
to conduct S-LCA including its underlying theoretical approach and methodological
proposal.

Some conclusions on S-LCA developments

and practice
In most S-LCA frameworks and studies, including the Guidelines, it is mainly internal
organizational aspects of value chain actors that are taken into account, while it seems
that also economic aspects relating to the product and to the relations between value
chain actors could be considered. This is especially true given the growing trend of
outsourcing globally which implies that much happens outside the organizations and
thus between value chain actors. Among the 14 S-LCA frameworks reviewed (Sureau et
al. 2017), only two allude to fair prices in the criteria to be assessed, and the Guidelines
are not one of them. Yet, the Guidelines recognize that socioeconomic processes, such
as the pressure for low prices, are causes of social impacts, in addition to companies’
behavior (Benoît and Mazijn 2009). In studies applying the Guidelines criteria relating
to value chain actors are rarely included (Sureau and Achten, upcoming).

The non-integration of governance and economic processes in S-LCA might originate

in the fact that currently S-LCA does not include stressors of commonly used social
midpoint impacts (i.e. subcategories of the Guidelines) among its assessment criteria.
Currently, S-LCA practice is mainly an assessment of midpoint impact (or subcategories)
indicators (Type I performance assessment). Some type II studies quantify endpoint
indicators (e.g. DALY, Arvidsson et al. 2016) or investigate causal relationships between
endpoint indicators (e.g. health impacts) and potential stressors (income, Feschet et

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 57

Thema
 Solène Sureau Session 1C

al. 2012). But there is a lack of research work looking at what can potentially influence
the midpoint impacts, and thus at relationships between those midpoint impact
indicators and their potential stressors. Yet E-LCA characterization focuses on links
between environmental problems (midpoint) and their stressors (materials used and
emissions, i.e. inventory data) in addition to links between problems (midpoint) and
damages (endpoint or AoP). As such E-LCA makes it possible to explain environmental
phenomena and damages and to highlight problem sources (processes or use of
certain materials). If stressors of midpoint impacts (i.e. what we call explanatory
variables) were included in the S-LCA assessment, it could become a tool to assess,
but also to manage and to improve impacts.

If we would go further and if we would look at links between these explanatory

variables and midpoint impacts, this would enable a shift from an assessment that
looks at impacts, sustainability dimensions and product chain actors separately to a
holistic assessment tool that considers links between them. Particularly, economic
aspects relating to the product and value chain governance aspects could link product
chain actors, and might have the potential to capture potential transfers of impacts
between them, if our theoretical approach is verified.

Proposed approach for S-LCA

In addition to commonly included midpoint impacts (or subcategories), we propose
to include in the assessment explanatory variables, i.e. variables that have potentially
an influence on midpoint and hence endpoint impacts. Concretely, we propose
a S-LCA that looks at practices of value chain actors regarding others stakeholders
(e.g. workers), but also at what pushes companies to adopt such practices. In fact,
we believe that by explaining practices, it becomes possible to improve practices,
and hence impacts on stakeholders. As explanatory variables, we argue for variables
reflecting chain governance and economic aspects, according to our specific
theoretical approach.

Theoretical framework

Our theoretical approach is based on the school of thoughts of value chain analysis
which focuses on the way in which firms and countries are globally integrated and
on the implications of power relations between value chain actors (Kaplinsky and
Morris 2000). This approach was already referred to some years ago in the LCA field by
Sim (2006), but received few attention since then. Yet, S-LCA could benefit from this
approach that has the same scope, focusing on the whole product chain.

Figure 1 shows the general theoretical approach that underlies most of our
methodological propositions. It illustrates the inter-connection between the classical
three (or four) pillars of sustainability within the LCA approach. Focusing on the
assessment of social impacts, impact pathways start from physical flows related to
product life cycle(s), as well as from monetary flows. From physical flows, impacts on
human health derived from environmental problems are assessed as part of E-LCA (1).
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

58 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Solène Sureau Session 1C

Other social impacts derived directly from physical flows should be assessed in S-LCA
(e.g. health impacts of pesticide use) (2). However monetary flows are among the
main stressors of social issues (positive and negative/problems) (3) and impacts (4)
since these flows constrain the behaviors and practices of economic actors towards
other actors in the value chain and other stakeholders e.g.: workers, consumers,
local community, society, etc. These monetary flows, e.g. the payment of an income
generating price and a fair distribution of added value among actors depend strongly
on the type of chain governance in which economic actors are playing (5). Depending
on the level of market consolidation at various stages of product chains (e.g. extraction/
production of raw materials, assembling/processing, wholesale, and retail), the power
between actors will be balanced differently, with strong implications on prices.

Governance of
product chains

5 Institutional and
regulatory contexts

Physical flows Monetary flows

between actors of 6 Economic and
related to product
the product life cycle market contexts
life cycle (E-LCI)
(Extended LCC)
Cultural context
2 3

Environmental
problems Social issues
(midpoint) (midpoint)
1

4 Assessed in E-LCA

Assessed in S-LCA
Impacts on Impacts on human
environment health and wellbeing Inter-dependancy links
(endpoint) (endpoint)

Figure 1: Sustainability approach and underlying theoretical approach for S-LCA

The level of competition and market consolidation are themselves influenced by the
market context, e.g. the degree of market openness (6). Other contextual variables
play a role for chain governance aspects as well, but also for monetary flows, and
social issues (e.g. institutional, regulatory, economic and cultural context).

Methodological proposal

Our approach proceeds as explained below (see figure 2). This description aims to
identify the different ideas integrated in our approach, but will not detail all the ideas
at the same level of detail.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 59

Thema
 Solène Sureau Session 1C

First, assessment criteria are selected among all sustainability aspects (1) with
stakeholders of assessed product chains (2).

Following, we propose – as a new LCIA step – the identification of impact pathways

and the classification of selected assessment criteria as explanatory or impact
variables (3) (Sureau et al. 2017). This can be done through a participatory approach
or on theoretical basis. Impact variables are then characterized/referenced with a type
I LCIA, with norms as reference point for normative data (Kruse et al. 2008) and other
alternatives for other variables (4). Explanatory variables are processed together with
impact variables with a Type II characterization that investigates identified impact
pathways (5). We thus propose a LCIA combining Type I and Type II as suggested by
Chhipi-Shrestha et al. (2014).

According to our theoretical approach, we look at how chain governance aspects

(terms of trade between value chain actors) influence economic aspects (fairness of
prices) and how this in turn influences working conditions among value chain actors.

Phase 1: Goal and scope, Assessed in E-LCA

- among all sustainability aspects 1 List of assessment
- selection of criteria through criteria and indicators Data flow
a participatory approach 2
Iterations

Collection of
Phase 2: Inventory
data

Phase 3: LCIA
Explanatory variables Mid/end-point impact categories
1) Classification according to 3
Instrumental value Intrinsec value
value/position and identification
e.g. pricing mechanism e.g. working conditions
of impact pathways

2) Classification according
If normative 4 If not normative
- e.g. fair e.g. jobs, health
to data type
wage impacts

Type II: Type I: Comparison Type I:

3) Characterization 5 Investigation of with norms & Comparison with
impact pathway alternatives alternatives

Validation / Identification of
Phase 4: Interpretation
6 refutation of hotspots and best
of results
assumptions alternatives

Calculation of distance to social sustainability 7

Contrasting results
& links with added value distribution 8

Figure 2: Our methodological proposals

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

60 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Solène Sureau Session 1C

Concretely, to do so, we compare different alternatives, that are products produced

and traded under differing chain governance schemes (e.g. products from a globalized
long product chain and products from a local short chain).

Regarding economic aspects, we check whether the selling price covers the prime
costs including a decent income for workers. Data used are Life cycle costing data, in
addition to income and price data. However, our indicator should not be interpreted
the same way as LCC results, since it seeks to assess price fairness, while LCC seeks to
assess cost efficiency.

Depending on whether these variables are found to influence social impacts,

recommendations for inclusion/exclusion thereof in future assessment are provided
(6).

In the interpretation phase, in order to put the results in perspective, we propose to

adapt and apply an existing approach which calculates the distance to sustainability,
i.e. the “Eco-Social cost” (Croes and Vermeulen 2015) (7). This approach monetarizes
“impacts” with externalized preventative costs, i.e. costs that are necessary for
negative impacts to be avoided. It implies the definition of thresholds that cannot be
exceeded. Thus, while monetarization is considered as reflecting a weak sustainability
approach that legitimates a substitution between capitals, the type of monetarization
we propose to apply is close to the strong sustainability approach (Roman et al. 2016).

Behind the use of this approach is the assumption that prices do not cover all costs
and that low prices result in negative social (and environmental) impacts. By putting
in perspective the retail price of a product (or a price at another stage of the value
chain) with externalized preventative social costs, the tool would contribute to
raise awareness of consumers regarding the true costs of products, thus supporting
economic actors in adjusting prices whenever necessary. Another benefit is to make
economic actors reflect on improvement options that they can implement to reduce
negative impacts and on factors that permit improvement, but are initially considered
outside their sphere of influence. In order to verify our basic assumption, we will also
test the relationship between the importance of externalized preventative social costs
and the distribution of added value along the value chain (or the retail price) (8).

Conclusions and future developments

The presented methodological proposal is currently being tested on different
products of alternative food systems. Preliminary results indicate that the integration
of economic data does not simplify the running of S-LCA, but brings new insights
on how LCA-based tools (E-LCA, LCC and S-LCA) could be better embedded within a
(strong) sustainability approach.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 61

Thema
 Solène Sureau Session 1C

References
Arvidsson, Rickard, Jutta Hildenbrand, Henrikke Baumann, K. M. Nazmul Islam, and Rasmus
Parsmo. 2016. “A Method for Human Health Impact Assessment in Social LCA: Lessons from
Three Case Studies.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, April, 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-016-1116-7.
Benoît, Catherine, and Bernard Mazijn. 2009. “Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of
Products.” Paris: UNEP/SETAC.
Chhipi-Shrestha, Gyan Kumar, Kasun Hewage, and Rehan Sadiq. 2014. “‘Socializing’
Sustainability: A Critical Review on Current Development Status of Social Life Cycle Impact
Assessment Method.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 17 (3): 579–96. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10098-014-0841-5.
Croes, Pim R., and Walter J. V. Vermeulen. 2015. “Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment by
Transferring of Preventative Costs in the Supply Chain of Products. A First Draft of the Oiconomy
System.” Journal of Cleaner Production 102 (September): 177–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.04.040.
Feschet, Pauline, Catherine Macombe, Michel Garrabé, Denis Loeillet, Adolfo Rolo Saez, and
François Benhmad. 2012. “Social Impact Assessment in LCA Using the Preston Pathway.” The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18 (2): 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-
012-0490-z.
Kaplinsky, Raphael, and Mike Morris. 2000. “A Handbook for Value Chain Research.” http://www.
value-chains.org/dyn/bds/docs/395/Handbook%20for%20Value%20Chain%20Analysis.pdf.
Kruse, Sarah A., Anna Flysjö, Nadja Kasperczyk, and Astrid J. Scholz. 2008. “Socioeconomic
Indicators as a Complement to Life Cycle Assessment—an Application to Salmon Production
Systems.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14 (1): 8–18. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-008-0040-x.
Roman, Philippe, Géraldine Thiry, and Tom Bauler. 2016. “Comment mesurer la soutenabilité ?”
L’Économie politique, no. 69 (February): 48–55.
Sim, Sarah. 2006. “Sustainable Food Supply Chains.” EngD Portfolio, University of Surrey.
Sureau, Solène, Bernard Mazijn, Sara Russo Garrido, and Wouter M. J. Achten. 2017. “Social Life-
Cycle Assessment Frameworks: A Review of Criteria and Indicators Proposed to Assess Social
and Socioeconomic Impacts.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, June, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1336-5.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

62 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Vuaillat Marie Session 1C

Sustainable Guar Initiative (SGI) – social impact

characterization of an integrated sustainable project
Vuaillat Marie1, Wathelet Alain2, Viot Jean-François3, Laurent Flore3,
Martz Patricia4, Arsac Paul5, Zaaraoui Nisrine Carmen4, Causse Samuel6

1
Evea, Paris (France)
2
Solvay, Brussels (Belgium)
3
Solvay, Paris (France)
4
L’Oréal R&I, Aulnay-sous-Bois (France)
5
L’Oréal, Clichy (France)
6
Evea, Lyon (France)

Introduction
Sustainable Guar Initiative (SGI) is a three-year long integrated program aiming at
developing sustainable guar production within the Bikaner district in Rajasthan, India.
This desert district is one of the largest producers of guar and guar gum in India. SGI
was set up by Solvay, L’Oréal, HiChem and the NGO TechnoServe, and is based on 4
themes:

(1) Agronomy: enhancing sustainable practices for rain-fed guar production,

(2) Environment: groundwater-neutral approaches and best practices in guar
farming, along with tree plantation,
(3) Social impact: gender approaches, nutrition, health & hygiene and
(4) Market improvement: traceability, supply chain and market access.

Guar gum is extracted from guar seed and can be used as such, or functionalized. It is
for example used as a bio-based thickening agent in personal care products.

To confirm and consolidate the relevance of the program and to identify potential
improvement opportunities, an environmental and social Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
has been conducted, comparing the guar production before and after the Sustainable
Guar Initiative.

The environmental LCA has been based on a wide survey involving more than 1500
farmers over a three-year period. This data collection shows the changes in cultivation
practices with benefits on Guar production yield, leading to greater revenues for the
farmers. This Guar productivity increase compensates the negative effects of new
inputs to the field required by the application of cultivation best practices.

The social LCA has been conducted according to already available guidance, including
UNEP-SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and WBCSD
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 63

Thema
 Vuaillat Marie Session 1C

Social Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products. Diane Indrane's Master's thesis on
“Integrating Smallholders within the Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessments”
has been a milestone in order to better take into account the smallholders specific
issues. Methodological developments have been undertaken in order to address the
specificities and complexity of this project. At the goal and scope stage, we expanded
the identification of relevant stakeholders and social aspects. At the inventory stage,
we collected new information on a broader scope in order to integrate more social
aspects, stakeholders or life cycle steps. During the performance assessment stage,
we set up a common rating system enabling aggregation related to inventory from
multiple sources.

Firstly, we experimented the value and limits of the functional unit in social LCA.
We think it is especially important to wonder if the main group of people involved
in the realization of the function (farmers producing guar) is the same group of
people beneficiating from actions and changes set up by the program. Are the
beneficiaries larger or smaller than the producing group? Who is directly affected and
who is indirectly affected? These aspects should be questioned when describing the
functional unit.

We also discussed the criteria for stakeholder’s selection and social topics selection,
using a range of different information, from local interview to statistical data. Then, the
main challenge was to deal with social topics potentially very relevant but for which
very few data were available. For some topics, included in the program, monitoring
and performance measurement is in place (for instance women empowerment)
but for other topics it is not the case (occupational health and safety of workers). In
order to solve this issue, we collected new data that we managed to organize and
characterize thanks to the rating system described hereafter.

Finally, we developed a specific rating system enabling to deal with data heterogeneity
among the social aspects, stakeholders or life cycle steps. We started with the work
from Diana Indrane based on the theory of change:

1) inputs are the resources necessary to carry out an activity,

2) activities are then implemented and effects can be analyzed,
3) output of the activities can be measured,
4) outcomes are the changes in the lives of the targeted population,
5) impact is an experienced improvement in lives of the targeted population.

Focusing on the first three steps, we described them according to 2 criteria:

implemented actions and fulfillment status (result).

• Actions can be the presence of monitoring, identification of opportunities,

intervention, feedback monitoring.
• Fulfilment status can be legality or illegality, meeting the basic needs of a
population fraction and positive feedback.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

64 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Vuaillat Marie Session 1C

But no monitoring doesn’t necessarily mean illegality or that basic needs are not met.
These two criteria where not sufficient to describe all situations especially for some
topics not included in the program thus, so not monitored. In order to be able to
integrate unmonitored topics, we integrated risk assessment as another component
of the rating system, enabling to fill the gap when no surveillance is implemented.

When using risk assessment, the question of the risk perimeter should be addressed.
A sector and country risk does not necessarily mean a local risk. How is it possible to
finely tune this generic data with local information such as an individual testimony?
Describing more precisely the testimony sources is then very important to evaluate its
relevance (How many people are testifying? What kind of person is it? Do they have
an interest?).

We also experience the specific case of positive impacts. Positive impact can result
directly or indirectly from an action. They rarely have a negative counterpart, but the
question can still be addressed. It is therefore difficult to use risk assessment or theory
of change for these aspects. The presence of positive or negative signals can be used.
And so, the origin and type of signals can be used as rating criteria.

Our work is an attempt to structure social impact assessment method. Risk, actions and
results could be three main components of an integrated social impact assessment
method enabling to aggregate the complexity and diversity of human aspects and
heterogeneity of data available.

This study is a methodology development based on specific example of the Guar

culture in developing country and is considered as a guiding document for future
development in the complex matter like social life cycle assessment.

References
Technoserve, 2015. Proposal for Hichem, Solvay and L’Oréal, “Sustainable Guar Program”.
UNEP/SETAC, 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Management (Vol.
15).
WBCSD, 2016. Social Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products.
Fontes, J., 2016. Handbook-for-Product-Social-Impact-Assessment-3.0, 1–146.
Indrane, D., 2017. Small but Complex: Integrating Smallholders within the Handbook for
Product Social Impact Assessments.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 65

Thema
 Bo P. Weidema Session 1C

Towards a taxonomy for social impact pathway indicators

Bo P. Weidema

Aalborg University, Aalborg (Denmark)

Abstract
The purpose of taxonomy is to provide structure and conceptual clarity to a scientific
domain through clear definitions of hierarchically organised concepts. By reducing
confusion and supporting harmonisation of terminology, the ultimate purpose is to
improve monitoring, knowledge-generation, and decision-making. For social impact
pathway indicators an important aspect of this is to ensure consistency in modelling,
so that similar impacts are treated in a similar way. Social impacts are here understood
in the wider sense of welfare economics, as all impacts that affect human wellbeing,
including ecosystem, health and socio-economic impacts. The taxonomy presented
here extends previous contributions by suggesting a conceptually complete
taxonomy at three levels of the impact pathway: Elementary flows, midpoint impacts,
and endpoint impacts (Areas of Protection). The completeness is ensured conceptually
by including unspecified residuals, but also and more importantly by the use of fully
quantifiable indicators that can be traced from source to sink, so that completeness
can be verified by input-output balances and against measured totals. Using the
impact pathway of “Undernutrition”, an application example is provided.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

66 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Jaylton Bonacina de Araujo Session 1D

Development of S-LCIA models:

a review of multivariate data analysis methods
Jaylton Bonacina de Araujo, Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya

Federal University of Technology - Paraná, Curitiba (Brazil)

Introduction
Types II and III Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (S-LCIA) models of Types II and III
are supposed to be based on causal relationships between the inventory indicators
with a given Area of Protection (AoP), through one or multiple impact pathways
(Neugebauer et al., 2017). These routes can lead to the calculation of the potential
social impact by the use of characterization models, allowing the elaboration of mid-
point categories or directly to end-point categories. This type of approach is similar
to that used in the methods of environmental LCIA (Neugebauer et al., 2017; UNEP/
SETAC, 2009; WU et al. 2014). Most of the Type II are based on the impact pathways
solely by means of theoretical structures representing relationships between variables
that have already been described in the social sciences (Brent and Labuschagne, 2006;
Neugebauer et al., 2014; Reitinger et al., 2011). However, the use of statistical methods
has also been presented by several authors, such as Wu et al (2015), Feschet et al.
(2013), Hutchins and Sutherland (2008) and Norris (2006).

The modeling of cause-and-effect chains in S-LCA presents a considerable degree of

complexity, since the S-LCIA models take into account a large number of variables
and many relationships are established between them. In addition, many pathways
of impact have not yet been identified, explored, and even validated (WU et al., 2015).

In this sense, the use of methods that allow the analysis and understanding of several
variables and their relationships can contribute to elaboration and validation of S-LCIA
methods. The statistical techniques of multivariate data analysis can help in this
purpose, since they contemplate several methods aimed at the simultaneous analysis
of multiple variables, which makes it possible to establish cause-effect relationships,
correlation and prediction between these variables (Hair, 2010).

Therefore, the aim of this study is to perform a literature review regarding the
statistical methods of multivariate analysis, seeking to identify its applicability in the
construction of S-LCIA models.

Methods
According to Hair (2010), methods of multivariate analysis can be classified according
to the relationship established between the variables, as dependent relationships,
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 67

Thema
 Jaylton Bonacina de Araujo Session 1D

where the dependent variable to be predicted or explained by other variables and

interdependence relationships in which no single variable or group of variables
is defined as being independent or dependent; the number of dependent and
independent variables (or also called explained and explanatory variables); and
how these are measured. This makes these techniques differentiated between them
and with different objectives. Among this range of methods, the most established
and ascending ones can be highlighted: Principal component analysis (PCA) and
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA); Multiple regression; Multiple discriminant analysis
and Logistic regression; Canonical correlation; Multivariate analysis of variance and
Covariance; Conjoint Analysis; Cluster Analysis; Corresponding Analysis; Structural
equation modeling (SEM) and Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

In order to identify the applicability of these methods for the construction of S-LCIA
models, their characteristics were analyzed through a literature review. Table 1 shows
the observed characteristics and their definitions.

Characteristics Definition
1. Type of relation The method has a relationship of dependence or
interdependence.
2. Confirmatory/ Exploratory/ The method provides an exploratory, confirmatory or
Predictive predictive approach.
3. Number of relations The method considers multiple relations between
between dependent and dependent and independent variables, has a dependent
independent variables variable and several independent variables or has several
dependent variables.
4. Identification of latent The method allows the identification of latent variables
variables (also called factors)
5. Applications on S-LCA The method has already been applied in some S-LCA study.

Table 1: Analyzed characteristics of multivariable methods.

Results
From the criteria presented in Table 1, five methods of multivariate data analysis were
evaluated, the results of the analysis are presented in Table 2.

The Principal component analysis (PCA) and Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) are
techniques that can be used to analyze interrelationships among a large number of
variables and to explain these variables through so-called factors (or latent variables)
(Costello and Osborne, 2005). In short, the aim of this methods is aggregate information
contained in several variables into a smaller set of variates. PCA and EFA are not
requiring a theoretical basis or hypothesis substantiated a priori, which configures
its exploratory characteristic. These techniques are based on the establishment of
correlations between a large number of variables (Hair, 2010). The identification of
these factors can help in the construction of impact pathways, since it allows the
discernment of intermediate effects, represented by the midpoint impact categories.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

68 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Jaylton Bonacina de Araujo Session 1D

Method Type of relation Confirmatory/ Number of relations Identification Applications

Exploratory/ between dependent of latent on S-LCA
Predictive and independent variables
variables
Principal Interdependence Exploratory Multiple independent Yes No
Component variables
Analysis (PCA)
Exploratory Interdependence Exploratory Multiple independent Yes No
Factor variables
Analysis (EFA)
Confirmatory Interdependence Confirmatory Multiple Dependency Yes No
Factor and Independence
Analysis (CFA) Relationships
Structural Dependence Confirmatory Multiple Dependency Yes Wu et al.,
Equation and Independence 2015
Modeling Relationships
(SEM)
Simple and Dependence Predictive A single dependent No Norris, 2006
Multiple variable and several Feschet et
Regression independent al., 2013
variables Hutchins;
Sutherland,
2008

Table 2: Analysis of the characteristics of multivariate analysis methods.

However, these techniques do not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between

variables since it uses only correlation.

The Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the Structural equation modelling (SEM)
have very similar characteristics because both are confirmatory techniques (i.e.,
hypothesis-testing), which demands an established theoretical model and that will
be put to the test. Both techniques establish relationships between the variables
through factors, however, in CFA it is evaluated the correlation between variables,
without establishment of cause effect. The CFA is very similar with the EFA, but the
EFA is focused on the elaboration of factors and the CFA is related to confirmatory
analysis of the factors. In SEM, it is possible to analyze several dependency relations
simultaneously (Byrne, 2013, Hair, 2010). The Confirmation of the factors through
these techniques allows the establishment and validation of impact pathways of
previously based on theory in the social sciences (Feschet et al., 2013; Hutchins and
Sutherland, 2008; Norris, 2006), as proposed by Wu et al. (2015), making an application
of the SEM as a way of attesting the cause effect chain related to the Area of Protection
“Human Health”, identifying possible mid-point and end-point categories.

Simple and multiple Regression allows the determination of correlation between

variables, being defined a dependent variable that is related to one or more
independent variables. This method enables the prediction of the dependent variables,
through the determination of coefficients. The regression methods compared to the
models cited above do not allow the identification of factors (Wooldridge, 2015). The
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 69

Thema
 Jaylton Bonacina de Araujo Session 1D

regression techniques are very versatile, according to the type of variable and type
of data being used, and there are models focused on categorical (scale that simply
assigns a qualitative label to an observation) or metric variables (measure quantity
or relative degree), time series, panel data, and cross-sectional data (Enders, 2008;
Wooldridge, 2010). This method has been explored in some studies of Type III S-LCIA,
such as Norris (2006) and Feschet et al. (2013), where the authors evaluated life
expectancy as a function of countries' GDP. Hutchins and Sutherland (2008) in their
study also used a regression technique, assessing infant mortality rate in relation to
the GDP of the countries. From the characteristics of the regression methods, it can be
used in the S-LCIA for the elaboration of characterization models since they allow the
prediction of dependent variables.

Conclusion
From the review of the multivariate analysis methods, it was possible to conclude in a
preliminary way that the exploratory methods, such as Principal component analysis
(PCA) and Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) can be applied to identify undiscovered
impact pathways, mainly because they allow the factor’s identification, which can
later be confirmed by other methods, such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

The Structural equation modeling (SEM) can aid in the validation and confirmation of
impact pathways already explored by S-LCA publications and relationships already
researched in studies related to social sciences, as it evaluates the cause-effect
relationships within the impact pathways and allows the establishment of factors
that can be considered mid-point or end-point categories, as already demonstrated
in previous applications in S-LCA.

Simple and multiple regression methods can be used for the elaboration of
characterization models, depending on the possibility of estimation of the dependent
variable. In addition, because of the diversity of techniques, regression methods can
be very flexible in terms of the use of categorical or interval variables and types of
data series.

As preliminary conclusions, it is possible to affirm that the multivariate analysis

methods have a wide possibility of application in the construction of S-LCIA models,
assisting in the identification, modeling and validation of impact pathways, as in
obtaining characterization methods. As next steps it is necessary to evaluate the other
methods of multivariate analysis.

Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate Grupo O Boticário, CNPq, CAPES and Fundação Araucária for
financing the project.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

70 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Jaylton Bonacina de Araujo Session 1D

References
BRENT, A. and LABUSCHAGNE, C. Social Indicators for Sustainable Project and Technology Life
Cycle Management in the Process Industry (13 pp + 4). The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, v. 11, n. 1, p. 3–15, 2006.
BYRNE, B. M. Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. [s.l.] Routledge, 2013.
COSTELLO A. B. and OSBORNE, J. W. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research &
evaluation, v. 10, n. 7, p. 1–9, 2005.
ENDERS, W. Applied econometric time series. [s.l.] John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
FESCHET, P. et al. Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, v. 18, n. 2, p. 490–503, 2013.
HAIR, J. F. (ED.). Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.
HUTCHINS, M. J. and SUTHERLAND, J. W. An exploration of measures of social sustainability and
their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability and
Supply Chain Management. v. 16, n. 15, p. 1688–1698, 2008.
NEUGEBAUER, S. et al. Impact Pathways to Address Social Well-Being and Social Justice in
SLCA—Fair Wage and Level of Education. Sustainability, v. 6, n. 8, p. 4839–4857, 2014.
NEUGEBAUER, S. et al. Calculation of Fair wage potentials along products’ life cycle –
Introduction of a new midpoint impact category for social life cycle assessment. Journal of
Cleaner Production, v. 143, p. 1221–1232, 2017.
NORRIS, G. A. Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles - Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, v. 11, n. 1, p. 97–104, 2006.
REITINGER, C. et al. A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, v. 16, n. 4, p. 380–388, 2011.
UNEP/SETAC. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Paris: United Nations
Environment Program SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment Programme,
2009.
WOOLDRIDGE, J. M. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. [s.l.] MIT press, 2010.
WOOLDRIDGE, J. M. Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. [s.l.] Nelson Education,
2015.
WU, R., YANG, D., CHEN, J. Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited. Sustainability, v. 6, n. 7, p.
4200–4226, 2014.
WU, S. R. et al. Causality in social life cycle impact assessment (SLCIA). The International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment, v. 20, n. 9, p. 1312–1323, 2015.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 71

Thema
 Anna Furberg Session 1D

Using DALY for Assessing Human Health Impacts

of Conflict Minerals
Anna Furberg, Rickard Arvidsson, Sverker Molander

Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg (Sweden)

Introduction
The mining and trade of conflict minerals, including tin (Sn), tantalum (Ta), tungsten
(W) and gold (Au) (together called 3TG), are financing civil wars and violent conflicts in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The revenues from the illegal trade of 3TG
minerals are in the order of hundreds of millions of US dollars per year (Young, 2015).
Since 2010 in the United States (US), companies listed on the US stock exchanges are
required to report any use of 3TGs in their products in accordance with the Dodd-Frank
act (Young, 2015). Other minerals, including copper (Cu), cobalt (Co) and diamond
are also being mined in the DRC and have been associated with the conflict (Parsmo,
2015). These seven minerals will therefore all be referred to as conflict minerals in
this study. These minerals are found in many different products, such as electronics,
cemented carbides, chemicals and jewelry. Thus, there is a need to consider human
health impacts of conflict minerals in social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Several
studies have developed and applied approaches for assessing human health impacts
in SLCA, including impacts from economic inequality (Bocoum et al., 2014), income
and tax revenues (Feschet et al., 2013), accidents and preventions thereof (Arvidsson
et al., 2016), and chemical pollutants (Arvidsson et al., 2016). These approaches use
either the disability-adjusted life years (DALY) indicator, life expectancy or infant
mortality to quantify results. The DALY indicator was developed in the 1990s for the
World Health Organization and the World Bank and is often used to quantify impacts
on human health, e.g. in studies of the global burden of disease. So far, initial studies
have calculated human health impacts related to conflict minerals in terms of DALY.
An example is the study of a golden ring by Parsmo (2015), where it was concluded
that the conflict mineral dominated the life cycle human health impact. The aim of
this study is to conduct an improved calculation of human health impacts of conflict
minerals, applying the DALY indicator.

Method
DALY provides a measure of the number of years lost due to disability or premature
death (Murray, 1994). Its intended use is to support prioritization of health care and
research as well as to identify disadvantaged groups and provide a basis for health-
related efforts in terms of intervention, evaluation and planning. A number of social
preferences are incorporated in DALY through the application of a standard life
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

72 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Anna Furberg Session 1D

expectancy, disability weighting, as well as through the inclusion of age-weighting

and discounting (Murray,1994). The standard life expectancy provides a measure of
the number of years that a person could have lived for the case of premature death. For
the case of disability, the standard life expectancy provides a measure of the average
time lived with a disability until the disability changes or leads to death. Disability
weights are required in order to be able to compare years lost due to premature death
and disability. These weights have a value between 0, implying perfect health, and 1,
implying death. Age-weighting and discounting can be applied in the calculation of
DALY in order to incorporate social preferences related to the time lived at different
ages and at different times, respectively. Anand and Hanson (1997) criticize DALY, for
example the application of disability weights. Their criticism is due to the inability
of these weights to consider the varying capacity of different persons to cope with
disability and the systematic bias against persons with a permanent disability. Thus,
methodological choices in the application of DALY need to be carefully considered
and transparently presented.

In this study, DALY for a conflict mineral i based on data from time period j (DALYij)
[years/kg] was calculated using the following equation, including only premature
deaths and not cases of disability:
Nj ×(LEXj -Lj )×Pij
Eq. 1 DALYij =
i Pij ×mij

where N is the number of premature direct deaths in the DRC due to the conflict [-],
LEX is the national life expectancy [year], L is the average age at death [year], P is the
average global market price [USD/kg] and m is the virgin production in DRC [kg]. Data
for N was obtained from the Uppsala conflict data program (UCDP, 2018), data for P
and m for all minerals were obtained from the United States Geological Survey with
exception for diamond for which data was obtained from KP (2018), L is based on
Parsmo (2015), and data for LEX was obtained from the World Bank. Two scenarios
were constructed by considering different minerals as conflict minerals: i) an inclusive
scenario with i = {Sn, Ta, W, Au, Cu, Co, diamond} following Parsmo (2015), and ii) a
scenario considering only the 3TG minerals as conflict minerals, thus with i = {Sn, Ta,
W, Au}, following the US Dodd-Frank Act (Young, 2015). The time period j was set to
2010-2014, representing the latest data for the region, thus providing a probable
estimate of the continued situation in the near future. Parameter uncertainties were
considered for N, LEX and L by selecting the average, lowest and highest value for each
parameter during the time period while uncertainties in m and P were considered in
the same way but for each mineral, respectively. Age-weighting and discounting were
not applied.

Results and discussion

Resulting human health impacts of conflict minerals are presented per kg in Figure
1 for the two scenarios, with error bars to illustrate parameter uncertainties, and in
more detail in Table 1. Minerals with a high economic value that are produced in
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 73

Thema
 Anna Furberg Session 1D

smaller quantities,
1.E+01 i.e. diamond and Au, are associated with the highest human health
impacts in both scenarios. In the inclusive scenario, the DALY of diamond and Au are
1.E+00
more than two orders of magnitude higher than for the other minerals. In the 3TG
scenario,1.E-01
the DALY of Au is also at least two orders of magnitude higher than those
of Sn, Ta and W. The difference in results between the inclusive scenario and the 3TG
DALY
scenario
[year/kg]
shows that the selection of minerals to be considered as conflict minerals
1.E-02
clearly affect the magnitude of the results, being approximately seven to eight times
1.E-03
higher for the 3TG minerals in the 3TG scenario compared to the inclusive scenario. As
indicated1.E-04
by the error bars (Figure 1), parameter uncertainties are important given the
logarithmic scale. Further investigations of the associated uncertainty are therefore
recommended.1.E-05
Cu Sn Co W Ta Diamond Au Sn W Ta Au

These results provide a foundation Inclusive

for the inclusion of impacts on human 3TG health from

the use of conflict

Source: minerals
Made by Anna in Arvidsson
Furberg, Rickard SLCA and studies of products
Sverker Molander. containing
Based on calculations such
described in the minerals.
extended abstract.

Figure 1: DALY per conflict mineral for (i) an inclusive scenario following Parsmo (2015) and (ii) a 3TG scenario
following the Dodd-Frank Act (Young, 2015). The minerals are copper (Cu), tin (Sn), cobalt (Co), tungsten (W),
tantalum (Ta), diamond and gold (Au). Note the logarithmic scale.

Additional information required in order to calculate human health impacts from the
use of conflict minerals for specific products is what share of the minerals in a specific
product that is from the DRC. In this study, all premature deaths are allocated to the
minerals, which results in an overestimation of the DALY from the conflict. However,
the exclusion of disabilities, due to lack of data, provides an underestimation of the
DALY from the conflict. In addition, the direct deaths may only constitute 5-20% of the
total casualties of the conflict in the DRC (Checchi et al., 2017), which also includes e.g.
increased mortality due to infrastructural damages. Additional human health impacts
from the mining of conflict minerals, such as occupational accidents during artisanal
mining and the use of mercury during mining of gold specifically (Parsmo 2015), may
also be of high magnitude and should therefore also be considered in SLCA studies of
products containing conflict minerals.

Conclusions and future developments

Human health impacts related to conflict minerals mined in the DRC have been
calculated in this study, showing comparatively high impacts for Au and diamond.
Depending on methodological decisions, such as which minerals are considered
conflict minerals, as well as uncertainties in input parameters, the magnitude of the
human health impacts of specific conflict minerals vary. The results from this study
can, if methodological choices are described in a transparent manner, be applied by
SLCA practitioners in order to assess impacts on human health related to the use of
conflict minerals in specific products.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

74 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Anna Furberg Session 1D

Inclusive scenario
DALY [year/kg]
Mineral
Base case Low value High value
Cu 5.0E-05 2.7E-05 7.2E-05
Sn 1.7E-04 8.5E-05 2.8E-04
Co 2.1E-04 1.1E-04 3.2E-04
W 2.8E-04 1.0E-04 4.6E-04
Ta 1.7E-03 5.5E-04 2.7E-03
Diamond 2.8E-01 1.7E-01 3.4E-01
Au 3.0E-01 1.5E-01 4.4E-01
3TG scenario
Sn 1.5E-03 7.2E-04 1.8E-03
Ta 2.4E-03 8.6E-04 3.0E-03
W 1.5E-02 4.6E-03 1.8E-02
Au 2.5E+00 1.3E+00 2.9E+00

Table 1: DALY per conflict mineral for (i) an inclusive scenario following Parsmo (2015) and (ii) a 3TG scenario
following the Dodd-Frank Act (Young, 2015). The minerals are copper (Cu), tin (Sn), cobalt (Co), tungsten (W),
tantalum (Ta), diamond and gold (Au).

References
Anand, S, Hanson, K, 1997. Disability-adjusted life years: A critical review. J. Health Econ. 16:
685-702.
Arvidsson, R, Hildenbrand, J, Baumann, H, Nazmul Islam, KM, Parsmo, R, 2016. A method for
human health impact assessment in social LCA: lessons from three case studies. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. In press.
Bocoum, I, Macombe, C, Revéret, J-P, 2015. Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in
income inequality caused by life cycles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20(3), 405-417
Checchi, F, Warsame, A, Treacy-Wong, V, Polonsky, J, van Ommeren, M, Prudhon, C, 2017. Lancet.
390(10109), 2297-2313
Feschet, P, Macombe, C, Garrabé, M, Loeillet, D, Saez, A, Benhmad, F, 2013. Social impact
assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18(2), 490-503
KP. 2018. (Kimberley Process) Democratic Republic Congo. Accessed 10 January 2018, <https://
www.kimberleyprocess.com/en/democratic-republic-congo>
Murray, CJL 1994. Quantifying the burden of disease: The technical basis for disability-adjusted
life years. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 72: 429-445.
Parsmo, R 2015, The blood wedding ring - assessing the life cycle lives lost in jewelry
production. Division of environmental systems analysis, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden.
UCDP. 2018. (Uppsala Conflict Data Program) DR Congo (Zaire). Accessed 10 January 2018,
<http://ucdp.uu.se/#country/490>.
Young, SB 2015. Responsible sourcing of metals: certification approaches for conflict minerals
and conflict-free metals. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1-19.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 75

Thema
 Mery Jacques Session 1D

Perspectives in the application of

social life cycle analysis to waste management
Mery Jacques

Irstea, ELSA group (France)

Introduction
Economic activities, hence exchange of energy, matter and information induce waste,
i.e. finally unwanted (and thermodynamically induced) stuff by its holder. Since
this rejection property is not intentional by the holder, this can be defined from an
economic viewpoint as one induced externality of any exchange. However, in some
cases, other people or organisations are interested by gaining what is waste for its
holder : waste for the ones sometimes become resource for the others. What becomes
waste is then interesting for life cycle thinking and analyses of value chains, at the
local scale (typically organic waste) as well as at more global scales (typically specific
industrial waste). An ultimate waste may be described like any waste no more asked
for by anyone inside the accessible area of the poorest individuals in a given society
(what is waste in a society may often be a resource for another one if there are perfect
information and no transport costs). Hence, ultimate waste does exist and needs to be
treated, from open dumps in individual or collective back-yards to technical processes
(incineration, methanisation, engineered landfills...).

In these latter cases, one can observe life-cycles inside the waste industries (since
waste treatments sometimes generate hopefully valuable secondary materials or
energy but also new unwanted waste, like fly ash from incinerators), which can be an
analog to the small cycle of water (the technical treatments) compared to the great
cycle of water (the industrial and domestic metabolisms). Environmental life cycle
analysts early noticed this dual scale : one find environmental LCA of value-chain
product where waste is an impact of the industrial or domestic metabolisms (often
quantified through the emissions of the technical processes of waste treatment), and
other more specific environmental LCA inside the waste sphere devoted to the flows
and impacts of the technical process of waste treatment themselves (landfill leachate
studied as waste from waste for instance). Since some materials are recycled in energy
or matter, and other not, this creates open loops which makes crucial the definition of
the system and the allocation procedures. Sometimes, the induced flows occur very
late after the occurrence of commercial value chains or even after waste treatment
(leachate leakage from landfills, radioactive particles from long life nuclear waste),
which rises some temporal and even ethical questions (Mery, 2010).

All these methodological and even ethical problems have been analysed in the 1990s
and 2000s and are now well known (while not fully solved) from the environmental
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

76 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Mery Jacques Session 1D

LCA community. What will be on interest here is the corresponding problems of waste
life cycles from a social viewpoint. We will show the specificity of waste from this social
viewpoint, then we will analyse the paradigms and compare the methodologies of
social LCA applied to the specific value chain of waste.

A social definition of waste

Since waste is what people or organisations don’t want anymore, the definition of
waste is fundamentally linked to human preferences. Waste is negatively defined,
which induces, economically speaking, a negative price for its holder : there is a
willingness to pay for throwing it, which creates a singular exchange property : the
sense of payment is the same that the sense of the material flow. One consequence
is that if some people or organisation are interested in (even without any payment),
a flow can easily occur, possibly through intermediaries who know how to capture
the potential “waste rent”. Note that this flow has sometimes an illegal character
due to national requirements of autonomy of waste treatments or limitation of
environmental impacts, or else environmental justice considerations (see the
Bale convention for industrial waste or the highly surveyed nuclear waste in OECD
countries). This is why waste can be stolen (for instance from household recycling
centres in developed countries and landfills in developing ones) and, above all for our
purpose, why marginal people live through (waste a low value resource) and within
waste, and finally can be seen as “human waste”, naturalising socially what initially was
economic conditions, as History and some NIMBY (Not In My Back-yard) cases showed
in some circumstances.

Social impacts in waste management

From an occidental viewpoint and living standard, there are obvious negative social
effects of waste management in developing countries : Probo Koala affair in Abidjan,
wire burning from electronic waste in Ghana, vehicles or computers which should be
dismantled in Europe getting a second life or death in Africa or India, ship dismantling
on Indian coasts, people living on landfills or from insecure waste picking in south
America, surface water seeming more to be a waste than a resource, or even advocacy
coalitions between Northern industries and southern mafias in Italy, etc. As for child
labour, the question is to build an evaluation from a more or less consensual value
judgement (possibly expressed by votes inside international institutions) or from
impact evaluation, then using indicators coming from the social sciences (human
and social capital, capabilities). In some cases, what may seem immoral by the ones
may be seen efficient by the others, and conversely. What is common between type
1 and type 2 social LCA is the need to define the cycles of interest (small ones inside
the waste sector, or large ones finishing at the end of life of products, which will be
detailed hereafter) and the stakeholders.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 77

Thema
 Mery Jacques Session 1D

Actors of the value chain: waste producers

The producers of organic and non dangerous domestic waste : the agricultural sector
recycle most of its wastes, the technical and human loops are quite closed and often
quite short (waste employees can even be the same than the waste producers).
Downstream sectors (restaurants, retail, consumers) use waste treatment services,
from collection to final disposal in compost or methanisers (less and less in landfills
in European countries). This lead to more or less formal local employment, and
sometimes to NIMBY effects, through the local environmental and social impact of
waste installations (odours, traffic). Forest and paper industries use sometimes larger
loops (up to intercontinental business, like used paper from Europe to China, up to
recently), giving employment at wider scales and countries.

The producers of industrial waste sometimes operate inside private markets not well
known by public authorities and some sectors are prone to informal or illegal activities
(construction and demolition waste, electronic waste, end of life vehicles, oil and gas).
Some materials need heavy technologies for treatment (metals, dangerous waste)
and justify international value chains on specific utilities while construction and
demolition waste use more local and diffuse facilities. Social impacts of these value
chains, especially collection and sorting, can then be geographically very diffuse as
well as quite concentrated.

Producers have a general responsibility in the generation of waste, which is still a

negative externality : despite the jobs created (see below), one sustainable way of
production anywhere in the world is clearly to avoid waste upstream (eco-design,
foodwaste preventing policies), and the social impacts of the modes of production
should be evaluated. For instance the French electro-nuclear sector (and all electricity
consumers downstream) are the cause of the distress or conflicts in the local
community which will have to “welcome” forever the long live radioactive wastes.

Actors of the value chain: collection and sorting

Environmental sustainability requires reducing final waste treatment like landfill and
incineration without any energy capture, hence recycling. This needs more processes
upstream, dedicated to collection schemes (different material flows). The sorting
can be done upstream by the producer (who incurs social impacts in families and
economic impacts in firms) or downstream in more and more automated sorting
plants. This has social impacts too, since sorting was a typical employment source for
marginalised people. About 150 years ago, the préfet Poubelle has already removed
the resource of Parisian scavengers by preventing them to collect and sort manually
the domestic waste, now encapsulated in “poubelles”. The same problems occur now
in South America, where modern sorting plants threat the resource of scavengers.

Local communities

One specificity of waste is that it is unwanted, for its holder by definition, and often
for the neighbours of the waste. The image of waste, especially those of others, is
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

78 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Mery Jacques Session 1D

quite negative indeed, explaining the NIMBY syndrome. Procedural aspects (the
way decision and location of plants are made by public or private authorities) can
enhance the substantive negative aspects (odours, noise, traffic...). Until now, NIMBY
conflicts seemed located to developed countries. But more and more conflicts may
come from the middle class of developing countries. The participative turn of some
democracies (especially South American ones) should increase the importance of
local communities in the neighbourhood of waste treatment facilities

Workers and employment in waste management:

from multinational firms to individual scavengers
There is an astonishing variety of contracts for waste collection and treatment, from
highly formal ones including ISO 9001/14001 certifications, linking big towns and
multinational firms for decades, to informal day to day scavenging. Even in developed
countries, some marginalised people informally collect some types of domestic non
organic waste (especially metallic ones). More generally, people manually dealing
with waste are not well socially ranked (to say the least) anywhere in the world, but
some local actors (among them NGO) sometimes try to valorise as much as possible
these yet dangerous jobs. The social impact of the end of life of products and the
social impact of the life cycle of internal waste management value chains themselves,
are of considerable interest concerning the working conditions and the balance of
power between employers and employees or buyers and sellers in the waste sector.

Applying social LCA to waste management

There is considerable room for applying type 1 social LCA in developing countries
since marginalised people and difficult working conditions are at stake in the
waste sector, from collecting to landfilling. Interesting social innovations occurred
in South America due to the participative turn in some countries at the end of the
20th century. These should be evaluated. More generally, type 1 analysis and UNEP
methodological sheets (2009, 2013) should be easily applied to some well known
hotspots in developing countries, and some field studies have paved the way, from
social impact assessment (Manhart et al, 2011) to explicit (Umair et al, 2015) or even
scored social LCA applications (Apacarna and Salhofer, 2013). Sometimes, the health
stakes are so high that even type 2 social LCA should be applicable (use of quantitative
health exposure pathways or statistical regressions on unambiguous causalities). Even
in some developed countries, environmental justice and LCC inside the value chain
are sometimes at stake, like the relationship between Italian Northern industries and
Southern mafias. Here, waste management can influence social structures, then causes
or reinforces social impacts. In developed countries, the social hotspots are generally
more downstream : the accursed share or flip side of the consumer society lies in the
final sinks of industrial and domestic metabolism, hence incinerators and landfills.
Spatially concentrated social impacts of these final sinks on local communities lead to
NIMBY conflicts, beginning in the 1980s in North America and in the 1990s in Europe.
They can be one Achille Heel of the consumer society (it is nowadays very difficult
to settle any new big waste plant in Europe, despite continuous material flows still
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 79

Thema
 Mery Jacques Session 1D

requiring sinks for the ultimate waste) or of a sector, like nuclear energy in France
and the USA (while Sweden and Finland have succeeded in the acceptance of local
communities for settling the final sinks of their nuclear energy sector: finding pathways
explaining these differences, probably linked to cultural inheritances beyond some
obvious differences in procedural decision-making, may be an interesting task for
type 2 social LCA).

Conclusion and future developments

From a social definition of waste, we inferred that there are unavoidable social impacts
in waste management. Social LCA can then be applied to the great cycle of matter
(industrial and domestic metabolism) or inside the small cycle of waste (waste value
chain only, upstream management of waste production excluded). In these two cases,
different hotspots and social impacts can be identified along the value chain actors,
especially local communities and workers. Some social impacts may even be quantified
through pathway analysis if relevant data are available and sound methodologies are
used (Parent et al, 2010; Macombe and Loeillet, 2017). There is room for the two type
of social LCA to be developed, even in developed countries.

References
Apacarna, S, Salhofer, S, 2013. Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment
of recycling systems in low income countries : three Peruvian case studies, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 18, 1116-1128
Macombe, C, Loeillet, D,2017. Instruments to assess the social impacts of value-chains, chapter
20 In: Biénabe, E, Rival, A, Loeillet, D (Eds) Sustainable Development and Tropical Agri-chains,
Editions Quae, Versailles 257-265
Manhart A, Osibanjo O, Aderinto A, Prakash S, 2011. Informal e-waste management in Lagos,
Nigeria – socio-economic impacts and feasibility of inter-national recycling co-operations. Final
report of component 3 of the UNEP SBC E-waste Africa Porject
Mery, J, 2010. L'éthique environnementale dans les outils d'évaluation économique et
environnementale : application à l'équité intergénérationnelle et à la gestion des déchets,
VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [En ligne], Volume 10 Numéro
1 | avril 2010, mis en ligne le 10 mai 2010, consulté le 12 janvier 2018. URL : http://journals.
openedition.org/vertigo/9620 ; DOI : 10.4000/vertigo.9620
Parent, J, Cucuzzella, C, Revéret, JP. 2010, Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods
according to their outcomes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15(2): 164-171.
Umair S, Björklund A, Ekerner Petersen E, 2015. Social impact assessment of informal recycling
of electronic ICT waste in Pakistan using UNEP SETAC guidelines, Recources Conservation and
Recycling, 95, 46-57
UNEP, 2009. Guidelines for the Life-Cycle Assessment of Products
UNEP, 2013. The Methodological Sheets for Sub-categories in Social Life-Cycle Assessment
(S-LCA)

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

80 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 K. Abeliotis Session 1E

Social LCA of sorting centres for WEEE reuse in Greece

K. Abeliotis, C. Chroni, A. Tragaki, K. Lasaridi

Harokopio University, School of Environment, Geography and Applied Economics, Athens (Greece)

Introduction
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) or e-waste is one of the fastest
growing waste streams worldwide. More than 40 million tonnes of e-waste are
created globally each year. The management and disposal of these kind of waste is
complex and sometimes related to illegal e-waste trade towards developing countries
(European Commission, 2017).

Moreover, in the European context for WEEE management, the amended EU Waste
Framework Directive introduced definitions for ‘reuse’ and ‘preparing for reuse’.
‘Reuse’ means any operation by which products or components that are not waste are
used again for the same purpose for which they are conceived. ‘Preparing for reuse’
means checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or
components of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be
reused without any other pre-processing.

Reuse
WEEE Sorting
collection centre
Recycling

Figure 1: Focus of the LIFE+ ReWeee project.

However, despite the enhanced legislative framework, the actual quantities of WEEE
collected and reported reused and prepared for reuse in 2012 in the EU correspond
to 2% of the total WEEE collected. The UK, Germany and France lead the way
(European Commission, 2017). Reused WEEE, and prepared for reuse WEEE in Greece
is reported to be 0% for 2012 (European Commission, 2017). In order to enhance the
public perception towards the reuse of electric appliances and the prevention of
WEEE generation, an initiative has been undertaken by a group of partners, which
is implemented via the LIFE+ ReWeee project (ReWEEE, 2017). The project aims to
prevent the generation of WEEE. In order to achieve this objective, two WEEE sorting
centers will operate for the first time in Greece, in the wider region of Attika in southern

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 81

Thema
 K. Abeliotis Session 1E

Greece, and central Macedonia on northern Greece, respectively. The core activity of
those centers is the collection, the storage and the sorting of WEEE depending on their
condition and then their preparation for reuse or treatment (see Figure 1). Currently,
the two centers are in the development stage, i.e. they are not operating.

The aim of this manuscript is the presentation of the key parameters that need to be
taken into account in order to assess the social impact resulting from the operation of
the two sorting centers for WEEE reuse in Greece via means of S-LCA.

The social impacts of electrical and electronic

equipment
As the full supply chain of an electrical or electronic product is very complex, it will
be simplified into the following life cycle stages (Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden, 2013):

• Resource extraction
• Refining and processing of raw materials
• Manufacturing and assembly (including manufacturing of components, assembly
of complex components and final assembly)
• Marketing and sales
• Use (i.e. customer relations)
• Recycling and disposal

transport transport transport transport transport

Material Material
Manufacturing Use Collection Disposal
extraction forming

Figure 2: The life cycle of an EEE product.

The aforementioned life cycle of EEE extents across different regions of the World (see
Figure 2). Raw materials are extracted from different quarries, manufacturing and
assembly take place, typically in Asia, while the use phase takes place in Europe. The
recycling of WEEE takes place within the geographical context of the use phase while
the final disposal takes place, mostly, in different parts of the developing world. Note
also that among the life cycle stages of EEE depicted in Figure 2, transportation of
materials and equipment plays also a pivotal role.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

82 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 K. Abeliotis Session 1E

Therefore, social impacts are generated throughout the supply chain of an EEE. The
following lines outline the social impacts resulting from the operation of a WEEE
collection and sorting centre in the entire supply chain of an electrical or electronic
appliance:

• Collection of WEEE requires personnel. Therefore it has a positive social impact

since it generates new jobs
• Sorting of WEEE for preparation for reuse requires the employment of personnel
which has a positive impact at the local level for the creation of jobs.
• Repair of recovered appliances generates jobs at the local level, which is a positive
social impact.
• Reuse of EEE extends the life span of appliances. Therefore the demand for
new appliances is reduced in the geographical context where appliances are
manufactured or assembled.
• Lower demand of appliances affects also negatively all the other stages in the
supply chain of electrical and electronic equipment (transportation, use, collection).

Proposed parameters for the S-LCA

of the WEEE sorting centres
In the following paragraphs, the key parameters required for the social life cycle
assessment of the two sorting centers will be outlined.

Goal and scope definition

The study does not include the social impact from electricity generation and other
inputs of a supporting kind, nor did it include the social impacts related to transport.
These activities also have social impacts, but are not covered within the framework of
this study.

Functional unit

The functional unit in the study is the operation of a sorting and preparation for reuse
EEE centre operating in Greece. The case study sought to include the product system
from ‘cradle to grave’ and the impacts on all relevant stakeholders as suggested by the
UNEP Guidelines (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009).

Social life cycle impact assessment

Social life cycle impact assessment is the process by which inventory data is
aggregated within subcategories and categories to help understand the magnitude
and the significance of the data collected in the Inventory phase using accepted level
of minimum performance. Social impacts are consequences of positive or negative
pressures on social endpoints (i.e., well-being of stakeholders). No particular impact
assessment method is proposed in the UNEP Guidelines (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009).
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 83

Thema
 K. Abeliotis Session 1E

In the methodology described in the Guidelines, the social impacts are assessed in
relation to stakeholders and/or impact categories (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009). Each
stage of a product's life cycle can be associated with geographic locations, where one
or more of these processes are carried out (mines, factories, roads, rails, harbors, shops,
offices, recycling firms, disposal sites). At each of these geographic locations, social
and socio-economic impacts may be observed in the following five main stakeholders
categories (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009): (i) Workers/employees, (ii) Local community, (iii)
Society (national and global), (iv) Consumers (at every stage of the supply chain), and
(v) Value chain actors.

The five main categories are divided into their respective subcategories. Subcategories
are the basis of a S-LCA assessment because they are the items on which justification of
inclusion or exclusion needs to be provided. The subcategories are socially significant
themes or attributes (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009). Methodology sheets for each one of
the impact subcategories for public consultation have been released (Benoît et al.,
2011). The purpose of these sheets is to help in the implementation of the S-LCA with
the suggestion of inventory indicators for each stakeholder and subcategory (Benoît
et al., 2011). However, subcategories measurement and the definition of impact
categories are still a challenge.

In our case, and since the sorting centres are not operating, in order to assess the
social impact of the operation of the two sorting centers, the following key parameters
(subcategories) are proposed for each one of the stakeholders:

• Workers: relevant parameters: health and safety; fair wages; no child labor;
appropriate working hours; freedom of association; work-related health problems;
number of accidents; gender pay gap;
• Local community: healthy and safe living conditions; security; land and property
rights;
• Society: full time jobs; part time jobs; male and female employment; safe
environment;
• Consumers: healthy and safe products;
• Value chain actors: corporate social responsibility actions; rate of appliances
production; rate of appliances trade;

More specifically the operation of the two sorting centers in Greece is expected to:

• increase male and female employment rates, especially among low-skills workers;
• increase demand for part-time jobs and thus provide employment opportunities
to specific age-groups (elder workers, young adults);
• enhance ICT use among less privileged social groups; this is of essential importance
given the country's underperformance in ICT use and diffusion, as described in the
Greek National Digital Strategy 2016-2021.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

84 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 K. Abeliotis Session 1E

Conclusions
Reuse of electrical and electronic equipment is among the top priorities in the EU
waste hierarchy. In order to enhance the public perception towards the reuse of
electric appliances and the prevention of WEEE generation in Greece, an initiative
has been undertaken by a group of partners. In the framework of this initiative, two
WEEE sorting centers will be established. In order to assess the social impact of the
operation of the two sorting centers in Greece, the methodology of social LCA will be
applied. The key parameters for the application of social LCA in the field of WEEE reuse
have been presented.

Acknowledgements
The LIFE –REWEEE project is implemented with the co-financing of the European
Commission through the LIFE+ Funding programme.

References
Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds), 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/
SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Accessed 1 December 2017, <http://www.unep.fr/shared/
publications/pdf/ DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf>.
Benoît Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B, 2011.
Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 16, 682–690.
Dreyer, LC, Hauschild MZ & Schierbeck J, 2010. Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 1:
Development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 247–259.
Ekener-Petersen E & Finnveden G, 2013. Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a
case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 127–143.
European Commission. Study on WEEE recovery targets, preparation for re-use targets and on
the method for calculation of the recovery targets. Accessed 1 December 2017, <ec.europa.eu/
environment/waste/ weee/pdf/16.%20Final%20report_approved.pdf>.
ReWEEE 2017. Development and demonstration of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(WEEE) prevention and reuse paradigms. Accessed 1 December 2017, <http://www.reweee.gr/
en>.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 85

Thema
 Leonor Simoes Session 1E

Assessing the Social Sustainability

of Frugal Products
Leonor Simoes1, Sara Russo Garrido2, Ana Carvalho1

1
CEG-IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal)
2
CIRAIG, Université du Québec, Montréal (Canada)

Introduction
In 2010, the expression “Frugal Innovation” was used by Adrian Wooldridge, to refer
a brand new innovation encapsulating changes in all areas of the business model:
product or service design, marketing and supplier’s selection to name a few (Basu et
al., 2013; Radjou and Prabhu, 2015). Frugal Innovation has been defined by Rocca’s
(2016) as:

“Frugal innovations are products, services, processes and business

models that target underserved customers of low-mid market segments
with high-quality solutions at affordable prices. They are developed
in a sustainable and cost-effective manner that minimise the use of
[human] resources, materials and capital in the entire value chain, while
enhancing social value.”

In this sense, Frugal Innovation requires the integration of a set of constraints related
to Social Sustainability, which plays a significant role in its implementation, as frugal
solutions intend to deliver a maximized social value (Khan, 2016). Frugal Innovation
requires a deep knowledge of the market, its opportunities and threats, which is
only achieved with a narrow relationship with the stakeholders. On the one hand,
Frugal Innovation implies a set of changes within the organizations, and there is still
scepticism about it, especially when proposing a link with Social Sustainability (Khan,
2016). On the other hand, social aspects are generally seen as subjective, since they are
difficult to identify, quantify, and measure. Therefore, an analysis of Frugal Innovation
from a Social Sustainability point of view is needed. Key questions are still to be
answered: (1) How both social impact and social value concepts can be integrated
and applied to Frugal Innovation Social Sustainability assessment?; (2) What are the
metrics to assess each of them?. This work intends to answer these questions, while
suggesting an innovative framework (FISA) that integrates Social Sustainability into
frugal innovations’ development and implementation.

Methodology
In the development of the present work, the following methodologies were applied:
an exhaustive and comprehensive Literature Review was first conducted, focusing
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

86 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Leonor Simoes Session 1E

on Frugal Innovation and Social Sustainability; (2) as further and more complete
analysis and conceptualizations were required to respond to the principal questions
of the work, Grounded Theory was applied in defining Social Value, and analysing
case studies and reports; (3) stakeholders characterisation was conducted through
an adaptation of the “Five step approach to stakeholder engagement” proposed by
Business Social Responsibility organization (www.bsr.org), which results into the
Value-Expertise-Willingness method, described below; (4) lastly, semi-structured
interviews were conducted to validate the framework FISA.

Framework development
FISA provides a set of indicators that allow the social assessment of a frugal solution
(product, or service). Its development required four types of results coming from
literature review and grounded theory application: (1) Most relevant stakeholders for
Frugal Innovation; (2) Most significant social assessment areas for Frugal Innovation;
(3) Frugal characteristics; (4) Social Value and Social Impact concepts.

Stakeholders

It was important to perform a stakeholder characterisation to understand the role of

each one in frugal development and implementation, and also to identify those with
higher relevance and significance for Frugal Innovation.

The method Value-Expertise-Willingness (V-E-W) was adapted from the “Five step
approach to stakeholder engagement” proposed by Business Social Responsibility
organization (www.bsr.org). It was applied to identify which stakeholders have
more relevance for and in Frugal Innovation. This method required the analysis of all
stakeholders in terms of their:

• Value, which is decomposed into the Influence a stakeholder has towards the
frugal performance of the company or the frugality of a product, and then into
his Necessity of Involvement into the Frugal Innovation process of implementation
development, or improvement;
• Expertise, whose subcategories are Contribution and Legitimacy. Both intend
to reflect the skills and knowledge a stakeholder has which serve as input to
the company’s frugal performance or frugality of the product or service, and
the meaning and legitimacy of a stakeholder’s claim to engage with the Frugal
Innovation implementation, development, or improvement within the company;
and
• Willingness (to engage) translates the predisposition a stakeholder has to
participate with the Frugal Innovation implementation, development, or
improvement.

The results of V-E-W method provide information on which stakeholders are the
more relevant and significant for Frugal Innovation. Out of the map of stakeholders

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 87

Thema
 Leonor Simoes Session 1E

(Figure 1) it is possible to verify that local community, consumers/users/customers,

and neighbouring communities are the most relevant stakeholders, since they are the
ones with higher value and expertise to the frugal innovation products and services.
Therefore these are the stakeholders who are going to be included in the abstract.

Figure 1: Stakeholder mapping (V-E-W method).

Social assessment areas

As the research on Social Sustainability Assessment evolves, the literature offers

insight of which social areas should be assessed. As this works intends to study what is
different in Frugal Innovation and the novelty it brings to Social Assessment, the input
of FISA is the result of the Grounded Theory conducted after collecting information
from literature, companies and funding entities. This information was organized
according to Social Midpoints (Simões, 2014) and the corresponding Endpoints used
by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): Product Responsibility, Labour practices and
decent work, Society, and Human Rights.

The results of this application on Grounded Theory showed Society – whose midpoints
are: Business Impacts, Community Involvement and Welfare; Community Funding and
Support; Fair Business Operations; Corruption in Business; Stakeholder Participation;
Innovation and Competitiveness -, and Product Responsibility – whose midpoints
are: Consumer Health and Safety; Product Management and Consumer Satisfaction.
Therefore these two social areas are included in the framework.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

88 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Leonor Simoes Session 1E

Frugal characteristics

FISA’s indicators intend to cover the characteristics of frugal innovation. Consequently

each indicator is assigned to one or more frugal characteristics of the product or
service being assessed. Within FISA, the characteristics are represented with symbols,
as referred below. Scholars describe frugal innovations as those solutions which meet
some specific characteristics. Tiwari and Herstatt (2012) use a list of frugal examples
to enumerate their characteristics: low price, sophisticated technology, easy to use,
portable, robust, simple, large-scale and economies of scale, low energy consumption
and emissions, and adequate quality. In the same vein, Radjou et al. (2012) refer the
frugality of Jugaad innovations by its mass production, low cost and price, low energy
consumption, smart use of resources, simplicity and durability. In brief, Roland Berger
(2015) publication presents these attributes organized into six according to the
acronym FRUGAL (functional, robust, user-friendly, growing, affordable, local). Frugal
innovations are functional -star (designed to be practical and useful). Robust- triangle
(lasting materials and maintenance-friendly components); User-friendliness- square
(easiness-to-use and fault-resistance; Growing- rectangle ( volume of people and the
target mass markets); Affordable –circle (cheap price, and low costs of operation);
Local –pentagon (local collaborations to better fit in a budget); Sustainable- cross
(triple bottom line).

Social Value and Social Impact concepts

Within the FISA, Social Value and Social Impact are the two aspects to be analysed
for the social assessment of a certain frugal innovation. The presented indicators are
assessing these two aspects which were defined in this work as:

• Social Value is the perception that the concerned stakeholders have about the products
influence in their individual and collective wellbeing.
• Social Impact is how the company activities, or the product itself, change or
influence each stakeholder in a period of time. (adapted from UNEP, 2009, p.43)

In FISA, each indicator corresponds to the assessment of Social Value – when it is blue,
or to the Social Impact assessment – when it is orange, or to the assessment of both
Social Value and Social Impact simultaneously – when it is green.

FISA

Having the information and results described above, the formulation of indicators was
the step then taken. Literature (Searcy et al., 2007; Vanchon and Mao, 2008; Hassini et
al., 2012) contributed to the choice and definition of each indicator, even if sometimes
in an indirect manner. The practical applicability of the set of indicators was the main
objective of this formulation, so that those indicators easier to measure or calculate,
and those whose data is easier to get, were privileged over the others. In Figure 2, the
first level of assessment of FISA is presented.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 89

Thema
 Leonor Simoes Session 1E

Framework FISA – Frugal Innovations' Social Assessment – Level 1

Stakeholders Consumers, users, Neighbouring
Local community
Areas of Assessment customers communities
Endpoint: Society • Market share • Product lifetime • Contracts with
(1)  (1 and 3)  neighbouring
Midpoints: • Price per average • Direct impact on suppliers (1) 
1. business Impacts, income (2 and 3)  users (2)  • Impact on the
Community Involvement • Site-specific studies • Feedback contacts delocalisation of
and Welfare (1 and 5)  (5)  neighbouring people
2. Community Funding and (1) 
Support • Involvement of
neighbouring people
3. Fair Business Operations
(5) 
4. Corruption in Business
• Value chain entities audited (4) 
5. Stakeholder Participation • Opportunities to cooperate locally (1, 2 and 3) 
Endpoint: Product • Covered needs ratio • Product lifetime
Responsibility (1)  (1 and 2) 
• Substitute products • Educational actions
Midpoints: ratio (2)  (1 and 2) 
1. Consumer Health and • Price comparison (2)  • Product adoption
Safety • Initiatives to raise curve (2) 
2. Product Management and awareness (2)  • Distribution channels
Consumer Satisfaction • Local maintenance (2) 
technicians (2)  • Users per product
• Purchasing (2) 
alternatives (2) 
• Environmental impact (1 and 2) 
Legend: Blue = Social Value Indicator; Orange = Social Impact Indicator; Green = Social Value and Social Impact Indicator
Functional = , Robust = , User-friendly = , Growing/Timely-to-Market = , Affordable = , Local = , Sustainable = 

Figure 2: Framework FISA – Frugal Innovations’ Social Assessment

FISA intends to provide a tool for decision makers in companies to choose between
a product and another, or to have a deep insight on how good is the product’s frugal
performance in terms of its social sustainability. Using FISA, the decision-maker can
assess the product or service stakeholder-by-stakeholder, in each social area The
indicators presented in the matrix assess the stakeholder presented in the columns,
regarding a mid-points (rows) and evaluate the frugal characteristics which are
identified by the symbols.

Conclusions and future developments

Frugal Innovation and Social Sustainability are deeply related, since the former intends
to promote the latter, and by this promotion aims to cover social needs and solve
social problems, targeting a large amount of underserved customers. FISA supports
Frugal Innovation developers in making decisions – assessing the Social Sustainability
performance of the product or service which will contribute to enhancing its Social
Value. Future developments could propose the second level of assessment of FISA,
where the the remaining stakeholders will be considered. In addition, future work
could explore the practical applicability of FISA in companies already implementing
Frugal Innovation.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

90 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Leonor Simoes Session 1E

References
Basu, R.R., Banerjee, P.M., Sweeny, E.G. (2013). Frugal Innovation: Core Competencies to address
Global Sustainability. Journal of Management Global Sustainability, 1, 63–82.
Engel, K., Sebaux, E. (2014). Capturing the Power of Frugal Innovation. ATKearney Insights.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., Searcy, C. (2012). A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply
chains with a focus on metrics. International Journal of Production Economics, 140, 69–82.
Khan, R. (2016). How Frugal Innovation Promotes Social Sustainability. Sustainability, 8, 1034.
Searcy, C., McCartney, D., Karapetrovic, S. (2007). Sustainable Development Indicators for the
Transmission System of an Electric Utility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 14, 135-151.
Vachon, S., Mao, Z. (2008). Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: a
country-level analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1552–1560.
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad Innovation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible, Generate
Breakthrough Growth. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA.
Rocca, F. (2016). Supply Chain Management for Frugal Innovation Product, Master’s Thesis,
Instituto Superior Técnico (Technical University of Lisbon), Portugal.
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J. (2015). Frugal Innovation: How to Do More with Less. The Economist,
February.
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2015). Frugal products. Think Act, June. Report.
Simões, M. (2014). Social key performance indicators – Assessment in supply chains, Master’s
Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico (Technical University of Lisbon), Portugal.
Tiwari, R., Herstatt, C. (2012). Frugal Innovation: A Global Networks’ Perspective. Die
Unternehmung, 66(3), 245-274.
UNEP. (2009). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. United Nations, Paris.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 91

Thema
 Orlanda Grech Session 1E

Social Life Cycle Assessment addressed to the valorisation

of wine production waste and residues – A review with
methodological clues
Orlanda Grech11, Luciano Vogli1, Serena Righi1, Manuela D’Eusanio2

1
CIRSA – Università di Bologna, Ravenna (Italy)
2
Dipartmento di Economia – Università degli Studi "G. d'Annunzio", Pescara (Italy)

Introduction
Italy is the leading country in terms of wine production, standing at 50.9 million
hectolitres for the harvest in 2016. Emilia-Romagna represents the third largest Italian
region, after Veneto and Puglia, reaching about 7 million hectolitres. Against the
above background and the circular bioeconomy framework, VALSOVIT project, funded
by Emilia-Romagna Region through ERDF programme 2014-2020, aims to look for a
sustainable valorisation of wine production waste and residues. Within this project,
and the "Climate-KIC Pioneers into Practice 2017" programme, a review of the scientific
literature which refers to methodologies and case studies on social sustainability
assessment of wine waste and residues exploitation has been conducted to gain
an insight to what has been done so far on this topic on a global scale. Ultimately, a
way forward is suggested through recommendations as to how to improve existing
methodological frameworks for the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) envisaged in
VALSOVIT project.

Review of methodology and case studies

addressed to the valorisation of wine industry residues,
to second generation biorefineries and to innovative technologies

In gathering background to this work, reference was first made to the methodology
surrounding S-LCA, namely Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Product
(UNEP/SETAC, 2009) and Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life
Cycle Assessment (UNEP/SETAC, 2013), and a Technical report on the Social Life Cycle
Assessment by the Joint Research Centre at the European Commission (Sala et al.,
2015). Then a bibliographic research was performed with a list of keywords dealing not
only with specific winemaking residues valorisation, but also with second generation
biorefineries and innovative technologies, in line with the scope of VALSOVIT project.
In analysing the research undertaken, a framework was designed made up of 15 fields
1  Part of this research were done while the author was undertaking an international placement as part of
the "Pioneers into Practice 2017" programme by Climate-KIC.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

92 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Orlanda Grech Session 1E

in order to be able to characterize each research paper, and to extract and collect
the main elements. A relevance index was applied in order to classify the relevance
of research papers according to their value-added element towards the VALSOVIT
project and the further development of the existing S-LCA framework.

From the literature review carried out, no specific application was found in the sector
of the valorisation of wine production waste and residues. Moreover, in all papers
analyzed the approach was innovative and experimental, but not yet comprehensive.
For these reasons, specific methodological indications of a social assessment to the
sector of interest cannot be provided, only general recommendations are proposed.

Whilst the mix of literature analysed revolved around the discussion of the S-LCA
methodology per se and applied case studies, the starting point for almost all research
studies was the utilization of the UNEP/SETAC guidelines (UNEP/SETAC, 2009) and
methodological sheets (UNEP/SETAC, 2013). In assessing the social sustainability
of the system or process at hand, a quantitative, qualitative, and semi-quantitative
stance was taken across a mix of subject areas in various countries. In deciding
which stakeholder categories and subcategories to analyse in relation to the process
under study, a number of authors elicited the participation of experts or stakeholder
themselves in order to get a more direct picture of the issues at stake, even if in this
way an element of subjectivity and possibly bias due to personal choices and interests
can be introduced.

On the other hand, a number of authors relied on secondary data, such as input-output
models and the Social Hotspot Database (SHDB), running the risk of not correctly
assessing the social sustainability of the product system itself where sectoral and/
or country level data is not available and proxies are utilised. Recommendations put
forward in this latter case for further stakeholder participation to validate the results
contrast recommendations put forward by other authors for reliance on local reports
or studies that counterbalance the reliability of stakeholders’ answers. In assessing
the social impact itself, various approaches were undertaken, the most relevant ones
being: Social Hotspot Index (SHI) based on a top-down and bottom-up approach
(Benoît Norris, 2014); Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) (Ramirez et al., 2014);
score system based on fulfilment of social compliance criteria (Aparcana & Salhofer,
2013a); scoring system based on number of issues at stake (Blom & Solmar, 2009);
score system based on weighting factors, or on weighting factors and stakeholder
gaps (Russo Garrido et al., 2016); econometric/process model (Souza et al. 2016). A
number of issues with the current methodology were highlighted, mainly linked to
the fact that the general framework for S-LCA of products along their lifecycle is still
at an early stage (Arcese et al., 2017). These issues include: the need for more fine
tuning for S-LCA to be successful when comparing different products; the need for
considering further aspects pertaining to local context or special situations like the
social responsibility of a company; the need for large international consensus on a
characterisation method for social impacts, and in the choice of social indicators – the
choice of indicators as well as the social assessment method may thus be subjective;
the need to better develop methods to evaluate subcategories.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 93

Thema
 Orlanda Grech Session 1E

Conclusions and future developments

The key message following this bibliographic review is that a balance needs to be
struck in relying on primary and secondary data to perform such social sustainability
assessments within the framework of the S-LCA. Firstly, when making use of secondary
data, reliance on existing data that guides social hotspot identification should be
done with caution. With reference to the Social Hotspot Database, it was noted that
there is need for more sectoral data to be featured and that such SHDBs are to be
updated on a regular basis, including for sectors which are deemed innovative. Also,
when making use of SHI for social sustainability assessment, as based on SHDB, this
approach should be further expanded to include positive impacts (and not only
negative impacts linked to social risks). Secondly, when going for secondary data
and relying on experts’ opinions, caution should also be applied in order to minimise
bias due to subjective choices and sometimes to personal interests. This can partly
be counterbalanced by removing the focus on social risks when undertaking a S-LCA,
and start featuring an assessment on the positive impacts created by a product or
process. In terms of the impact characterization model, it is imperative that weighting
and normalisation is done in a consistent manner based on both experts’ evaluation
as well as globally-accepted social databases and input-output models. Moreover,
other methods and/or frameworks should not be excluded in favour of solely utilising
the S-LCA framework, but rather they should be combined to it, since the final aim is
to evaluate the social externalities that result as a consequence of a product lifecycle,
and this can be achieved by using different integrated methods. Finally, since the
assessment of impacts is dependent on the conduct of the companies involved in the
life cycle, more than the individual industrial processes, it would be recommended to
include a weighting according to an index which reflects the company’s sustainability
practices. This would enable a more consistent comparability of processes across
different companies. Alternatively, the use of a two-layer assessment, based on two
layers of impact categories – both a predetermined, obligatory and an optional, self-
determined set of categories, the latter expressing interests specific to the product
manufacturer – as already utilised in literature is to be encouraged in undertaking of
LCAs hereon, with caution towards subjectivity that can be introduced in adopting a
bottom-up approach towards sustainability assessment.

References
Aparcana, S., Salhofer, S., 2013a. Development of a social impact assessment methodology for
recycling systems in low-income countries. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
18(5), 1106-1115.
Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M.C., Massa, I., 2017. Modelling Social Life Cycle Assessment framework for
the Italian wine sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1027-1036.
Benoît Norris, C.B., 2014. Data for social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
19, 261-265.
Blom, M., Solmar, C., 2009. How to socially assess biofuels: a case study of the UNEP/SETAC code
of practice for social-economical LCA.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

94 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Orlanda Grech Session 1E

Ramirez, P.K.S., Petti, L., Haberland, N.T., Ugaya, C.M.L., 2014. Subcategory assessment method
for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 19(8), 1515-1523.
Russo Garrido, S., Parent, J., Beaulieu, L., Revéretet, J.P., 2016. A literature review of type I SLCA –
Making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, , 1-13.
Sala, S., Vasta, A., Mancini, L., Dewulf, J., Rosenbaum, E., 2015. Social Life Cycle Assessment
- State of the art and challenges for supporting product policies. European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxemburg.
Souza, A., Watanabe, M.D.B., Cavalett, O., Ugaya, C.M.L., Bonomi, A., 2016. Social life cycle
assessment of first and second-generation ethanol production technologies in Brazil. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1-12.
UNEP/SETAC, 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations
Environment Programme, Paris.
UNEP/SETAC, 2013. The methodological sheets for sub-categories in social life cycle assessment
(SLCA). United Nations Environment Programme, Paris

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 95

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1E

Small but Complex: Assessing Social Impacts

on Smallholders in Agri-food Sector
Diana Indrane1, Urs Schenker2, Thomas Andro3, Mark Goedkoop4,
Ilonka de Beer5

1
Independent, Valmiera (Latvia)
2
Nestlé Research Center
3
Solvay
4
PRé Sustainability
5
Sandalfon, Sustainability

Introduction
Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) stems from the concept of life cycle thinking
and seek to capture social impacts of a product throughout the life cycle, from the
extraction of raw materials to the end-of-life. The UNEP/SETAC guidelines define social
impacts as “Consequences of positive or negative pressure on social endpoints (i.e.
wellbeing of stakeholders)” (UNEP/SETAC, 2009). That is, the social aspects assessed
may have a direct or indirect effect on diverse stakeholder groups that are involved
in the life cycle of a product. Five main stakeholder groups are identified within
SLCA: Workers, Local communities, Consumers, Value Chain Actors and Society
(ibid). However, the agri-food sector in low income countries is often characterised
by a predominance of smallholder1 farmers. According to the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO), approximately 550 million farms worldwide are managed by
smallholders and their families (FAO, 2014). It is estimated that smallholders make up
to 85% of the world`s farmers (IFC, 2013), many of whom are linked to poverty and
social vulnerability. Despite smallholders` significant role in agriculture supply chains,
SLCA frameworks and methods have a limited capacity to evaluate social impacts
associated with family-owned businesses. Typically, the impact categories and
performance indicators presented for workers are developed for organisations with
management structure and employees (Fontes, 2016; Arcese et al.,2016). Whereas,
smallholders are independent persons and most of the impact categories are not
applicable to them.

Scrutiny of the available Type I2 SLCA agriculture case studies (Table 1) revealed that
practitioners, typically, apply the procedure described by the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines
1  In the literature, no universally accepted definition of smallholders exists, and typically several param-
eters are used to describe the group. Thus, in this paper term smallholders refer to “Independent persons who
mainly rely on family labour to produce food and non-food products on a small scale with limited access to
resources”. Smallholders can also refer to artisanal fishers, gardeners, hunters and gatherers, and other small-
scale producers.
2  The Guidelines distinguishes two different characterisation models within SLCA: performance reference
point methods and impact pathway methods, or Type I and Type II SLCA methods (UNEP/SETAC, 2009).
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

96 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1E

Author Product Geographical Purpose

Comments regarding Stakeholder
system specification Smallholders, farmers and groups
SMEs
Arcese et Wine Italy To reproduce Workers Specialised indicators
al., 2016 production the Guidelines Local supplied also in the
settings and Communities agriculture step:
integrating Supply Chain E.g. Distribution of
improvements Actors responsibilities among family
tailored to Italian Society members
wine sector Consumers
Petti et al., Tomatoes Italy To present Workers It is noted that not all
2016 implementation Local elements of regionalisation
of subcategory communities are considered by SAM,
assessment Consumers especially in small
method (SAM) organisations
Franze & Agriculture: Ecuador & To “try out” the Workers
Ciroth, Cut roses Netherlands UNEP/SETAC Local
2011 Guidelines communities
Supply chain —
actors
Society
Consumers
Revéret, Milk Canada To assess the Workers, Covers only farm workers
Couture, environmental Local that are not relatives of the
& Parent, and social impact communities producer. As business owners,
2015 Value chain the producer and his family
actors members are not considered
Society to be Workers, even if they
work on the farms.
Agyekum Wild Ghana To assess the Workers Identified challenges when
et al., bamboo environmental Local applying S-LCA to SMEs in the
2016 bicycle and social impact communities developing countries
frames

Table 1: Characteristics of Type I SLCA studies and scientific articles incorporating agriculture supply chains,
farming, SMEs, published between 2010 – 2017

or were set to test the application of the Guidelines. Even when an SLCA study is
conducted at a farm level, farmers or their family members are not included in the
assessment. The lack of recognition could be caused due to the geographical scope
of the case studies – mainly the developed countries. Commercial farms do not face
the same basic development challenges as smallholders do, and are often automated
and run by workers.

To the authors` knowledge, a study on wine production in Italy by (Arcese et al.,2016)

is the only paper focused on including indicators specifically tailored to address family

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 97

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1E

businesses in SLCA. Arcese et.al addressed all five stakeholder groups listed in the
UNEP/SETAC guidelines, but included additional impact categories and performance
indicators. However, if SLCA studies are to address social impacts on smallholders,
there is a need to assess social aspects that are at the lower levels of the hierarchy of
needs.

As the ultimate goal of social LCA is to systematically identify social conditions of

a given product and promote improvement opportunities, it is crucial to address
the most salient issues for all the involved stakeholders. Therefore, this paper aims
to examine ways to better understand and address smallholders in SLCA. More
specifically, it addresses how to improve the SLCA methodology as presented in the
Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessments in order to systematically identify
social impacts associated with smallholders.

Development process
An SLCA method specifically designed to address smallholders was developed
together with the Roundtable for Product Social Metrics and based on the overarching
principles (Figure 1) presented in the Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessments
(PSIA). Literature concerning smallholders` constraints and social issues was reviewed
to determine social topics and performance indicators. Additional inputs were given
by two roundtable member companies - Nestlé and Solvay – that have experience with
smallholder assessments. A vast number of social issues were identified, and the most
essential aspects were prioritised. Once the relevant social topics and performance
indicators were determined, a company`s ability to influence the issue or act upon
the result were evaluated. Impact assessment approaches were established based on
the Theory of Change3 with an aim to assess if value chain actors are promoting good
practices and creating positive value for Smallholders.

Applicability and feasibility of the proposed method for Smallholders were tested on
two case studies. The products chosen for the case studies were coffee produced by
Nestlé and Guar gum derivable produced by Solvay. Both case studies analysed real-
world cases. As the proposed method is a first attempt at assessing social impacts on
smallholders within the PSIA framework, learning about the method was the most
crucial factor of success in both case studies.

Results
Altogether nine social topics were determined for the stakeholder group Smallholders:
(1) Meeting basic needs, (2) Access to services and inputs, (3) Women`s empowerment,
(4) Education and Training, (5) Child Labour, (6) Health & Safety, (7) Land titles, (8)
Trading relationship and (9) Next generation smallholders. At least 2 quantitative and 2
qualitative performance indicators are determined for each social topic. The proposed
3  Theory of Change is a causal flow that illustrates how a proposed set of interventions and inputs will
result in specific outputs contributing to different outcomes leading to certain impacts (Sustainable Food Lab,
2014).
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

98 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1E

Stakeholder Social Performance

Group Topics Indicators

% participation
on employee
Job satisfaction surveys
Impact
and Assessment Results
engagement % of employees method
satisfied with
Workers job

Number of
Training and
hours of
education
training

Figure 1: Key components of PSIA method (Fontes, 2016)

social topics addresses issues not only directly linked with production processes
(Education and training i.e. agriculture practices) but also includes important social
aspects at a household level that are linked with smallholders` ability to work (i.e.
meeting basic needs). Moreover, the social topic ‘Next generation smallholders’
addresses the attractiveness of the profession.

As the aim was to develop a standardised method that is not designed for a specific
geographic region, the list of social topics and performance indicators proposed
for smallholders is limited, but if needed, can be expanded. The method provides a
framework for assessing smallholders within PSIA, which can be adapted to specific
case studies. However, the assessment should focus on material issues.

Results from the case studies indicated that this method makes it possible to assess
Smallholders within the PSIA framework and supports evaluation of products
derived from agriculture supply chains. The scale-based approach allowed to assess
both negative and positive performance and helped to identify potential hotspots.
However, during the process, numerous opportunities for improvement were
identified. Additional guidance on how to manage potential overlaps among the
social topics is needed, and there may be a need to reconsider the importance of
the social topic Health and Safety. Moreover, the assessment process highlighted the
performance indicators and social topics that may be challenging due to lack of data.
For example, food security is a complex assessment and lacks generic data sources.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 99

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1E

Further development
Development of the PSIA method for smallholders relied mainly on literature review,
discussions with the Roundtable members and internal experts in the companies
working with smallholder assessments. Therefore, it may be desirable to review the
method externality to identify further opportunities for improvement.

Due to the time constraints, only one stakeholder group was addressed in the case
studies. In the future, it is suggested to apply the whole PSIA method along the whole
product value chain. Starting from the raw materials and ending with the end of life of
products. Assessment of more complex supply chains would provide insights on the
compatibility of smallholder method with the current Handbook.

In the development process, the focus was placed on addressing smallholders in

agriculture supply chains. Nevertheless, the proposed method could potentially be
applied to wide range of industries with smallholder labour e.g. fishing, informal
recycling, handicraft, building, etc. In the future, it would be interesting to test the
applicability of the method across different sectors.

Development of the PSIA method for smallholders did not include the development
of weighting factors. Thus, aggregation of social topic scores and the total stakeholder
score were based on equal weighting. Weighting factors may be necessary when a
distinction needs to be made on the importance of various social topics assessed e.g.
in the decision-making process. Hence, there are opportunities to establish either
case specific or generic weighting factors based on their perceived importance or
relevance for the stakeholders. The development process could be based on small-
holder or expert opinion. On indicator level, this could be very important for the social
topic “Meeting basic needs’ which is covering 3 separate social issues. Meanwhile,
weighting factors could play a significant role when aggregating stakeholder scores.

References
Agyekum, E. O., Fortuin, K. P. J. (Karen), & van der Harst, E. (2016). Environmental and social life
cycle assessment of bamboo bicycle frames made in Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143,
1069–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.012
Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M. C., & Massa, I. (2016). Modeling Social Life Cycle Assessment framework
for the Italian wine sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1027–1036. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.137
FAO. (2014). The State of Food and Agriculture. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine (Vol.
34). https://doi.org/9789251073179
Fontes, J. (2016). Handbook-for-Product-Social-Impact-Assessment-3.0, 1–146.
Franze, J., & Ciroth, A. (2011). A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(4), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-
011-0266-x

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

100 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Diana Indrane Session 1E

IFC. (2013). Working with Smallholders. IFC publication. Retrieved from AskSustainability@ifc.
org
Petti, L., Sanchez Ramirez, P. K., Traverso, M., & Ugaya, C. M. L. (2016). An Italian tomato “Cuore di
Bue” case study: challenges and benefits using subcategory assessment method for social life
cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-016-1175-9
Revéret, J.-P., Couture, J.-M., & Parent, J. (2015). Socioeconomic LCA of Milk Production in
Canada Jean-Pierre. In Sustainability (Vol. 6, pp. 4200–4226). https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200
Sustainable Food Lab. (2014). Performance Measurement in Smallholder Supply Chains : A
practitioners guide to developing a performance measurement approach. Retrieved from
http://www.sustainablefoodlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Performance-Measurement-
Practitioners-Guide-SFL-2014.pdf
UNEP/SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Management (Vol.
15). https://doi.org/DTI/1164/PA
Wu, R., Yang, D., & Chen, J. (2014). Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited. Sustainability, 6(7),
4200–4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 101

Thema
 Ingrid Kaltenegger Session 1E

The challenge of quantification: Social Life Cycle

Assessment (s-LCA) for advanced biofuel from waste
wood integrated in the steel industry
Ingrid Kaltenegger, Stephan Schwarzinger

Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, LIFE – Centre for Climate, Energy & Society, Graz
(Austria)

Purpose of work
Steel is an essential raw material that directly or indirectly affects any sector of the
economy. About half of the world’s production of about 1,665 Mt in 2015 went into
the construction sector while 16 % were used to produce mechanical machinery.
Another 13% were used in the automotive sector, 11% were processed to metal
products (Worldsteel, 2016). The world steel industry is also a big employer, according
to Worldsteel (2015), about 8 million people were employed in 2014, the EU accounted
for 328,000 jobs in 20151.

Even though there is a substantial economic gain for local communities, large steel
making facilities might hold great conflict potential for employees as well as society.
Low compensation and bad health or safety measures on the one side and massive
pollution of water, air and land on the other side can be sources of dispute, to name
only a few.

The project TORERO demonstrates the first implementation of a technology concept

for creating and using torrefied wood for the production of bioethanol, fully integrated
in a large-scale, industrially functional steel mill. The outcomes will be relevant for
both, the bioethanol end-users and for Europe as a whole through the reduced
demand for fossil fuel molecules and thus significantly reduced GHG emissions.

Besides environmental and economic issues regarding this new process, a special focus
will be laid on social issues (including health and safety) which will be considered in
the whole life-cycle and assessed at a district and regional level at the demonstration
plant location.


Approach, scientific innovation and relevance

To assess impact along supply chains, Life Cycle based methodologies have been
developed over the last years. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) considers mainly
environmental impacts along supply chains, from extraction of raw materials to end-
1  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-805_en.htm
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

102 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Ingrid Kaltenegger Session 1E

of-life of products. In the steel industry LCA is a key tool: It is widely used and most
of the larger corporations have developed their own method. Its application is not
only crucial because of the massive material flows and pollutant emissions of steel
production itself but increasingly used to illustrate steel’s properties as a circular
economy material and its CO2 eq. savings in comparison to e.g. aluminium, cement or
carbon fibre materials. Nevertheless, for a systematic understanding of sustainability,
the societal dimension needs to be monitored accordingly.

Coupling the assessment of environmental and socio-economic issues may support

more comprehensive sustainability assessment of impacts, benefits, and related
trade-offs (JRC, 2015).

However, the practical relevance of sLCA is currently very small. If compared with LCA,
the level of methodological development, application, and harmonisation of sLCA
is still in a preliminary stage and experience with product assessments focusing on
social aspects is still limited. Especially the fact that decisions in an economic context
are mainly reasoned by quantitative parameters inhibits the widespread implication
of sLCA. In TORERO, the sLCA (Social Life Cycle Assessment) methodology is adapted
to the specific challenges and framework conditions of the project (e.g. key social
parameters and aspects) and will be done to identify and describe the most relevant
social effects (e.g. labour practices and working conditions, regional corporate
citizenship, product responsibility). The social sustainability will be assessed during
the project at a district and regional level in the demonstration plant location.

Within the project, social impacts will be analysed quantitatively and qualitatively
according to a checklist for different stakeholder categories (e.g. workers, local
communities, society), different subcategories (e.g. health and safety, working
conditions, equal opportunities) and related relevant indicators. A matrix that has
been already elaborated will be applied to identify social “hot spots” and the options
for reducing the potential negative impacts and risks through different measures.
Finally, the elements of the matrix are checked according to their relevance in the
different production steps for an initial qualitative analysis.

As a first step, the product’s life cycle has been identified and analysed, comparing the
“traditional” production of steel to the new an innovative process where waste wood
is used as a feedstock and ethanol is fermented out of CO from the use of bio-coal in
the blast furnace.

As the steel company involved in this project has started a CSR program some years
ago and has reported on their CSR activities on a regular basis since, the data from the
last report is taken as a starting point for the development of a framework for sLCA:
a meeting with the CSR department of the company which is involved in the project,
has already taken place and data were provided.

For the assessment reference framework the scheme used in UNEP/SETAC (2009) was
used and the stakeholder and impact categories were defined according to these
scheme. At that very moment, the data from the CSR reports is being analysed and
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 103

Thema
 Ingrid Kaltenegger Session 1E

gaps being identified. In a next meeting the identification of relevant stakeholders

and social indicators will be discussed further.

Preliminary results and conclusions

TORERO demonstrates for the first time a technology concept for creating and using
torrefied wood for the production of bioethanol, fully integrated in a large-scale,
industrially functional steel mill. The installation of the new process will probably not
be completed within the next year but preliminary results on the set-up of the sLCA in
this special context will be available at the time of the conference in September 2018.

Acknowledgement
The work is part of the project “TORERO (TORefying wood with Ethanol as a Renewable
Output) large-scale demonstration”. The project receives funding from the European
Union Horizon 2020 program. Torero relates to work programme topic LCE-19-2016-
2017 “Demonstration of the most promising advanced biofuel pathways”. 


References
Joint Research Centre, Social Life Cycle Assessment. State of the Art and Challenges for
supporting product policies, Joint Research Centre, Italy, 2015
World Steel Association: Sustainable Steel. Policy and Indicators 2015, Belgium 2015
World Steel Association: World Steel in Belgium Figures, 2016
Benoit and Mazijn, 2009. UNEP/SETAC: Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

104 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Juan David Villegas Session 1E

Social performance evaluation of an artisanal apparel

brand in Peru using Social LCA
Juan David Villegas1, Franziska Eisfeldt2, Luis Alejandro Taborda3,
Carolina Chanis4

1
SIS Group, Manizales (Colombia)
2
SIS Group, Berlin (Germany)
3
Universidad Nacional de Colombia/ SIS Group Palmira (Colombia)
4
SIS Group, Toronto (Canada)

Introduction
Fast fashion is a worldwide phenomenon of low-cost apparel mass production and
instant consumption that mimics current high-cost luxury fashion trends. This model
poses significant sustainability risks, due to the waste management problem caused
by short life cycles, and poor labour and environmental conditions across the product
chains. These problems are of even more concern due to pervasive opaqueness
and chain segmentation. Against this background, consumers, investors and policy
makers need robust tools to better inform their decisions. Life cycle thinking can
provide a suitable framework to improve apparel industry’s overall sustainability and
transparency. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to measure environmental
impacts of textiles and apparel (Muthu, 2015), and can be applied to internal
improvement processes, sustainable procurement, eco-design, and science-based
consumer awareness and marketing tools1. Environmental labels relevant for the
textile industry can require LCA information and consider environmental effects
across the product chain from production of raw materials to waste management.
Among these: the EU eco-label and the Nordic environmental label (Muthu, 2015).
Notwithstanding these developments, social aspects of apparel value chains are
still underreported and understudied. To fill this gap, Social LCA is a method in
development to assess products and services, in terms of their potential positive
and negative impacts along their life cycle. S-LCA methodological framework has
seen some important developments in the last decade such as the release in 2009
of the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (Benoît
et al., 2010). Up-to-now, S-LCA has been scarcely applied to specific cases in the
apparel sector (e.g. Lenzo et al., 2017). This work attempts to carry out an entire S-LCA
including foreground and background processes by using case-specific data for the
foreground system and generic data provided by the PSILCA database (Eisfeldt and
Ciroth 2017) for background processes. The methodology provided by the Guidelines
for S-LCA will be followed. Therefore, the ongoing work will be described according to
the typical steps of LCA practice.

1  Ecolabels and environmental product declarations

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 105

Thema
 Juan David Villegas Session 1E

Definition of goal and scope

The goal of this work is to use S-LCA to assess the social performance of apparel
products from a Peru-based brand. We will investigate the applicability of the existing
methodological framework (i.e. the S-LCA Guidelines and a commercial database) in
the evaluation of products of small-scale handicraft operations. We will also discuss
the use of the results for marketing and/or as information tool for consumers (’social’-
labelling). One of the roadblocks in this regard, is the difficulty of data acquisition
across the entire product chain. In face of this, practitioners can be tempted to limit
their analysis to the process parts from which they can obtain primary data. Some
authors (Dreyer et al., 2006) have previously contested the applicability of S-LCA at the
unit process level, recommending instead a “company-based” approach based only on
site-specific data, that is closer to corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting than
to life cycle thinking. In contrast, Weidema (2005) does not recommend exclusion
exclusively on grounds of primary information absence (i.e. lack of influence to obtain
reliable data). He suggests that this approach can lead to an oversimplified analysis and
misrepresentation of the product’s life cycle. Instead, he recommends using averages
(e.g. obtained from generic databases) to fill data gaps whenever a company cannot
prove that its process performs above average. The UNEP/SETAC Guidelines focus on
the product and are in line with E-LCA ISO Standards (ISO 14044, 2006). According to
them, process chains in existing E-LCA models provide a starting point for the system
scope in S-LCA. The guidelines propose the definition of an ideal system from which
the actual system to be modelled can be refined in relation to the goal. Finally, the
guidelines´ suggestion is to leave the decision to the practitioner of which processes
to model with site-specific data and which ones with generic data.

In our case, the ideal system is the complete product chain: cultivation and production
of cotton and alpaca fleece, production of fibers and fabrics, apparel manufacturing,
marketing and sales, distribution, use, final disposal and all other material, energy and
services inputs (Figure 1). Based on personal interviews (see next section), we selected
three products among the brand’s best-sellers: a cotton-based sweatshirt, sweatpants
made from French Terry (fabric for athletic use) and a bag from an alpaca blend with
recycled leather appliances. Then, we excluded waste management and use phases, as
the goal of the study deals with decisions at the consumption point. We will compare
our system to a reference: “Generic apparel production in Peru, with equivalent
functionality” (price, size and materials as reference flows). The functional unit will be
a piece of the product sold to an US customer (main market of the operation). Finally,
we will use specific site data for the manufacturing stage and other parts of the chain
where the organization has direct control. For the remaining (e.g. fabric production),
we will use secondary data. In this study, we are also testing the applicability of the
database PSILCA v2.1 (Eisfeldt and Ciroth, 2017) to establish the background system’s
inventory of small-scale apparel product chains. As activity variable, PSILCA uses
worker-hours related to 1 USD of sector or process output. This choice, according
to the developers, is more straightforward for stakeholder category Workers, even
though it is for the moment applied to all indicators. For this reason, our focus will be
on this category. However, we are also including other stakeholder categories such as
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

106 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Juan David Villegas Session 1E

Local society (local employment, cultural heritage2) and Consumers (transparency),

due to their relevance to the goal of the study and the size of the operation. Further
boundary refinements can be made at a later phase.

Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

We interviewed (face-to-face) 4 female artisans from Huaycán (Ate district, Lima)3 and
the artisan’s program managers from the NGO Light and Leadership Initiative (LLI). We
used semi-structured questionnaires to enquire about working conditions and socio-
economic context. We then selected the products of three artisans working full-time
in the program (with steady income derived from their work in 2017)4. These products
were among the best-sellers and were representative of the brand’s materials and
workmanship. All artisans work from home, where they combine their handiwork
with household duties. We interviewed one of the artisans at her home/ workplace
in one of the more vulnerable sectors of Huaycán5 and privately interviewed the
remaining at the NGO’s offices in Huaycán. Artisans are paid per hour of work involved
in each piece, at a rate of S/.5 (slightly higher than the minimum hourly wage in
Perú6). They are reimbursed for materials, which, according to them, is not the usual
practice. Before the program, some of them were housewives, due to the impossibility
of combining family life with work, denying their households of additional income.
Others, previously worked as seamstress in Gamarra (large commute times, conflicts
with family life) or sold their produce to workshops there, at rates as low as S/.17.

Additionally, the artisans and their families benefited from the educational program
provided by the NGO and received feedback from international volunteer fashion
designers. One challenge addressed here, is how to capture those benefits in our
study because, presently, there is no applicable indicator in PSILCA. Consultants of
PRé (Fontes et al., 2014) suggest the training and education sub category. Hence, one
way could be to address the training benefits only in the foreground system. Instead,
we considered the 2017 NGO’s investment in the educational program. We divided
this sum among the 127 women attending the workshops. The corrected artisans´
hourly rate is then S/.5.57; 16% larger than the legal minimum and 5-times higher than
the reported “sector” salary of other the seamstresses (see above). Finally, we asked
questions about their work environment (safety and health issues, infrastructure), and
their ideal household income. The gathered information still needs to be analysed.

2  This subcategory and its indicators are still not implemented in PSILCA. They will be treated in a sepa-
rate paper.
3  There is a total of 7 artisans working for the NGO’s program.
4  One of the artisans, only worked occasionally for the program due to uneven demand of their products.
5  We also accompanied her to Lima’s Gamarra cluster, an urban textile center of wholesalers and retailers,
to procure her materials.
6  S/. 4.8. Minimum wage in Peru is S/.850 per month (http://gestion2.e3.pe/doc/0/0/1/3/8/138872.pdf ).
We assumed a standard 8 hours working day and the legal 260 days working year (http://www.mintra.gob.pe/
contenidos/archivos/prodlab/D.Leg.%20713%20-%2008-11-91.pdf )
7  Considering that materials are not reimbursed

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 107

Thema
 Juan David Villegas Session 1E

Figure 1: Ideal product life cycle of the three selected products

Impact Assessment
For the risk and impact assessment, we followed the method and ranking system
applied in PSILCA to ensure consistency between the foreground and background
system. Table 1 presents a preliminary, non-exhaustive, risk assessment for indicators
related to workers of the manufacturing stage, for an average of the three products.
The reference column shows values of different comparable average products (see
footnotes on Table 1) and the risks are assessed based on the evaluation scales used in
PSILCA (Eisfeldt and Ciroth 2017). To reflect the share, i.e. importance, of each process
within the product system, worker hours will be calculated and used as the so-called
activity variable (Norris, 2006). For the foreground processes, working time was either
directly provided by the artisans in the interviews, or we calculate (an approximate
value of ) the working hours by dividing the product price by the hourly wage.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

108 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Juan David Villegas Session 1E

Subcategory Indicator Unit Risk Assessment

Case Reference
study product
Child labour Children in % of all Risk of child labour No risk (0) High risk
employment, children ages in the sector (13.7)
total 7-14 (process)8
Forced labour Goods Y/N Risk of forced No risk No data (5)
produced by labour in the sector (No)
forced labour (process)9
Fair salary Living wage, USDliv Risk that cost Medium to high risk
per month of living is high (460 to 622)
(ratio of living
to minimum or
industry wage)10
Minimum USDliv/USDmin Risk that salary is Medium Very high risk
(company) too low to permit a risk (463 (300 USD,
wage, per dignified life11 USD, 1.2 ratio > 1.8)
month ratio)
Working time Hours of work h Risk of improper Very high Very high risk
per employee, working hours12 risk (72) (78)
per week
Discrimination Women in ratio Risk of Very low Low risk
the sectoral women being risk (2.2) (1.2)
(organization) underrepresented13
labour force
Gender wage % Risk of unequal No risk (0) High risk
gap wages. (21%)
8 No child labour in the organization. Artisan’s children benefit from NGO’s program and all are in school.
Most of child labour in Peru is rural and is rare in the manufacturing sector (National rate of participation
in economic activities 26.4% in 2015, while the rate for urban children is 13.7%), we will use this as a
conservative token even though the rate for manufacture and textiles should probably be lower than that
(MTPE-OIT, 2016).
9 Artisans worked voluntarily. According to the ILAB database there is no forced good products in the
garment sector in Peru, United States Department of Labor. https://wwww.dol.gov/agencies/ilab Therefore
we gave the sector low risk the No data risk level as in PSILCA.
10 Depending on the assumption for living wage. When asked, artisans expressed an ideal salary around
S/.2000. The lower value is the living wage as reported in https://wageindicator.org/main/salary/living-wage/
peru-living-wage-series-october-2017 (Standard family, two parents + 2 children, 1.8 parents working).
11 "Minimum wages can be used to evaluate the sector average or actually paid wage in a company"
(Eisfeldt and Ciroth, 2017). Includes monetization of educational program. The hourly rate received by the
artisans prior to their participation in the program was set as reference value. Indicator includes the monthly
salary and the ratio of living salary to salary for the company and the sector.
12 Study case extracted from interviews. Values are similar for both scenarios (http://larepublica.pe/
economia/618165-la-jornada-de-trabajo-en-el-peru-es-en-promedio-de-13-horas).
13 From ILOSTAT. Manufacture of wearing apparel (ISIC-Rev.4) (https://wwww.ilo.org/ilostat).

Table 1: Preliminary risk assessment for worker related indicators, Case study vs. Reference products

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 109

Thema
 Juan David Villegas Session 1E

Next steps
More categories and indicators will be evaluated for the foreground system based
on literature and NGO reports, the generic information of the PSILCA database will
be used for evaluating those processes where no specific information is available
or necessary (especially background system). Results will be interpreted through
scenario and sensitivity analysis. Finally, it will be concluded how the method of S-LCA
and the use of a generic database can be applied on a specific textile product, and if it
increases consumer transparency and social awareness. This ongoing study was made
possible through volunteer work. Many thanks to the amazing women that shared
their life stories with us.

References
Benoît, C., Mazijn, B., Valdivia, S., Sonnemann, G., and de Leeuw, B. (2010). Guidelines for social
life cycle assessment of products (UNEP/Earthprint).
Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M., and Schierbeck, J. (2006). A framework for social life cycle impact
assessment (10 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 88–97.
Eisfeldt, F., and Ciroth, A. (2017). PSILCA–A Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment
database, Database version 2.1, Documentation, Version 3.
Fontes, J., Bolhuis, A., Bogaers, K., Saling, P., Van Gelder, R., Traverso, M., Das Gupta, J., Morris,
D., Bosch, H., and Woodyard, D. (2014). Handbook for product social impact assessment.
Roundtable Prod. Soc. Metr.
ISO 14044 (2006). Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and
guidelines.
Lenzo, P., Traverso, M., Salomone, R., and Ioppolo, G. (2017). Social Life Cycle Assessment in the
Textile Sector: An Italian Case Study. Sustainability 9, 2092.
MTPE-OIT (2016). Magnitud y características del trabajo infantil en Perú - Informe 2015 - Análisis
de la Encuesta Nacional de Hogares (ENAHO) y de la Encuesta sobre Trabajo Infantil (ETI) /
Organización Internacional del Trabajo; Servicio de Principios y derechos fundamentales en
el trabajo (FUNDAMENTALS); Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo del Perú (MTPE) -
Ginebra: OIT, 2016.
Muthu, S.S. (2015). Handbook of life cycle assessment (LCA) of textiles and clothing (Woodhead
Publishing).
Norris, G. (2006). Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles - Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 97–104.
Weidema, B.P. (2005). ISO 14044 also Applies to Social LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10, 381–381.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

110 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Sebastian Welling Session 1E

Including social aspects in the sustainability

management of organisations – Implications of the
application of social life cycle assessment in the energy
industry in Sweden
Sebastian Welling, Michael Martin, Emma Strömberg

LCA and Environmental Management, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm
(Sweden)

Introduction
Paradigms have changed and the social responsibility of organisations is no longer
to only increase profits and gain money. As a consequence, stakeholders got more
aware of the impacts organisations have on the world (Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008).
Organisations are expected to carry out their activities in a socially responsible manner
(Foolmaun & Ramjeeawon, 2013).

Social areas of concern are often closely linked to an organization’s management of

suppliers. Larger organisations are more likely to be able to set requirements on their
suppliers and demand improvements within the social sphere (Hutchins & Sutherland,
2008). However, the lack and applicability of practical tools for social assessments
impedes the follow up of these requirements (Sandin et al., 2011). The need for tools
that help prioritize efforts for minimizing social impacts throughout the life cycle, are
particularly pointed out by organisations (Hauschild et al., 2008).

Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) is a tool that supports organisational efforts to
manage and work with social sustainability issues by analysing social impacts from a
life cycle perspective (Jørgensen et al., 2009; Benoît et al., 2010). The analysis helps to
identify hotspots for the improvement of the social performance of organisations and
their products (Hauschild et al., 2008). However, the development of the methodology
for S-LCA is still at an early stage (Jørgensen, 2013) and more case studies are needed,
especially related to the application of the method from an industry perspective (Sala
et al., 2013).

In addition, external reviews, such as audits, certifications or declarations may be

used to increase the transparency of the application of social assessment tools. The
results of these reviews can be used in internal and external communication to show
efforts and improvements in the field. Many stakeholders, including consumers, and
governments benefit from that type of information (Norris, 2006).

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 111

Thema
 Sebastian Welling Session 1E

Swedish case study of S-LCA

In 2016, the Swedish energy supplier Vattenfall AB (2016) conducted a S-LCA for
electricity from its Nordic wind farms. The S-LCA is based on the framework from
UNEP/SETAC (2009), as proposed in a prior study by Welling (2013) and additions from
the Roundtable for Product Social Metrics (Fontes, 2016). Relevant indicators for the
assessment were identified via the Delphi method and aligned to the requirements of
the communication format (Welling, 2013; Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The results of the
study contain both qualitative and quantitative information that were based on the
indicators for sustainability reporting of the Global Reporting Initiative.

The results of the study were published externally as voluntary additional information
of the environmental analysis for electricity from Nordic wind farms. Both results are
publicly available in the form of an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) in the
International EPD® System.

The framework for the environmental analysis in the form of an LCA is described
in international standards, such as the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Additional
communication and calculation rules are set by the programme operators of EPDs and
published in the programme instructions and product category rules (PCR). The PCR
set among others requirements for the inclusion and communication of additional
information. Within the product category electricity, social aspects may be reported
as additional information of the LCA.

Methods
This study conducts a comparative analysis of the communication format and
methodological frameworks of the S-LCA and LCA used for Vattenfall’s electricity from
Nordic wind farms. The comparison of the methodological framework covers the
definition and choice of the functional unit, system boundaries, allocation principles,
data, and impact assessment. The requirements and use of third party verification is
analysed and discussed. A central aspect for the comparison of the communication
format is the requirements and compliance of standards and rules for the reporting
format. The structure and layout of the communication format as well as the use and
impact of qualitative and quantitative information is discussed.

Results
The results of the study show significant differences in the methodology and reporting
format for the LCA and S-LCA. As the base for both frameworks is a life cycle perspective
and an analytical approach, the first step of both assessments is the definition of the
goal and scope of the study. Part of this first step is the definition of the functional unit.
Both frameworks use a functional unit, but the choice of the functional unit differs for
the LCA (generated and distributed electricity) and S-LCA (number/employee). Other
aspects that are typically defined in the goal and scope definition are the definition
of system boundaries and allocation rules. Initially, the same system is chosen for
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

112 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Sebastian Welling Session 1E

both assessments. Due to the difference in the methodological approach, the chosen
system boundaries are not consistent. The variations in the methodologies also explain
the chosen allocation principles. The analysis, including gathering of information and
data for the LCA is focusing on a process level and not as in S-LCA an organizational
and more aggregated level. The lack of process specific data as well as the focus on
more aggregated processes within S-LCA requires a separate approach for the data
collection in the life cycle inventory phase. As compared to LCA, generic and process-
specific data is usually not available for S-LCA, since social issues are often linked to
the activities on an organizational level. The assessments use different databases and
data collection methods.

One of the major methodological differences of both frameworks is found in the life
cycle impact assessment. Within LCA, classification and characterization methods
enable the presentation of results for selected impact categories, e.g. impact on
climate change. Characterization of the results from the inventory analysis is not
done for the S-LCA. The results are instead presented within the chosen stakeholder
categories (workers, local community, and society). The lack of characterization
methods for the S-LCA do not allow for further aggregation of the results.

An important part for the presentation of the results of the LCA in the form of an EPD is
the third party verification, as required by the programme operator. Even though the
PCR does not clearly state that additional information needs to be reviewed, Vattenfall
chose to conduct a third party verification of the S-LCA. The rules for the reporting
format of the LCA are defined in the PCR, including mandatory and optional elements
of the declaration. These rules do not apply for the results of the S-LCA, which imply
that the reporting format is less standardized and more flexible. Vattenfall follows
the framework from UNEP/SETAC (2009) and the Global Reporting Initiative (2016)
for the presentation of the results of their S-LCA. A common approach for the layout
for the presentation of the results for both assessments is chosen, using a Eco- and
Socio-profile.

Conclusion
Different rules and standards in the reporting format impede the comparison of the
results from the two reports and are a potential obstacle for the use of the results
in other applications and sustainability management. Differences in aggregation
levels for both the analysis and the presentation of the results are likely linked to
the objectives of the assessments. In contrast to the LCA, the results of the S-LCA
rather indicate potential social hotspots than to provide absolute figures for selected
stakeholder and impact categories.

Despite methodological differences of the compared frameworks, the combined

presentation and communication of the environmental and social performance
of Vattenfall’s products show that there are benefits from the combination of the
frameworks. Basic principles such as a life cycle perspective and common approaches
in the goal and scope definition facilitate the interpretation of the results from
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 113

Thema
 Sebastian Welling Session 1E

both assessments. More case studies of communication efforts for the combined
assessment of social and environmental impacts are needed though to understand
the effects of using a combined approach of presenting the social and environmental
performance. Further research on the application of a holistic assessment of
social and environmental issues and the use of the results from this assessment in
communication and sustainability management is needed to understand potential
implications and benefits.

References
Benoît, C., Norris, G.A., Valdivia, S., Ciroth, A., Moberg, Å., Bos, U., Prakash, S., Ugaya, C., Beck, T.,
2010. The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! In Curran, M.A.,
Klöpffer, W. (eds.): Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2), 156-163.
Dalkey, N.C., Helmer, O., 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of
experts. In Cachon, G.P. (ed.): Management Science 9(3), 458-467.
Fontes, J., 2016. Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment.
Foolmaun, R.K., Ramjeeawon, T., 2013. Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle
assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius . In Curran, M.A.,
Klöpffer, W. (eds.): Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1), 155-171.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2016. GRI version 4.
Hauschild, M.Z., Dreyer, L.C., Jørgensen, A., 2008. Assessing social impacts in a life cycle
perspective - lessons learned. In CIRP (ed.): CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 57, 21-24.
Hutchins, M.J., Sutherland, J.W., 2008. An exploration of measures of social sustainability and
their application to supply chain decisions. In Huisingh, D. (ed.): J Clean Prod 16, 1688-1698.
Jørgensen, A., Hauschild, M., Jørgensen, M., Wangel, A., 2009. Relevance and feasibility of social
life cycle assessment from a company perspective. In Curran, M.A., Klöpffer, W. (eds.): Int J Life
Cycle Assess 14(3), 204-214.
Jørgensen, A., 2013. Social LCA—a way ahead?. In Curran, M.A., Klöpffer, W. (eds.): Int J Life Cycle
Assess 18(2), 296-299.
Norris, G., 2006. Social impacts in product life cycles: towards life cycle attribute assessments. In
Curran, M.A., Klöpffer, W. (eds.): Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1), 97-104.
Sala, S., Farioli, F. & Zamagni, A. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18: 1686. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-012-0509-5
Sandin, G., Peters, G., Pilgård, A., Svanström, M., Westin, M., 2011. Integrating Sustainability
Considerations into Product Development: A Practical Tool for Prioritising Social Sustainability
Indicators and Experiences from Real Case Application. In Finkbeiner, M. (eds.): Towards Life
Cycle Sustainability Management, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative - Social LCA Project Group, Benoît, C. & Mazijn, B. (eds.), 2009.
Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products.
Vattenfall AB, 2016. Environmental Product Declaration of Electricity from Vattenfall’s Nordic
Wind Farms - Social impacts from Wind power.
Welling, S., 2013. Assessing the Social Performance of Products: Developing a Set of Indicators
for Vattenfall AB connected to the International EPD® System.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

114 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Franziska Eisfeldt Session 1F

Specific indicators and challenges for the assessment

of life cycle impacts on intangible cultural heritage
in South America
Franziska Eisfeldt1, Juan David Villegas2, Carolina Chanis2,
Luis Alejandro Taborda3

1
SIS Group, Berlin (Germany)
2
SIS Group, Manizales (Colombia)
3
UNAL, SIS Group, Palmira (Colombia)

Abstract
Social risks and impacts of product life cycles depend largely on their societal and local
context. A specific social characteristic of Latin American countries is their manifold
cultures. Although upheld in many places, more and more traditions diminish or
conflate with modern trends due to generalized processes. Especially in times of
globalization though, cultures and traditions passed on by our ancestors should be
preserved because they contribute to social cohesion, strengthen the cultural identity
of communities and transmit valuable knowledge in many areas of life. This highly
influences social sustainability.

While global interrelations and supply chains mainly contribute to the loss of local
cultures, companies also have the power to actively promote especially intangible
cultural heritage understood as e.g. customs, traditional crafts, oral traditions. Within
this context, S-LCA seems to be an adequate method to assess the preservation of
cultural heritage. Some indicators addressing this topic have already been defined by
the UNEP/SETAC initiative on S-LCA. However, in very few studies this theme has been
treated scientifically. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to investigate how S-LCA
can contribute to measure impacts on cultural heritage along product life cycles.
Furthermore, the case should identify specific theoretical and practical challenges
regarding indicators, data collection and impact assessment in the field of intangible
cultural heritage in a determined location.

The research question will be examined through an S-LCA case study with the Huaywasi
artisan project for fashion production in Peru. The apparel industry has been selected
because especially textile manufacturing has long traditions in many regions in South
America. By means of stakeholder integration in all LCA phases (mainly by interviews),
relevant indicators and approaches for impact assessment on cultural heritage will
be identified and ways of tradition keeping will be examined. Literature research will
complement and classify the findings.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 115

Thema
 Franziska Eisfeldt Session 1F

Preserving cultural heritage will probably be identified as a multifaceted challenge

influenced by many inherent but also external aspects. Indications determined by the
study should include if and how traditional handicrafts are appreciated and protected.
Moreover, economic aspects are probably of high relevance when traditional
craftsmanship is the main source of income. Expected results of the study will include
such indicators, challenges and first solutions to measure impacts on intangible
cultural heritage.

Conclusions are expected to 1) refer to ways of addressing cultural heritage within

S-LCA and 2) the method´s effective contributions to preserve traditions in South
American cultures.

References
Benoit Norris, C., Traverso, M., Valdivia, S., Vickery-Niederman, G., Franze, J., Azuero, L., Ciroth,
A., Mazijn, B., Aulisio, D. (2013). The Methodological Sheets for Sub-categories in Social Life
Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). Pre-Publication version. Accessed 16 December 2017, <https://www.
lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.
pdf>
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), 2003. Convention
for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Accessed 16 December 2017, <https://
ich.unesco.org/en/convention>
Huaywasi. Handmade in Peru. <https://www.huaywasi.com/pages/about-us>

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

116 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Alessia Acampora Session 1G

Integration between the territory indicator of VIVA

project and the social LCA analysis for the wine sector
Alessia Acampora1, Gabriella Arcese2, Roberto Merli1,
Michele Preziosi1, Chiara Montauti1

1
Dept. of Business Studies, Roma Tre University (Italy)
2
Ionian Dept. of Law, Economics and Environment, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Taranto (Italy)

Introduction
The Social Life Cycle Assessment (hereafter SLCA) methodology follows the ISO
14040-44 standards available for environmental Life Cycle Assessment (hereafter LCA)
in the absence of a specific standard, in addition to the general principles of the SLCA
guideline (UNEP/SETAC, 2009). Social impacts are the result of positive or negative
pressures on the endpoints. For the technical and methodological aspects, it preserves
the setting of the environmental LCA analysis (Arcese et al., 2016). SLCA analysis is
conducted through the identification of five stakeholder’s categories: workers,
consumers, local communities, companies and value chain actors and the relative
impact sub-category. This methodology, being in its development phase, has to deal
with several issues from SLCA comprehensiveness up to address its methodology lacks.
An issue that often emerges is the double counting with respect to environmental
variables, especially considering the integration between environmental and social
LCA. This research aims to discuss this issue.

Methodology
This study, starting from the work of Arcese et al. (2017), tries to integrates the
proposed Social LCA for the wine sector with the territory indicator developed by the
VIVA project. The objective of this study is the identification of the socio-economic
impact subcategories and the consequent inventory indicators definition related to
the five stakeholders' categories involved in the wine production. The main goal is to
enlarge the comprehensiveness of the Arcese et al. (2017) analysis, opening up to the
proposals of private initiatives.

The analysis has employed different typologies of materials for data collection, such
as scholars’ literature, reports and protocols. Initially, to identify the current state of
academic insight with regard to Social LCA in the wine sector, a review of existing
literature has been carried out. The first section analyses the four indicators proposed
by the VIVA project. The data required for the analysis have been obtained by the
program’ protocol. The next section aims at integrating the indicators proposed by
VIVA and the methodological framework proposed by Arcese (2017). Finally, the last

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 117

Thema
 Alessia Acampora Session 1G

section provides discussion, implications and limitations of this study, proposing

future lines of research.

The VIVA project for sustainable wine

and the territory indicator
The most important and comprehensive Italian initiative is the ‘VIVA Sustainable Wine’
project, launched in 2011 by the Ministry for the Environment. This program aims to
measure the sustainability performance of the vine-wine supply chain, starting from
the calculation of carbon and water footprints. The assessment of sustainability in
the Italian wine production is carried out through the use of indicators, tested and
developed during the project. VIVA provides also a software that allows participating
companies to quantify their environmental, social and economic impact, through a
guided procedure of data input. The indicators, based on international standards and
guidelines, cover the following areas: Water, Air, Vineyard and Territory. The object of
the study is the territory indicator. This indicator is a socio-economic one, which must
necessarily be satisfied in order to obtain the VIVA Sustainable Wine certification. The
territory indicator is composed of 31 conditions that require qualitative information,
obtained through the compilation of checklists, which are verified and validated
during the audits. The indicator assesses business activity externalities, taking
into account both the environment and the human community (employees, local
communities, consumers and producers). A toolbox kit of qualitative and quantitative
indicators measures the impact of the actions taken by the companies. The indicators
focus the analysis on biodiversity, landscape, society and communities, in reference
to the economic impact on the territory and on the local community. The guidelines
are the "Sustainability Reporting Guidelines GRI G 3.1" and the ISO 26000 standard on
Corporate Social Responsibility.

The integration of Social LCA

and the VIVA territory indicator
Starting from the Social LCA framework for the wine sector proposed by Arcese
et al. (2017), we confronted the indicators provided in this study with the territory
indicator developed in the VIVA project. Table 1 shows the possible integration
points and shortcomings of the two indicators set. Additionally, we have highlighted
the indicators that seem to overlap with the Environmental LCA analysis creating a
possible problem of double counting.

Discussion and Conclusion

The table shows the aspects covered by the two indicators on a quantitative basis.
Results of the study confirmed the greater coverage of the social LCA indicator set.
However, this set of indicators present double counting problems associated with the
overlapping of social and environmental impacts assessment. To deepen this analysis

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

118 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Alessia Acampora Session 1G

Step Phase/ Stakeholder Impact subcategory Indicator definition

Activity Social LCA VIVA
Agriculture Supply Value chain Fair competition X
actors Promoting CSR X X
Suppliers relationship X
Vineyard Workers Working conditions X X
Management Fair salary X
Health and safety X X
Social benefit X
Equal opportunities X
Professional growth X X
Local Community Access to material X X
Access to immaterial resources X
Safe and healthy leaving conditions X X
Local Employment X X
Delocalization and Migration X
Community Engagement
Society Technology Development X
Contribution to economic development X X
Transformation Supply Value chain Fair competition
actors Promoting CSR
Suppliers relationship
Production, Workers Working conditions
Storage and Fair salary
Bottling Health and safety X
Social benefit
Equal opportunities X
Professional growth X
Local Community Access to material resources X
Local Employment X
Safe and healthy leaving conditions X X
Society Technology development X
Contribution to economic development
Access to Managing Workers Working conditions
Market Customers Fair salary
Orders Professional Growth
Equal opportunities
Health and safety
Social benefit
Society Contribution to economic development
Marketing Workers Working conditions
and Selling Fair salary
Equal opportunities
Health and safety
Social benefit
Professional Growth
Consumers Transparency X X
Consumer privacy X
Local Community Area reputation X X
Local Employment X
Society Contribution to economic development X
Usage Consumption Consumers Health and safety X X
EoL Society Feedback mechanism X
Transparency X
Impact on National Economy X
Consumers End of Life Responsibility X
Workers Working conditions
Fair salary
Equal opportunities
Health and safety
Social benefit
Professional Growth
Local Community Community Engagement X
Society Public commitment on sustainable issues X

Table1: Indicators of Social LCA in wine sector (Arcese et al., 2017) and VIVA territory indicators
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 119

Thema
 Alessia Acampora Session 1G

a qualitative investigation of this set of indicators has been conducted. Results show
that the socio-economic indicator proposed in the VIVA project is more calibrated
on a business logic and developed specifically for the wine sector. The proposed
indicators fully capture the critical social aspects of the wine sector. An integration
between the two sets of indicators would be desirable. Further analyses could explore
the different programs and initiatives, developed by the public and private sector,
and try to integrate the indicators developed in the Social LCA analysis. The key
consideration is to avoid double counting of the same environmental impacts in both
social and physical terms. A primary motivation for the SLCA studies is the difficulty
of aggregating data of different nature (qualitative and quantitative) for the entire
life cycle and knowing that the environmental impact affects the social one. Double
counting can be avoided by using the principle often used in Life cycle costing (LCC),
e.g. by applying the "polluter pays principle" or by using information to make impacts
visible at the time of decision, "internalizing the impact environment in the category
of reference stakeholders” (Swarr et al 2011). This work helps to broaden the study
and assessment of social impacts in the wine sector. Moreover, considering that the
production and processing phases have been divided, this analysis can have positive
repercussions also for other sectors (agriculture for example).

References
Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H. L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., & Pagan, R. (2011).
Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice.
Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M. C., & Massa, I. (2017). Modeling Social Life Cycle Assessment framework
for the Italian wine sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1027-1036.
Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M. C., & Merli, R. (2013). Social life cycle assessment as a management tool:
methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability, 5(8), 3275-3287.
Ekener-Petersen, E., & Finnveden, G. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part
1: a case study of a laptop computer. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1),
127-143.
VIVA Sustainable Wine, 2013. Product Specification of VIVA Sustainable Wine [WWW Document].

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

120 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Ioannis Arzoumanidis Session 1G

Functional unit definition criteria in LCA and Social LCA:

a discussion
Ioannis Arzoumanidis, Manuela D’Eusanio, Andrea Raggi, Luigia Petti

Department of Economic Studies (DEc), University “G. d’Annunzio”, Pescara (Italy)

Abstract
The definition of a Functional Unit (FU) is essential for building and modelling a
product system in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). A FU is a quantified description
of the function of a product that serves as the reference basis for all calculations
regarding impact assessment. A function may be based on different properties of the
product under study, such as performance, aesthetics, technical quality, additional
services, costs, etc. Whilst the FU definition is typical in LCA, this does not seem to
be a common practice in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), even though a FU
definition is required. Unlike LCA, where quantitative data are mainly collected and
processed, the assessment of the social and socio-economic impacts in S-LCA is based
on a prevalence of qualitative and semi-quantitative data, a fact that renders the
assessment to be somehow unfriendly. Moreover, whilst in LCA a product-oriented
approach is typical, S-LCA tends to be a business-oriented methodology, where the
emphasis of the social assessment lies on the behaviour of the organisations that are
involved in the processes under study rather than on the function that is generated
by a product. Indeed, several S-LCA case studies were found in the literature in which
the FU is not discussed, let alone defined. The objective of this article is to contribute
to analysing the criteria used for the definition of a FU in LCA and verifying whether
these criteria can be suitable for S-LCA case studies applications. For this reason,
a literature review was carried out on LCA in order to identify whether and how
this issue has been tackled with so far. In addition, a second literature review was
performed in order to verify how the FU has been introduced in the framework of
the S-LCA methodology. Finally, an investigation of the analysis results in terms of the
selected FU is proposed, in view of an ever-growing need for a combination of the LCA
and S-LCA methodologies into a broader Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA).

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 121

Thema
 Claudia Di Noi Session 1G

Complementarity of social and environmental indicators

and risks. An example of the mining industry
Claudia Di Noi, Franziska Eisfeldt, Andreas Ciroth, Diana Bizarro

GreenDelta, Berlin (Germany)

Introduction
Assessing sustainability across life cycles is a complex issue which addresses
environmental, social and economic dimensions. To get to an inclusive result,
these dimensions need to be evaluated in combination. It is assumed that many
environmental, social and economic aspects influence or depend on each other
in ways that might not be evident at first glance. This work focuses on the first two
aspects and aims at exploring how environmental and social Life Cycle Assessment
(e- and s-LCA) complement and sometimes overlap with each other. The research
question is applied to mining, a controversial industry with great economic potential
and positive effects for local employment, but also risk of significant environmental
impacts.

The common perception linked to the mining industry is negative from both social and
environmental points of view. In social terms (Tuusjäarvi 2013), mining can increase
the employment rate in the region, gaining acceptance if local people are hired.
On the other hand, according to the Finnish programme “Sustainable Acceptable
Mining” (Wessman 2014, 2016), local communities may complain as community costs
(infrastructure, day care, and housing for workers) increase. Furthermore, establishing
a new mine site may cause the transfer of workforce from other sectors. The negative
perception of mining is often linked to a risk of degradation of the quality of the local
environment and feelings of insecurity. In particular, in Nordic Countries (e.g. Finland)
the rapid growth of this sector has raised the fear of negative effects on other national
business sectors, for instance nature tourism.

One of the main issues from an environmental point of view is referred to risks for
water ecosystems (Northey 2016), under threat from heavy metal leakage, acid mine
drainage (AMD), and impacts on climate change due to energy usage and related
GHG emissions (Norgate 2010). Tailings and waste-rock management is another
complex topic (European Commission 2007). Furthermore, it is interesting to define in
what way environmental and social LCA complement each other regarding impacts,
hotspots and risks when referring to a specific case study. Therefore, relevant aspects
for environment and society were investigated within the ITERAMS (Integrated
Mineral Technologies for More Sustainable Raw Material Supply) H 2020 project,
which examines and validates a method to isolate process waters completely from
the adjacent water systems, hence aiming at saving water and water pollution.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

122 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Claudia Di Noi Session 1G

Approach
A first screening was performed to identify relevant social and environmental
indicators, potential impacts and hotspots. Therefore, representative mining processes
related to three different countries (Finland, Portugal and South Africa) were analysed
using the LCA software openLCA.

For the social screening, the PSILCA database was used, a transparent database
containing comprehensive generic inventory information for almost 15,000
industry sectors and commodities in 189 countries. Social impacts can be assessed
by 65 indicators addressing 19 different categories. Regarding these indicators,
data is provided as risks by a scale ranging from no/ very low risk to very high risk.
Furthermore, risks are quantified by a so-called activity variable, in this case worker
hours. This measure allows to determine the relative significance of a process – and
thus the associated risks – in a product system. Table 1 includes the parameters used
to assign six levels of risk to the different social indicators. Characterization factors are
applied for the calculation, increasing exponentially with the risk assessment. Results
are finally expressed in medium risk hours.

For the environmental screening, ecoinvent and EXIOBASE were used as databases.
Furthermore, different impact assessment methods were selected to obtain a
comprehensive overview, namely ILCD, ReCiPe, CML baseline, Boulay et. al (2011) and
EXIOBASE.

As for the choice of databases, the social one was selected for its potential to deliver
results referred to major societal stakeholders (e.g. workers, local community and
society); on the other side, environmental databases can offer impact assessment
from more generic to very specific environmental issues, such as different water
related impacts which are of major concern for ITERAMS. The following steps were
followed for the first analysis of potential social and environmental risks and impacts,
and their complementarity:

• Processes that best describe the mining activities and issues addressed by ITERAMS
were selected in the mentioned databases.
• For the environmental screening, generic data from databases were analysed and
compared with specific data given for ITERAMS. Afterwards, results were calculated
to detect major contributing processes. In addition, differences and similarities in
the impacts for the three countries subject of study were considered.
• For the social screening, potential social risks were first identified by those indicators
assessed by high or very high risk, as reported by mining-related processes already
available in the database. Afterwards, results were calculated for the selected
processes and their pre-chains to assess overall impacts and detect social hotspots.
A comparison with other industries in the country helped to identify especially
relevant risks.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 123

Thema
 Claudia Di Noi Session 1G

Social screening (PSILCA)

Category Subcategory Indicator Unit Risk assessment
Level of industrial y, % risk: 0≤y<10 very low; 10≤y<20 low;
water use (related to 20≤y<30 medium; 30≤y<40 high;
total withdrawal or 40≤y very high
to actual renewable
resources)
Extraction of y, t/cap risk: 0≤y<2,5 very low; 2,5≤y<5 low;
Access to industrial and 5≤y<10 medium; 10≤y<15 high;
material construction minerals 15≤y very high
resources Extraction of ores y, t/cap risk: 0≤y<5 very low; 5≤y<10 low;
10≤y<15 medium; 15≤y<20 high;
Local community

20≤y very high

Certified y, # per 10,000 risk: 100≤y very; 10≤y<100; 1≤y<10
environmental employees medium; 0.3≤y<1 high; y<0,3 very
management systems high
(CEMs)
Pollution level of the y, Index value risk: y<20 very low; 20≤y<40 low;
country 40≤y<60 medium; 60≤y<80 high;
y>80 very high
Safe and Contribution of sector y, kg, emission risk: 0≤y<1E-7 very low; 1E-7≤y<1E-6
healthy living to environmental to air, total low; 1E-6≤y<1E-5 medium;
conditions load 1E-5≤y<5E-4 high; y>5E-4 very high
CO2 emissions total y, kg, emission risk: 0≤y<1E-5 very low; 1E-5≤y<1E-4
to air, total, low; 1E-4≤y<1E-3 medium;
CO2 equiv. 1E-3≤y<1E-2 high; y>1E-2 very high
Environmental screening
Database Assessment Indicator Unit Complementarity with social LCA
method
Resource depletion m3 Level of industrial water use
- water
ILCD Resource depletion kg Sb eq. Extraction of industrial and
- mineral, fossils and construction minerals
ecoinvent

renewables
ILCD, CML Climate change kg CO2 eq. CO2 emissions total, Pollution level
baseline, of the country
ReCiPe
Water depletion m3 Level of industrial water use
ReCiPe
Metal depletion Kg Fe eq. Extraction of ores
Water Consumption m3 Level of industrial water use
Blue
BASE
EXIO

EXIOBASE
Water Withdrawal m3 Level of industrial water use
Blue

Table 1: Main impact categories and indicators with potentially high consequences both on society and
environment, addressed by social and environmental screening carried out in the context of ITERAMS.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

124 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Claudia Di Noi Session 1G

• Together with the interpretation of results, these were also compared to each other.
This way, complementarity and overlapping between social and environmental
LCA aspects could be outlined. Secondary literature research helped to classify
the results and put them into context, especially regarding local and geographic
characteristics and relevant aspects inherent to the mining industry (e.g. water and
ore extraction).

Results and interpretation

Elaboration of results from this first LCA screening shows that there is a number of
indicators that are relevant for their impacts on both society and environment. Arising
from investigation of results, the table below contains the impact categories which
provide a complementary view on the topic. This means that PSILCA reports on
some common environmental indicators with social consequences. In the same way,
environmental databases show how related problems can have an impact on society.

Results of the screening show the significance of water, and related indicators,
for the mining activity. From an environmental point of view, water consumption
and withdrawal clearly affect resource depletion. Furthermore, main driver for the
mentioned impact categories is often electricity production for the three countries
subject of study. On the other hand, results of the social screening reveal the
significance of water use in mining by the indicator “level of industrial water use”.
This indicator represents “the quantity of freshwater, desalinated water and treated
wastewater withdrawn for industrial purposes” related to total water withdrawal and
to total actual renewable water resources (Eisfeldt 2017). Therefore, it is possible to
consider the importance of industrial water use compared to other water uses, but
also the pressure on the renewable water resources. Furthermore, it is assumed that
high levels of water withdrawal are associated with high levels of water pollution that
are linked to different risks for local communities. These risks include health problems,
destruction of local economic structures, for instance agricultural practices, and an
overall deterioration of quality of life. According to the dependence on local water
reserves, vulnerability of local communities can increase at various levels with the use
of industrial water.

Water use in the mining sector is a macroscopic aspect where social and environmental
assessment complement each other. However, there are more indicators where this
interdependency is relevant (UNEP/SETAC 2013). For instance, Figure 1 shows results
of a social and environmental screening for two mining-related sectors in Finland as
available in two databases for social and environmental assessment.

Investigating these interdependencies, extraction of ores and fossil has an impact

on resource depletion, limiting the access to material resources for local community
because of commercial or industrial activities in their regions. Together with the
environmental burden of destruction of material resources, this indicator is relevant
as there are communities which base their life and economy on that and can then
incur poverty, resettlements and local conflicts. Finally, CO2 and other emissions can
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 125

Thema
 Claudia Di Noi Session 1G

Figure 1: Results for different impact categories in PSILCA (left) and EXIOBASE (right) referred respectively to
product system “Mining of metal ores” and “Copper ores and concentrates” in Finland.

also have consequences both on the environment, expressed by the impact category
“Climate change”, and on the society, affecting healthy living conditions of local
populations.

As for a critical reflection on data used, it is important to assure transparency and

traceability. Thus, data quality has been considered when identifying risks and
interpreting results. Another possible reason of uncertainty might be linked to
statistical data taken from several different sources (ILO 2017) to shape the information
in databases. In this case, the risk of creating gaps or poor quality data should be taken
into account.

Conclusions and future developments

The work shows that several issues related to life cycle sustainability of the mining
sector are of both social and environmental relevance. This means that social
and environmental LCA complement and influence each other by triggering and
reinforcing risks and impacts on mid-point categories. Further, a complementary
analysis might also be instructive while detecting hotspots, e.g. those processes
where environmental and social risks are strongly occurring, or associated with risks
with high consequences for the other dimension. The latter investigation has not
been carried out so far within the project. However, it seems to be an interesting point
for future research.

However, it is difficult for social and environmental dimensions to overlap completely

as they express different consequences and characters, although they can investigate
the same problems. Therefore, it is useful to discuss if s-LCA and e-LCA should
generally be conducted together, either in parallel or in a combined method. If this
is not possible for any reason, it appears to be beneficial to complement e-LCA by
an assessment of its social impacts because most environmental risks and emissions
end up in impacts on societal stakeholders (although the emissions are triggered
by human activities). The analysis results can be useful when decisions need to be
taken for product design, benchmarking and planning. In the described project, they
provide valuable input for the validation of the new water efficiency system.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

126 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Claudia Di Noi Session 1G

References
Eisfeldt, F., December 2017, PSILCA – A Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment database.
Documentation, Accessed 13.12.2017, online available at <http://www.openlca.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/PSILCA_documentation_update_PSILCA_v2_final.pdf>
European Commission, 2007, Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for
Management of Tailings and Waste-Rock in Mining Activities.
ILO (2017) Quick guide on sources and uses of labour statistics. Geneva, Switzerland. ISBN: 978-
92-2-130119-6
ITERAMS: Integrated Mineral Technologies for More Sustainable Raw Material Supply, Accessed
12.12.2017, <http://www.iterams.eu/>.
Norgate, T., Haque, N., 2010, Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of mining and mineral
processing operations, Journal of Cleaner Production 18, pp. 266–274.
Northey, S., Mudd, G., 2016, Water footprinting and mining: Where are the limitations and
opportunities? Journal of Cleaner Production 135, pp. 1098-1116.
Tuusjäarvi, M., 2013, From a mine to you – Sustainability of the Finnish mining sector in the
context of global supply chains of metals, Department of Geosciences and Geography A23,
Helsinki.
UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2013): The methodological sheets for subcategories in social
life cycle assessment (S-LCA), Authors: Aulisio, D.; Azuero, L.; Benoit, C.; Ciroth, A.; Franze, J.;
Mazijn, B.; Traverso, M.; Valdivia, S.; Vickery-Niederman, G., online available at http://www.
lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.
pdf.
Wessman, H., 20.4.2016, Tekes Green Mining Programme: Sustainable Acceptable Mining (SAM).
Executive summary, VTT.
Wessman, H., Salmi, O., et al., 2014, Water and society: mutual challenges for eco-efficient
and socially acceptable mining in Finland, Research paper for Journal of Cleaner Production /
Special volume for Mining.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 127

Thema
 Markus Frank Session 1G

S-LCA in agricultural systems – U.S. corn production

as a case study
Markus Frank1, Thomas Laginess2, Jan Schöneboom3

1
BASF SE – Crop Protection, Sustainability Assessment, Agricultural Center, Limburgerhof (Germany)
2
BASF Corporation, Applied Sustainability, Wyandotte (USA)
3
BASE SE, Applied Sustainability, Ludwigshafen (Germany)

Abstract
Social parameters are not addressed specifically in the ISO LCA standards, and there are
no other consensus standards that can be referenced to define the criteria for a social
LCA. AgBalance™ represents an approach to create a social LCA framework through
the identification and use of relevant factors associated with life cycle principles. Even
though there are no industry standards available, the recommendations from the
UNEP/SETAC working group [1] is a starting point. The social assessment in AgBalance™
is based on the SEEBALANCE® scheme for social LCA, which was developed in 2005
by the Universities of Karlsruhe and Jena, the Öko-Institut Freiburg e.V., and BASF
respectively [2, 3]. In an AgBalance™ study, the social impacts are quantified, according
to the functional unit, and aggregated for all up- and downstream life cycle segments
[4]. During the development process, concrete targets for social sustainability for
products and processes were derived. This was done through analysis of more than
60 published studies on the topic of social goals by various institutions. As a result,
more than 700 goals and more than 3,200 indicators were systematically recorded,
categorized and summarized. For AgBalance™, this set of social parameters has been
extended and in parts modified, to address specific agricultural sustainability topics,
e.g., access to land, the level of organization or international trade with agricultural
products. These topics were initially identified through a stakeholder process in 2009
and 2010, organized by BASF, and were subsequently discussed with leading experts.
Feedback from this process was then integrated into the development of these
indicators.

References
[1] Benoît C., Mazijn, B. (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products.
UNEP/SETAC Task Force on the integration of social criteria into LCA. ISBN 978-92-807-3021-0
[2] Kölsch D., Saling P., Kicherer A., Grosse-Sommer A., Schmidt I. (2008): How to measure social
impacts? A socioeco-efficiency analysis by the SEEBALANCE® method. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 11:1-
23.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

128 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Markus Frank Session 1G

[3] Schmidt I., Meurer M., Saling P., Reuter W., Kicherer A., Gensch C.O. (2005): ‘SEEBALANCE®
managing sustainability of products and processes with the socio-eco-efficiency analysis by
BASF, Greener Management International.
[4] Frank M., Schöneboom J., Gipmans M., Saling P. (2012): Holistic sustainability assessment of
winter oilseed rape production using the AgBalanceTM method – an example of ‘sustainable
intensification’?, in: Corson, M.S., van der Werf, H.M.G. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012), 1-4 October
2012, Saint Malo, France. INRA, Rennes, France, p. 58-64.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 129

Thema
 Angela Trivino Session 1G

Integrating odor management tools in Social Life

Assessment in rural area: preliminary study
Angela Trivino, Stéphane Godbout, Joahnn H. Palacios

Institut de Recherche et de Développement en agroenvironnement-IRDA, Québec, (Canada)

Introduction
The importance of the appropriate use of resources, the care of the environment, the
eco-efficiency, the reduction of the greenhouse gases are parameters highly studied
for sustainable development. However, sustainable development requires balanced
integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions. The social dimension
aims to satisfy human needs on issues of well-being, health, housing, consumption,
education, employment, culture, etc. Through the last years, assessing social impacts
is taking increasing interest.

Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) is a methodology under continuous development.

It is defined as a methodology that aims at assessing the potential positive and
negative social impacts related to human beings affected by products or services
throughout the life cycle, such as health, living conditions and labor rights of
workers, consumers, local community and society (Chang et al., 2016). The literature
is abundant concerning workers' health. Nevertheless, there is scarce information
available to determine the social impacts of local community. The social impacts are
usually evaluated by considering the unemployment rate, numbers of accidents,
pollution level, drinking water coverage, sanitation coverage or complaints.

In most agricultural areas, cohabitation between agricultural producers and other

residents is increasingly difficult. Many complaints from citizens are made in relation
to the odors caused by animal livestock or spreading practices. Agricultural odors
have their origin from several sources such as buildings, manure storage systems
and manure application. Most of the complaints (70%) about odors is related to the
manure spreading. Manure storage structure and livestock buildings are responsible
of 20% and 10% of complaints respectively (Lemay et al., 2008).

There is no affordable indicator that represents the larger social issue in the rural
area. Current indicators do not measure social impacts due to odors generated
during agricultural activities. The objective is to evaluate the feasibility of using odor
management tools as a method of assessing social impacts. The selected sector of
application is the agricultural sector with spreading and livestock practice because it
is the most important social problem in rural areas.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

130 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Angela Trivino Session 1G

Results and discussion

Over the years, the analysis and measurement of odors is taking more and more
importance to get into a sustainable development. There are three reasons for
assessing odors in the agricultural sector. In the first place, the growth of specialized
farms with larger farm sizes has increased odor emissions (either in the number of
animals or in the area per crop). Secondly, the cohabitation between the city, the
nature and agriculture is increasing and generating more complaints related to
odors. And finally, the public concerns about the environment protection, reduction
of environmental impacts, the well-being, the clean and sustainable production are
increasing.

Unpleasant odors are recognized as warning signs of hazards, pollution and quality
of life menaces (Schiffman & Williams, 2005, Thu et al., 1997). Unpleasant odors
could trigger adverse reactions in the body, change olfactory functions and cause
various physiological reactions (irritation of the mucous membranes, eyes, skin and
cause nausea, vomiting, headache, sleep disorders, etc.) and psychological disorders
(anxiety, depression, anger, fatigue, mood disorders, stress, etc.) (Gingras et al., 2002a,
Gingras et al., 2002b, Cole et al., 2000).

Mainly, the odor assessment tools can be divided into two methods: the methods
of quantification and the methods of characterization of odors. Generally, the
quantification parameters are frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness and
location (Nicell, 2009). Since odorous compounds have an olfactory threshold lower
than their toxicity, the use of an odor perception approach in the agricultural sector is
used rather than a toxicology approach for the quantification of odors.

The methods of characterization offer three ways for assessing the impacts of
odours on local communities that can be used individually or in combination: 1)
Source characterization and prediction of impacts with dispersion modelling; 2)
Source characterization and direct measurements of impacts in the field; 3) Source
characterization and survey for perception evaluation. The analysis of gas and
odor concentrations is usually done using gas analyzers and dynamic olfactometry
respectively.

As mentioned by Lemay et al. (2008), only social intervention does not significantly
increase the population's perception of the agricultural sector. However, the
development of new and more effective odor management strategies, technologies
and techniques will improve coexistence and relationships between the community
and farmers. For example, new spreading techniques such as the injection or
incorporation of slurry have reduced odor emissions. The spreading technique which
generated less odor was slurry incorporation and, in addition, it obtained a better
social acceptability. According to Lemay et al. (2009), the implantation of a new
practice improves the social acceptability when the local community is well informed
about.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 131

Thema
 Angela Trivino Session 1G

One of the main difficulties of odors measurement is related to the characterization of

the perception of odors, which is a qualitative factor to quantify. However, there are
normative measures adopted around the world to manage nuisances caused by odors.
The regulations of several countries are based on the setback distances approach to
reduce social conflicts and ensure harmonious cohabitation (Godbout et al., 2016).

To promote better social acceptability of agricultural activities, various strategies,

techniques and technologies have been developed to reduce odors. However,
there are only few data on the social impact in the local community when these are
implemented.

Conclusions and future developments

There are still many questions about integrating odors management tools into social
impact analysis. However, odors seem to be an indicator that link agricultural activities
to acceptability and well-being of community.

The results of the review highlight the relationship between social tensions and odors
generated during agricultural activities (livestock production and manure spreading).
The adoption of intensity and location odor assessment tools could be a solution to
the challenge of social impact evaluation in the agricultural sector.

The management and reduction of odors bring many improvements such as the
well-being of workers and neighbours and the productivity and quality of tasks. The
combination of source characterization and survey perception allowed both the
quantification of the emissions and the evaluation of their impact on the neighbours.
This is probably one of the best approach for assessing social impact in rural areas.
However, this way is very expensive and difficult to use under rural area context.

S-LCA is a methodology under continuous development. So far, the impacts of

odours on the local ccommunity are barely covered in the literature and the S-LCA. To
assess the social impacts in rural area, there is a clear need to evaluate and define an
indicator, especially if it needs to be applied in engineering or research contexts. Even
if more researches are needed, adopting odors assessments to S-LCA seems to be a
practicable and feasible way to address the challenge in agriculture.

References
Chang, Y. J., Finkbeiner, M., & Krüger, J. 2016. Adapting ergonomic assessments to social life
cycle assessment. Procedia CIRP, 40, 91-96.
Cole, D., Todd, L., et Wing, S. 2000. Concentrated swine feeding operations and public health:
a review of occupational and community health effects. Environmental health perspectives,
108(8), 685.
Gingras, B., J-M. Leclerc, D. Bolduc, P. Chevalier, S. Fortin. 2002a. Les risques à la santé associée
aux activités de production animale au Québec. Document de référence. Comité de santé

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

132 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Angela Trivino Session 1G

environnementale du Québec. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux.

Gingras, B., R. Veillette, J. P. Vigneault et C. Côté. 2002b. Avis de santé publique relié aux
émissions d’odeurs par l’usine d’équarrissage Alex Couture inc. De Charny au cours de l’été
2001. Service santé et environnement de la Direction de santé publique, de la planification et
de l’évaluation de la régie régional de la santé et des services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches.
Godbout, S., Palacios, J., Sakka, S., Pelletier, F., Fournel, S., Philippe, F-X., 2016. Inventaire et
comparaison à l’échelle mondiale des approches par distances séparatrices pour atténuer les
nuisances olfactives en production porcine. JRP, Paris.
Guillam, M. T., Claude, C., Dewitte, J. D., Michel, V., & Ségala, C. 2007. Aérocontaminants
et morbidité chez les éleveurs de volailles. Archives des Maladies Professionnelles et de
l'Environnement, 68(2), 161-168.
Lemay, S.P., Belzile, A. Veillette, B. Jean, S. Godbout, F. Pelletier, C. Roy, D. Parent, L.D. Tamini,
Y. Chen et F. Pouliot. 2009. Mesurer l’acceptabilité sociale en production porcine. Réduire les
émissions d’odeurs, de gaz à effet de serre, d’ammoniac et bioaérosols. Fiche. 2 pages
Lemay, S.P., Belzile, A. Veillette, B. Jean, S. Godbout, F. Pelletier, C. Roy, D. Parent, L.D. Tamini,
Y. Chen et F. Pouliot. 2008. Mesure de l’impact socioéconomique de pratiques d’épandage
combinées à une activité d’information à l’aide d’un indicateur et d’une analyse économique.
Rapport final. IRDA, UQAR, MAPAQ, Université Laval, Université du Manitoba, CDPQ. 53 pages.
Nicell, J. A. (2009). Assessment and regulation of odour impacts. Atmospheric Environment,
43(1), 196-206.
Schiffman, S.S. & C.M. Williams. 2005. Science of Odor as a Potential Health Issue. Journal of
Environmental Quality 34: 129- 138.
Thu, K., K. Donham, R. Ziegenhorn, S. Reynold, P.S. Thorne, P. Subramanian, P. Whitten et J.
Stookesberry. 1997. A Control Study of the Physical and Mental Health of Residents Living Near
a Large-Scale Swine Operation. Journal of Agricultural safety and Health 3 (1): 13- 26.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 133

Thema
 Catherine Benoit Norris Session 1H

A global effort: 2019 S-LCA Guidelines

Catherine Benoit Norris1, Sara Russo Garrido2, Marzia Traverso3,
Elisabeth Ekener4, Sonia Valdivia5, Annekatrin Lehmann6, Matthias
Finkbeiner6

1
Harvard, NewEarth B (USA)
2
CIRAIG, Université du Québec, Montréal (Canada)
3
Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering (INaB), RWH Aachen University (Germany)
4
KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden)
5
Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru & Leuphana University of Lüneburg (Peru)
6
Chair of Sustainable Engineering (SEE), Technische Universität Berlin (Germany)

Introduction
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique that was developed at the end of the
sixties. Positioned within the field of industrial ecology, LCA is used to assess products’
environmental impacts from the extraction of raw materials to the end of life. The
field’s arguably modest beginnings included developing methods for energy balance
and for calculating the environmental impacts of packaging materials. The creation
of an ISO standard (14040), the launch of an international scientific journal, the
development of databases and specialized software all contributed to make of Life
Cycle Assessment an inescapable phenomenon.

Even if the question of expanding the type of impacts taken into account in LCA
was discussed in certain circles as early as 1990, it is only from the start of the new
millennium that adding a social dimension to LCA became a prominent research
topic. Three decades ago, the imperative of adding a social sustainability dimension
to LCA was raised by the research community. A SETAC workshop that was held in
1993 and its subsequent report (Fava J. et al., 1993) was credited to represent one of
the founding moments for Social LCA (UNEP-SETAC, 2009). The launch of the Life Cycle
Initiative, acting under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme
and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, has solidified LCA status
as a key tool supporting sustainable development. By strengthening its status, the Life
Cycle Initiative contributed to accelerate LCA’s topical expansion to include all three
sustainable development pillars (environment – social – economic).

With a first journal article published in 1996 (O’Brien et al., 1996), a feasibility study
conducted in 2006 (Grießhammer et al., 2006) and the first international Guidelines for
Social LCA of products published in 2009 jointly by the United Nations Environment
Programme and The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-
SETAC, 2009), the field has grown in strength and number and has gathered a strong
interest from businesses.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

134 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Catherine Benoit Norris Session 1H

While the Guidelines for Social LCA of products and the methodological sheets
have played a decisive role initiating the practice of Social LCA, the landscape has
greatly evolved since. We have seen the publication of several handbooks and the
proliferation of case studies and implementations. Databases for Social LCA were
made available and applied, while impact assessment methods were created and
tested. Moreover, an approach for social organizational LCA (SOLCA) was proposed
to complement social LCA by adding the organizational perspective (Martínez-Blanco
et al. 2015). The main reference still remains the Guidelines but it is evident that a
revision is necessary to incorporate new methods, experiences and to better guide
the users wishing to perform a Social LCA, social footprint assessment, human rights
due diligence or SOLCA.

The revision will be done by considering and incorporating methodological

advancements and practical experiences gained in the last 10 years. This includes
work published by the Life Cycle Initiative in recent years (Hotspot guidance,
Organizational LCA (O-LCA), life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA)) and by others
(eg. Pré Social Roundtable Handbook of Product Social Impact Assessment, the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the UN Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and the WBCSD Social Capital Protocol). This revision also includes the
integration of SOLCA to broaden the scope of the current guidelines by specifying
Social LCA also for organizations.

Development process and methodology

Our project has two phases. The first phase consists in the revision of the 2009 SLCA
Guidelines. The revision process aims for a publication and launch of the open source
Guidelines planned for August 2019. The second phase consists in the road testing of
the Guidelines, where companies and other organizations will engage and apply the
updated Guidelines on a range of products or organizations and industrial sectors.

Phase I consists in a development process involving experts’ input and stakeholders’

engagement to produce an updated version of the 2009 Social LCA Guidelines
– 10 years after. The resulting new open source Guidelines will be reflecting the
current state-of-the-art and will serve to scale-up Social LCA and broaden its
audience. The development of the updated Guidelines will consider and integrate
1) new methodological developments of the SLCA method (e.g. regarding impact
assessment), 2) experiences gained from numerous case studies and 3) relevant
frameworks published and experiences gained since 20091. The development process
will be inclusive and involve stakeholder consultations and continuous bridging with
relevant initiatives and organizations including WBCSD, PRé Social Roundtable, Social
and Labour Convergence project, World Resources Institute, Global Social Compliance
Programme and ISEAL.

1 The latter includes SOLCA, LCI Hotspots analysis, Roundtable of Product Social Metrics, WBCSD chemical
sector SLCA guidance, WBCSD Social Capital Protocol, 10 YFP Consumer information social impact communi-
cation white paper and many others. 
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 135

Thema
 Catherine Benoit Norris Session 1H

Phase one includes 5 stages. It comprises the development of first drafts in small,
topic-based working groups composed of experts and practitioners/ users (e.g., topics
include ‘goal and scope’, ‘impact assessment’, ‘inventory’, etc.). These drafts will then be
internally reviewed by other experts and practitioners/ users involved in the Guidelines
revision process. Next, dedicated resource(s) and the Steering Committee will work to
develop an overall coherent draft, based on the first drafts produced. The Phase will
also include 2 technical workshops, for face-to-face meetings and collaborative work,
as well as 2 external consultations and a peer review. The major activities (steps/stages)
to achieve the project objectives, and corresponding deliverables are summarized in
the Figure below.

Calendar Overview – Phase I

10 months 2 months 4 months 3 months 5 months
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Working Face to Face to Formatting,
Group’s Peer review Launch
Drafting II face Draft face UN Env
work process/ –
meeting in Update meeting in review,
External August
Incorporate Pescara, IT post- Paris Publication
Drafting I Consultation I 2019
in one draft 12-14 Sept. Pescara March April/June
First drafts by sub-topics developed & submit + Draft LCM
2018 2019 2019
Sept to late June 2018 for internal
revision to
prepare for
Pescara

Stage 4b
Stage 2b Stage 3b
Finalization of
Development of Revision to the draft by overall draft,
Development of overall
comprehensive dedicated resource and integrating
draft by dedicated resource
draft steering committee comments
and steering committee

Sept 2017 June 2018 12-14 Sept 2018 Jan 2019 April 2019 Aug 2019

24 months period

Figure 1: Timeline Phase I

Phase II will road test the new Guidelines in a variety of industries , involving a range of
organizations and product types. The learnings and best practices resulting from the
road testing will be captured in a subsequent companion resource to the Guidelines
that will be published (as a document or web pages) at the end of the project. These
resources will aim to support implementation (Q&A, advice, testimony, examples),
and training material. The road-testing process is planned to last two years and will be
organised in 3 stages including a call for road-testers, the implementation stage and
the publication of the results. A detailed presentation of those stages (as in Figure 1 for
Phase I) is omitted here, due to space constraints and the fact that this Phase is more
distant in the future.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

136 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Catherine Benoit Norris Session 1H

Main objectives and expected outcomes

The main objectives and expected outcomes of the initiative are:

1) New Guidelines for practitioners and users

The new Guidelines will support experts and non-experts that wish to carry a social
LCA of products and/or organizations by providing them with all the information they
need to conduct an assessment successfully.

Our objectives for the S-LCA Guidelines revision are to:

• Expand the audience of the Guidelines

• Focus on capability development
• Cover methodological developments since 2009
• Recognize a plurality of established approaches
• Integrate SOLCA to extend the focus from products to organization
• Position S-LCA and SOLCA in the current policy and tools context
• Develop the areas where minimum guidance prevails
• To support contribution to the SDGs.

2) Harmonization of S-LCA methods

The revised Guidelines will serve as an up-to-date reference ensuring quality and trust
in the S-LCA approach. It will provide an overview and will categorize S-LCA methods
currently applied presenting new and established practitioners with the relevant
methodology options available to them. The process will foster harmonization when
appropriate but will also recognize a variety of approaches, explaining the differences,
strengths and limitations between them.

3) Specification of SOLCA

The revised Guidelines will integrate SOLCA as a complementing method offering

clarifications about how to apply a social LCA at the organizational level. The
conceptual framework of SOLCA with its current focus on scope and inventory will
be completed, similarities and differences between S-LCA and SOLCA will be outlined
and implementation pathways based on the organization’s experience in social and
organizational assessments will be described.

4) Scale-up of the scientific debate

The revision of the Guidelines will also act as a catalyst for debates and advances in
the field. We expect that the publication of the new Guidelines will boost the related
scientific discussion among researchers and method developers and will foster further
scientific development of S-LCA and SOLCA.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 137

Thema
 Catherine Benoit Norris Session 1H

Internal governance
The Guidelines review process was launched by the SLC Alliance Steering Committee
composed of researchers and practitioners from 5 countries. It is very well connected
with the S-LCA community, with nearly 50 researchers/practitioners from around the
world already invested and contributing (see Table 1). We will conduct additional
outreach to increase representation from Oceania, Asia and Africa in the process.

36 Europe and North America

8 Central and South America
4 Oceania, Asia and Africa

Table 1: Number of participants by region Q1 2018.

Conclusions
As the last few years have shown, mindfulness and efforts to understand, measure
and improve the social sustainability impacts of products life cycles and organizations’
supply chains are radically increasing. Social LCA is poised to play a definitive role in
public policy, corporate strategy and product sustainability impact communication in
the next decade.

The update of the Social LCA Guidelines is fundamental to Social LCA’ positioning as a
tool of choice for the assessment and reporting of product and companies social and
human rights impacts.

As an example, the revision and road testing of the Guidelines for S-LCA of products
and organizations will directly support progress towards the SDGs in the following
way:

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: By providing updated guidance

supporting decision making processes for improving social sustainability impacts of
production and consumption.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: By offering a practical framework to

assess working conditions in product and organization’ supply chains and life cycles,
strengthening human and labour rights due diligence.

And indirectly by integrating impact categories and subcategories and impact

assessment methods that addresses the following SDG goals in its assessment
framework and pilots:

SDG 1: Poverty
SDG 2: Zero hunger

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

138 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Catherine Benoit Norris Session 1H

SDG 3: Good Health and Well Being

SDG 5: Gender Equality
SDG 10: Reduced inequalities
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

As for any important endeavour, it takes a village! We count on the participation of

experts, practitioners, companies, consultants and governments to make of these
new Guidelines the practical tool they need.

References
Fava J (Ed.), Consoli F, Denson R, Dickson K, Mohin T and Vigon, B (1993) A Conceptual
Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment.Workshop Report, Society for Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc.,
Pensacola,FL
Grießhammer, R, Benoît, C, Dreyer, L.C, Flysjö, A., Manhart, A., Mazijn, B, Méthot, A.L and
Weidema, B (2006) Feasibility Study: Integration of social aspects into LCA. Öko-Institut,
Freiburg
O‘Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (SELCA). Int J
LCA 1 (4) 231-237
Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang Y-J and Finkbeiner, M et al.: Social organizational LCA
(SOLCA) – a new approach for implementing social LCA, International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment,2015, 18(8), pp.1581–1592
Roundtable for Product Social Metrics. Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment.
Accessed 23 January 2018, https://product-social-impact-assessment.com
UNEP-SETAC (Benoit, C. and Mazijn, B., editors). 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle
Assessment of Products. UNEP, 104 p.
United Nations. 2011. UN Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights, Accessed 23 January 2018, www.ohchr.
org%2FDocuments%2FPublications%2FGuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_
EN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1eXHpXS2jxinTbBidRBbsn
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2016. Social Life Cycle Metrics for
Chemical Products
A guideline by the chemical sector to assess and report on the social impact of chemical
products, based on a life cycle approach. Accessed 23 January 2018, https://www.wbcsd.org/
Projects/Chemicals/Resources/Social-Life-Cycle-Metrics-for-Chemical-Products
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2017. Social Capital Protocol. Accessed 23
January 2017,http://www.wbcsd.org/Clusters/Social-Impact/Social-Capital-Protocol/Resources/
Social-Capital-Protocol

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 139

Thema
 Breno Barros Telles do Carmo Session 1H

Weighting and scoring in Social Life Cycle Assessment

Breno Barros Telles do Carmo1, Sara Russo Garrido2, Gabriella Arcese3,
Maria Claudia Lucchetti4

1
Universidade Federal Rural do Semi Arido, Engineering Center, Mossoró, Rio Grande do Norte
(Brazil)
2
CIRAIG, Université du Québec, Montréal (Canada)
3
Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari (Italy)
4
Roma Tre University, Dept. of Business Studies, Rome (Italy)

Abstract
Social impact evaluation is one of the cornerstones of products and services
sustainability. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA hereafter) focuses on studying
potential social impacts of products’life cycle. As it is a relatively new analytical approach,
no globally shared application tools have been developed for it yet. Communicating
S-LCA results to decision-makers in order to promote social sustainable decisions is
a challenge because it involves the aggregation of companies’ performances across
impact categories through numerical variables based on value-choices. Currently, the
weighting process (used for performance aggregation) considered for type I analysis in
the literature presents some limits: lack of transparency, implicit choices, no standard
weighting method and the failure to take account the uncertainty of these value
choices. This paper aims to address these limits by proposing a standard approach to
conduct the weighting process for type I S-LCA. It starts after characterization phase
and comprises four stages: (i) impact level scoring, (ii) functional unit aggregation,
(iii) weighting factors definition and (iv) performances aggregation across impact
categories. This approach is able to consider determinist or stochastic numerical
variables, depending on the inclusion or not of the uncertainty associated to people’
value judgments. In terms of results, this paper presents an illustrative case study in
order to exemplify how to conduct the weighting process in S-LCA. Considering the
results, we identified some limits related to our approach: (i) depending on the subjects
involved in S-LCA and the subcategory indicators considered for the assessment, it
might be not possible defining standard weighting factors for all case studies; (ii) the
type of uncertainty tackled on this approach is only associated with value choices
– no other source of uncertainty is addressed and; (iii) the method used to assess
qualitative social performances (scoring, check list or social hotspot database) can
influence the aggregated social performance of product systems.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

140 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Erasmo Cadena Session 1H

Social Life Cycle Assessment for a Biorefinery Project

Erasmo Cadena1, Francesco Christopher Rocca2, Jose A. Gutierrez1,
Antonio Barona1, Ana Carvalho2

1
Vertech Group (France)
2
CEG-IST, Instituto Superior Tecnico, University of Lisbon (Portugal)

Introduction
The Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methodological approach, is used to evaluate
the positive and negative social impacts of a product or a service throughout its life
cycle. As biorefineries need to be evaluated for the three pillars of sustainability, the
objective of this SLCA is to provide a preliminary overview of the less explored pillar,
analyzing the potential social hotspots found along the biorefinery life-cycle, that
should be taken into account when implementing the project. The scope is to promote
improvement of social conditions and of the overall socio-economic performance for
all its stakeholders (UNEP, 2009). According to Fontes et al. (2014), SLCA is designed
to address three main objectives: i) make positive and negative impacts of products
measurable and visible; ii) support decision-making and communication at product
level, and iii) contribute to overall sustainability assessment. In the same line, this
technique allows the identification of company’s key issues and supports the
implementation of improvement strategies to mitigate its most pressing negative
impacts on social endpoints (Benoit et al., 2010; Fontes et al., 2014). The objective
of this work is to provide quantitative and qualitative information on the potential
benefits and risks that may affect stakeholders with the implementation of a glycerol
biorefining project in The Netherlands.

Methodology
The research methodology is constituted of four tasks:

1) State of the art and data collection - gather information on the biorefinery
production process and market characteristics;
2) Stakeholders’ assessment - identify and classify groups affected by the
project to develop an involvement plan;
3) Indicators selection - select relevant metrics to evaluate and measure the
social impact of the project’s activities;
4) Social life cycle assessment - interpretation of the results and creation of
guidelines for future improvements.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 141

Thema
 Erasmo Cadena Session 1H

In the data collection, 25 documents were found and analyzed, including academic
papers, reports from governmental research projects, private organizations’ disclosures
and methodological sheets. Then, a benchmark on biorefinery projects, which had
undergone a SLCA was performed. 9 projects that had already disclosed material
about their SLCA were identified, but it was concluded that social impacts have been
measured only in a qualitative manner and no quantitative data are available for any
of the past researches. Based on the framework developed by Simões et al. (2014) and
Popovic et al. (2017), it was decided to propose a set of 95 indicators, which were judged
more relevant for the Biorefinery project. The set of indicators has then been used as
basis for the collection of measurable data. The stakeholder assessment started with
identification of groups affected by the project. Based on the Choin and Wang (2009)
methodology, the stakeholder categories were identified. Then, according to the
positive and negative impacts that the biorefinery project would have on the different
stakeholders, the groups were positioned in the power-interest grid (Ackerman &
Eden, 2011). Based on this analysis, the stakeholder categories were linked to the
various mid-points. Then, three semi-structured interviews with relevant experts in
the biorefinery field were performed, in order to validate the assessment. Finally, the
involvement plan was created to describe how the biorefinery should communicate
with stakeholders during their activity. To measure the social impact of the project’s
activities, quantitative data from active biorefineries in the Netherlands could not be
obtained. Therefore, it was decided to use annual/sustainability reports of companies,
which can represent the life cycle stages, and proceed with assumptions. The data
from 7 companies in the biodiesel and biochemical sector were used to identify the
biorefinery hotspots. Three hotspots were found: at the downstream level, the High
Turnover and the Freedom of Association and coverage by collective agreement were
found and in the upstream stage the R&D investment should be improved.

Results
From the data collection and the stakeholders’ methodologies, the main stakeholders
were identified: 1) Employees: people who directly or indirectly have a work relation
with the biorefinery; 2) Customers: clients who purchase one or more final products
manufactured in the biorefinery; 3) Shareholders: investors who finance the project
and expect economic value generation; 4) Suppliers: organizations who provide the
raw materials to be employed in the manufacturing processes; 5) Local communities:
population living in the areas surrounding the biorefinery; 6) Authorities: public and
private organizations with political and administrative power. These stakeholders
were classified according to their power and interest in the project and the matrix
presented in Figure 1 has been obtained and it has been validated through three
semi-structured interviews.

As it can be seen from the location of the stakeholders in the matrix, three clusters
with different characteristics can be identified.

• One group is constituted by employees and local communities, which have high
interest in the project, because it can be a source of employment, it supports the
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

142 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Erasmo Cadena Session 1H

Employees
Shareholders

high
Authorities
Local Communities

Customers
Interest
medium
Suppliers
low

low medium high

Power

Figure 1: Power-Interest Matrix

economic development of the region and because these stakeholders are the most
concerned by its impacts, but on the other hand have medium decisional power.
• The second set entails authorities and shareholders that possess high power
and high interest. In fact, the public and private organizations decide whether
or not to approve the project realization and regulate macro-economic trends
through directives and regulations, but would receive limited direct benefits
when compared to individuals. On the other side, shareholders strongly influence
the Biorefinery output with their financial investment and, at the same time, are
concerned with the economic performance of the project along time.
• The third cluster includes the customers and the suppliers that have mid power
and interest. This group should be monitored to guarantee that raw materials are
efficiently sourced and final products are sold on the market. However, in this initial
stage of the project these stakeholders do not represent the key players on which
efforts should be placed.

Shareholders and authorities are the most relevant and influent stakeholders for
the biorefinery project, because they will strongly influence the biorefinery system;
however, employees and local communities will be mostly affected by the biorefinery
project. The stakeholders were then assessed through a set of social mid-point
(Figure 2).

From Figure 2, it was possible to conclude:

• The biorefinery system will create important employment opportunities, which

can be verified in Figure 2, by the value of the employment Mid-Point (88%, high
reliability). This aspect is a value added of the biorefinery project, since it can
improve the stakeholders’ image when installing the biorefinery in the Netherlands.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 143

Thema
 Erasmo Cadena Session 1H

Figure 2: Mid-Point results

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

144 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Erasmo Cadena Session 1H

• The labor and management relations, obtained a value of 58% with high reliability
and are therefore expected to be good in this system.
• The occupational health and safety conditions of the working environment were
found to be only 33% (high reliability). This value shows that some health and
safety issues might occur.
• The employee welfare shows a good performance (80%). However, this mid-point
was calculated based on few data. Since there are very limited practices described
for this system regarding employees welfare; it is important that biorefinery
project develops different ways on ensuring the compliance and promotion of
these aspects. The biorefinery system should guarantee that expenditures for
social security, pensions and employees welfare are aligned, or above, the market
average. A high satisfaction level of the workforce reduces turnover rate and
increases productivity.
• Innovation and competitiveness are expected to be particularly relevant for the
biorefinery (83%, medium reliability, Figure 2).
• Non-discrimination practices in the Biorefinery system are expected to be slightly
above the average of the sample (53% with medium reliability; Figure 2). The Mid-
Point could be improved by hiring younger employees that would reduce that
average employees’ age and increasing the number of women workers to better
balance the gender ratio.
• The biorefinery system is likely to guarantee good basic human rights practices
(88%; Figure 2 with medium reliability).
• Investments for local communities (35%, medium reliability; Figure 2) show a
hotspot in the system that requires further improvement. It was possible to verify
that investments for local communities should be improved to have a greater
acceptance from the society and also in order to improve the social responsibility
actions of the biorefinery system. Events that promote the contact with the
community and actions that aid the development of the local communities
should be considered in the implementation plan of biorefinery. In particular, a
closer involvement of the biorefinery with social institutions and a more frequent
interaction with local organizations would positively influence the project output.
• The public policy mid-point presents a value of 90% with medium reliability (see
Figure 2). This seems to be a strong point in the biorefinery project.
• The customer health and safety mid-point has low reliability (Figure 2). Despite
the good performance presented in this work, research should be done, when
implementing the biorefinery system in order to ensure the safety of the consumers.
• Compliance of the product shows a value of 75% with medium reliability (Figure 2).
The studied biorefinery approach has the potential of follow good risk management
actions regarding the final product, ensuring in this way a good social performance
among stakeholders.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 145

Thema
 Erasmo Cadena Session 1H

Conclusions
As for the GRAIL system real data is not yet available, the conclusions derived from
this work are a forecast of future social impact and should be used as guidelines for
forthcoming actions. From the analysis, three potential hotspots were identified:
Occupational Health and Safety (H&S), Local Community and Compliance. To face
the above listed issues, the following actions are recommended: increase employees’
training to support the implementation of H&S measures, strengthen collaboration
and investments in local development initiative, and improve the label certification of
the product. Finally, two future research directions are suggested: the extension of the
boundaries of the system to more upstream stages of the life-cycle and the execution
of a comparative analysis between the GRAIL biorefinery and a reference systems.

References
Ackerman and Eden (2011). Strategic Management of Stakeholders: Theory and Practice.
Elsevier Ltd.
Benoît C., Norris G., Valdivia S., Ciroth A., (2010). The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of
products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:156–163.
Cameron, B. (Minister for Corrections, Victoria) (2007). Construction begins on high security
unit, media release, Victoria, 28 March, Accessed 16 April 2007, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au>.
Cater-Steel, A, Toleman, M, Kissell, B, Chown, R, (2006). ICT governance - radical restructure, in:
Jones, A, Smith, AR (Eds.), IT Governance International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand,
13-15 Nov.
Choin and Wang (2009), Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial
performance, Strategic Management Journal, 30 (8): 895–907.
Fontes, J., Gaasbeek, A., Goedkoop, M. & Evitts, S., (2014). Handbook for Product Social Impact
Assessment, Amersfoort: Pre-Consultants.
Hatch, JA (2002), Doing qualitative research in education settings, State University of New York,
Albany.
Peirson, G, Brown, R, Easton, S, Howard, P & Pinder, S (2006), Business finance, 9th edn, McGraw-
Hill, North Ryde, NSW.
Popovic, T., Kraslawski, A., Barbosa Póvoa, A., Carvalho, A., (2017) Quantitative indicators for
social sustainability assessment of society and product responsibility aspects in supply chains,
Industrial Ecology- Submitted.
Simões, M., Carvalho, A., Lucas de Freitas, C., Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P. (2014) “Social Life Cycle
Assessment- Standardisation of mid-point impact categories” - 4th LCA business Conference.
UNEP SETAC, (2009). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, United Nations
Environment Programme.
Van der Geer, J, Hanraads, JAJ, Lupton, RA, (2010). The art of writing a scientific article. J. Sci.
Commun. 163, 51–59.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

146 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Anu Reinikainen Session 1H

S- LCA based social sustainability tool for companies

Anu Reinikainen1, Karetta Timonen1, Sirpa Kurppa2

1
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Espoo, Finland
2
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen, Finland

Introduction
There is a need for shift towards more sustainable society. Sustainability Development
Goals (SDGs) is a set of seventeen “Global Goals” with 169 targets within them (United
Nations 2015). There is still a big disconnect between awareness of the SDGs and
real corporate action. Companies need to take into consideration the ecological,
social and economic aspects of their actions. Companies should develop a better
understanding of their potential sustainability impact and opportunities in order
to integrate sustainability into core strategy (Jørgensen et al., 2008; Smith & Barling
2014). Integrating SDGs inside a social impact assessment methodology framework
with industry relevant social indicators is a way to reveal factors as a way in meeting
these goals and therefore helping the company’s decision making process (actions
and means) in meeting these SDGs.

S-LCA (Social LCA) is one impact assessment methodology to assess the social and
socio-economic impacts of all life-cycle stages from cradle to grave, looking at the
complete life-cycle of a product. Inside the S-LCA are working different social impact
categories and indicators and factors inside them. S-LCA is defined in the work of
UNEP–SETAC (2009) as "a systematic process using best available science to collect
best available data on and report about social impacts (positive and negative)." (Benoit
et al 2010). According to the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative, generic industry average
data may be acceptable for use depending on the goal and scope of the study.

In this study a comprehensive S-LCA method framework management tool is to

create a framework for social impact evaluation and also indicate the connection
to relevant SDGs. The base of this framework and working sheet for S-LCA is in line
with the UNEP/SETAC framework. Based on this we have categorized preliminary
social indicators and selected the relevant stakeholders. This management tool will
make the framework usable for companies when addressing and utilizing social
sustainability issues in the business and production processes and measuring social
impacts and their connection to global sustainability goals hence the companies are
lacking relevant tools to manage social sustainability in the food sector. It reveals
the benefits of utilizing social indicator results in companies’ business management
for external communication and marketing but also as a tool for companies’ internal
development.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 147

Thema
 Anu Reinikainen Session 1H

Further step is to utilize this framework as a base for modelling S-LCA case study
assessments. The S- LCA method is utilized in two side stream processes. The goal is
to compare different kinds of side stream based plant protein production processes,
explore the production processes and provide an assessment of the social impacts
(positive and negative) of the process. This will allow comparisons between the
processes and provide the necessary information needed in the decision making
process for the companies who utilise the plant proteins in their production processes.
The following step is to model the process and assess the indicators with the help
PSILCA database.

In this study the S-LCA is implemented following the steps of LCA (which is also
conducted in the study): goal and scope definition, inventory analysis and impact
assessment. The defined production system was identified based on the LCA flow chart,
followed by identification of relevant stakeholders and assessment categories and
indicators. The data was collected by utilizing PSILCA database and exploring literature
of existing S-LCA studies. We utilize the generic data as a basis for the assessment. The
generic data has advantages over using site specific data in relation to practicality,
although many authors behind the SLCA approaches claim that reasonable accuracy
can only be gained through the use of site specific data. (Jørgensen et al. 2008). The
quality of site specific data is very dependent on the auditing approach and, therefore,
not necessarily of high accuracy, and that generic data might be designed to take into
account the location, sector, size and maybe ownership of a company and thereby in
some cases give a reasonable impression of the social impacts that can be expected
from the company performing the assessed process. The study will be finished in the
spring of 2018.

References
Benoît, C, Norris, G.A, Valdivia, S, Ciroth, A, Moberg, A, Bos, U, Prakash, S, Ugaya, C, T. Beck, T,
2010. The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess., 15 (2010), pp. 156-163
Jørgensen, A, Le Bocq, A, Nazarkina, L, Hauschild, M, 2008. Methodologies for Social Life Cycle
Assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, The (Int.J.LCA), 13 (2). 96-103. ISSN
0948-3349
Barling, D, Smith, J, 2014. Social impacts and life cycle assessment: proposals for methodological
development for SMEs in the European food and drink sector. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 19(4), pp. 944-949. Doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0691-0
United Nations 2015. Sustainable development goals. Available from the internet: http://www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
UNEP-SETAC. 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Available from the
internet: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/dtix1164xpa-guidelines_slca.pdf

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

148 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Peter Saling Session 1H

Generation, calculation and interpretation of social

impacts with the Social Analysis of SEEbalance®

Peter Saling, Ana Alba Perez, Peter Kölsch, Thomas Gruenenwald

BASF SE, CDS/S – Ludwigshafen (Germany)

Abstract
The Social Analysis implemented in the SEEbalance® calculates results from Social LCA
and from a specific Social Hotspot Assessment. Both approaches generate, calculate
and interpret the social impacts from different perspectives. Different levels and
approaches of data generation and calculation are used to come to conclusions on
the social performance of product alternatives, fulfilling the same functional unit.
The close link to the environmental LCA enables practitioners a holistic view on
sustainability aspects supporting decision-making processes.

Processes and decision trees to harmonize the generation of coherent results

were developed and will support the data generation process. Different levels of
interpretation of findings to overall results support and harmonize the interpretation
of results significantly.

Measuring sustainability is an important prerequisite for making strategic decisions.

BASF has developed several instruments to measure sustainability whereby the
utilization of each method depends on the concrete purpose or issue in question. The
new Social Analysis will contribute by assessing social impacts along the value chain
to this setup.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 149

Thema
 Luis A. Taborda A. Session 1H

Social life cycle assessment of rural cassava starch

factories in Cauca-Colombia in the post-conflict
Luis A. Taborda A.1, Thierry Tran2, Dominic Dufour3, Leonor Patricia
Güereca4, Franziska Eisfeldt5

1
UNAL (Colombia)
2
CIRAD (Colombia)
3
CIRAD (France)
4
UNAM (Mexico)
5
SIS-Group (Germany)

Introduction
The Cauca department has been one of the regions highly affected by the armed
conflict in Colombia. The UN is currently receiving weapons from the subversives after
signing the peace agreement with the Colombian government. Despite its turbulent
past, Cauca has become the region that produces most of the starch consumed and
processed in Colombia. The cassava starch agro-industry including the cultivation
of the cassava plant is one of the most important economic activities, providing
professional opportunities for the local communities and the former subversives/
rebels.

To fully analyze this sector regarding social and economic opportunities as well as
risks, and to promote the industry appropriately, socio-economic studies need to
be carried out. While former studies focused mainly on the workers of the cassava
starch production (CSP) (Sandoval & Ruiz, 2005) , new analyses should include
other stakeholders, as local communities, civil societies etc. as well. S-LCA seems to
be an appropriate method to assess the overall and individual impacts – positive
and negative ones – of the starch production chain on a broad set of stakeholders.
This holistic and integral perspective can provide a basis to evaluate the economic
development of Cauca after the armed conflicts.

UNEP-SETAC (2009) published general guidelines for the S-LCA implementation,

which is the benchmark for addressing the research. However, the methodological
perspective in which this guide was developed excludes realities of cultural context
and social characteristics of rural areas to be investigated. Therefore, it is necessary
that S-LCA includes indicators that objectively reflect sociopolitical, economic,
environmental and cultural realities of the region that was studied.

The results of this research project will be useful for the Colombian authorities to
take decisions regarding the economic and social benefits that may be received by
hundreds of ex-guerillas. Further, this work should contribute to S-LCA combining

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

150 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Luis A. Taborda A. Session 1H

specific foreground data and generic background data from databases. The study
provides an example of how to perform a S-LCA in a specific rural context with
inherent local considerations, extended by generic data from international industries.

Methods
To perform the S-LCA in this work, different categories addressing the stakeholders:
workers, society, value chain actors, and local communities were selected. According
to the UNEP/SETAC guidelines and based on the PSILCA database (Ciroth, Eisfeldt
2017), which was used for the inventory calculation and impact assessment, the socio-
economic indicators shown in table 1 were chosen. PSILCA (2017) is a comprehensive
database for S-LCA covering 65 socio-economic indicators for almost 15000 industry
sectors. For the collection of specific data, 40 of the almost 60 rural agro-industries
operating in Cauca Colombia, and other 10 value chain actors including cassava
producers (CP), and cassava bread producers (CBP), were visited. Structured surveys
were designed and carried out. The product system was modeled, calculated and
analyzed using the openLCA software (GreenDelta). The PSILCA database provided
background information.

Category Subcategory Indicator Level

Unemployment rate
Local Employment Medium risk
in the country
Human rights issues faced
Respect of indigenous Medium risk
by indigenous people
Local Community rights
Presence of indigenous population Medium risk
Drinking water coverage Very high risk
Safe and healthy living
Pollution level of the country High risk
conditions
Sanitation coverage Very high risk
Contribution to economic Illiteracy rate, total High risk
Society development Public expenditure on education High risk
Health and safety (society) Health expenditure, total Medium risk
Value Chain Actors Corruption Public sector corruption Very high risk
Discrimination Gender wage gap High risk
Living wage, per month Medium risk
Fair Salary Minimum wage, per month High risk
Sector average wage, per month Very high risk
Child labor Children in employment, total Very low risk
Workers
Presence of sufficient safety measures High risk
Health and safety
(Workers) Rate of non-fatal accidents at
Low risk
workplace
Social benefits, legal issues Social security expenditures High risk
Working time Weekly hours of work per employee Medium risk

Table 1: Social impact assessment using PSILCA (Ciroth & Franziska, 2016)

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 151

Thema
 Luis A. Taborda A. Session 1H

Results
Figure 1 shows the relative contributions to the social indicators for the stakeholders:
Civil society, local community, value chain actors and workers (UNEP-SETAC 2009),
and the differences between the CP, CSP and BP processes are observed. This data
was obtained by SILCA database using background and foreground information for
select the risk level according to the parameters of Ciroth & Franziska, (2016), and
OPENLCA software estimate the relative contribution of impacts per categories and
subcategories. The Table 2, shows two examples of this categorization.

For all the stakeholders, the greatest impacts occur in the CP. The reason why the
difference was presented is associated with the conditions and the positive gap
between the urban perimeter where cassava and bread is produced, and the rural
areas where cassava is grown (Galvis, 2014).

The workers of CSP and BP process enjoy greater job stability, and have better working
conditions, probability of having benefits and consequently a better quality of life
than people who live in the countryside and work as day laborers (Hernández, 2014).
This inequality and historical forgetfulness about "deep Colombia" or rural (Taborda
A. & Sosa, 2014), was partly what fueled subversive conflicts in the same country for
years (Fajardo, 2015)
Indicator Unit of Source Type of Indicator Level
measurement information value “y” Risk level

0% = no risk;
(257 0%-<5% and 0%->-5%= very
USD – 167 low risk;
(Male w. – USD) / 5% -<10% and -5% - >-10%
= low risk;
Gender female w.) / 257 USD
Surveys Foreground 10%-<20% and-10%->-20% High risk
wage gap Male wages *100 =medium risk;
* 100 20%-<30%and-20%->-30%
= 35% =high risk;
>=30% and <=-30 = very
high risk

Scores www. y < 100 = very low risk

given by transparency. 100 ≤ y < 200 = low risk
Public sector Very high
Transparency org/ Background 37 / 100 200 ≤ y < 500 = medium risk
corruption 500 ≤ y < 1000 = high risk risk
International
ranking 1000 ≤ y = very high risk

Table 2: Example of two indicators from the Social impacts assessment

An integral analysis of the three indicators for fair salary: decent, minimum and
sector wage leads us to conclude that, in this sector, as in other agro-industrial value
chains in Colombia, it will be necessary for the government and interested parties to
determine policies that, instead of increasing the gap of inequality, fan of conflicts and

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

152 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Luis A. Taborda A. Session 1H

Relative contribution of social indicators for Relative contribution of social indicators for
Society impact category Local Comunity impact category

Bread Produc. Bread Produc.

Starch produc. Starch produc.

Cassava produc.
Cassava produc.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
0% 10% 20%
Drinking water coverage Indigenous rights
Education Illiteracy, total Health expenditure Pollution Sanitation coverage

Relative contribution of social indicators for Relative contribution of social indicators for
Value Chain Actors impact category WORKERS impact category

Bread Produc.
Bread Produc.
Starch produc.
Starch produc.
Cassava produc.
Cassava produc.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Child Labour, total Fair Salary
Gender wage gap Non-fatal accidents
Anti-competitive behaviour or violation of anti-trust and monopoly legislation Safety measures Social security expenditures
Public sector corruption Weekly hours of work per employee Health expenditure

Figure 1: Relative contribution to social indicators in the impact categories for Cassava production, Cassava Starch
Production, and Bread Production processes

delinquency (Fajardo 2015), promote rural development and well-being of the people
who work to feed the Colombian society through the salary allocation consistent
with inflation and living costs calculated and settled in the state statistics databases
(Mancera, 2015).

The impacts on "Local Communities" (figure 1) are mainly generated by the lack of
adequate water supply and sewerage services, which is more evident in rural areas
than in urban areas (Ibáñez, 2016). It is important to note that the impacts regarding
indigenous rights are lower than the aforementioned in this category, given that
in Cauca, there is an important presence of indigenous communities, which have
benefited to a certain extent from the growth of this value chain, since several groups
have dedicated themselves to plant cassava and market to starch processors. Even
a group of indigenous people came together to form an association and build a
"rallanderia" where they can process the yucca they produce (García & Montero, 2016).

The indicators analyzed in the subcategories addressing "actors of the value chain"
and "society" (Figure 1), have similar interrelations to those discussed above, with CP
being the process that has greater impacts than CSP and BP. These indicators were
compared to background information, where the impacts of national statistics such
as illiteracy, public expenditures on health and education are generally important in
rural contexts (Delgado, 2014; Galvis, 2014).
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 153

Thema
 Luis A. Taborda A. Session 1H

Conclusions
The results of this research project provide useful information to improve the well-
being of the entire Cauca community. Positive impacts can be generated regarding
job creation, food security/ sovereignty, gender equality, gender wage gaps, food
security and sovereignty, and others.

In future researches it will be reported how the results of this study will be used
by Decision-makers, like local or regional politicians in order to promote rural
development and well-being of the community, by adapting post-conflict policies
that reduce the indicators of high risk of negative impact and potentially the positive
impacts.

Another outcome of this study is the methodological contribution to the application

of the PSILCA database in a real scenario in the rural Colombia.

References
Ciroth, A., & Franziska, E. (2017). PSILCA – A Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment
database, 1. Retrieved from http://www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PSILCA_
documentation_v1.1.pdf
Delgado, M. (2014). La educación básica y media en Colombia: retos en equidad y calidad.
Fajardo, D. (2015). Estudio sobre los orígenes del conflicto social armado, razones de su
persistencia y sus efectos más profundos en la sociedad colombiana. Conflicto Social Y Rebelión
Armada En Colombia.
Galvis, L. A. (2014). Aspectos regionales de la movilidad social y la igualdad de oportunidades
en Colombia. Revista de Economía Del Rosario, 17(2), 257–297.
García, J. C. R., & Montero, G. V. (2016). La vida es una lucha. La magia en la guerra y la resistencia
en el Cauca, Colombia. Publicación Impresa.
Hernández, C. A. M. (2014). Sector rural colombiano: Dinámica laboral y opciones de afiliación a
la seguridad social.
Ibáñez, A. M. (2016). El proceso de paz con las Farc: ¿Una oportunidad para reducir la pobreza
rural y aumentar la productividad agropecuaria? Revista de Ingeniería, (44), 8–13.
Mancera, M. Á. (2015). Del salario mínimo al salario digno. Mexico: Consejo Económico y Social
de la Ciudad de México. Google Scholar.
Sandoval, V., & Ruiz, R. (2005). El rol de los recursos locales en la evolución de la agroindustria
rural del almidón agrio de yuca en el departamento del Cauca, Colombia. AGROALIMENTARIA,
22, 41–47.
Taborda A., L. A., & Sosa, M. D. (2014). Un modelo de emprendimiento agrícola a partir de
educación superior rural en la Colombia profunda. ISEES: Inclusión Social Y Equidad En La
Educación Superior, (14), 49–62.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

154 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Jasmin Werker Session 1H

Pathways to S-LCA Interpretation – where to start

Jasmin Werker, Christina Wulf, Petra Zapp

Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institute of Energy and Climate Research – Systems Analysis and
Technology Evaluation, 52425 Jülich, Germany

Introduction
The development of Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) originates in the three
dimensional definition of Sustainability and was developed to ’assess a product
based on social and socio-economic indicators‘ (Andrews, Barthel et al., 2009). In the
same manner as LCA, S-LCA follows the ISO 14044 framework. Therefore, it is equally
subdivided into four phases: Goal & Scope definition, Life Cycle Inventory, Life Cycle
Impact Assessment, and Interpretation.

The present paper aims to further develop interpretation strategies in technology

assessment, which is often neglected in literature in favour of the other phases. In this
study the S-LCA is conducted to provide a pathway particularly intended for a generic
social assessment using a database based on a global input-output model.

A brief literature overview shows that the interpretation phase is mostly limited to
a description of results and an evaluation of the methodology employed. Generally,
this also holds true for studies employing comprehensive databases, for example,
the Social Hotspot Database (SHDB) (Benoît Norris and Norris, 2015). By applying the
SHDB to two mineral fertilizers, Martínez-Blanco, Lehmann et al., 2014 conclude that
while databases can provide for the identification of social hotspots, effective data
availability limits the informational value of results obtained. In turn, this leads to high
uncertainties for data interpretation and hinders concrete recommendations.

In the PROSUITE project, the THEMIS economic input-output model is used. In order
to ease Interpretation the PROSUITE handbook entails performance reference points,
’which allow a kind of benchmarking on the level of effect’ (Blok, Huijbregts et al.,
2013). However, setting appropriate performance reference points requires additional
methodological steps that can include value choices, the ‘correctness’ of which cannot
be determined. This paper provides a first attempt to expand the possibility of S-LCA
Interpretation based on I/O-databases in a structured manner.

Methodology
The proposed methodology for Interpretation of S-LCA results based on a global I-O
database takes a systematic approach equally inspired by the data provided by the
PSILCA database as well as the Guidelines for S-LCA (Andrews, Barthel et al., 2009).

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 155

Thema
 Jasmin Werker Session 1H

In order to obtain a valid system for Interpretation the first step is to further explain
the idea of an I-O based database for social assessment, here the PSILCA database
(Ciroth and Eisfeldt, 2016). Based on the global I-O model called Eora the database
provides sector-specific data in 189 countries. At the present, there is a harmonized
26-sector classification implemented across all countries. While for some countries
data was extrapolated, for others the database contains very detailed data. To obtain
indicator values, PSILCA mostly relies on international statistical agencies such as the
International Labour Organization (ILO) as well as ’private or governmental databases’
(Ciroth and Eisfeldt, 2016). In PSILCA 1.0 data for 56 indicators is provided, which are
risk-assessed on a 6-level ordinal scale from ‘no risk’ to ‘very high risk’. In line with the
obtained indicator values, risk assessment is based on international conventions and
standards but also on subjective experience and evaluation of the authors (Ciroth and
Eisfeldt, 2016). To calculate overall risk levels along the life cycle, each ordinal risk level
is assigned a numeric value. Worker hours is used as activity variable to depict the
‘relevance of impacts caused by a process in a life cycle’ (Ciroth and Eisfeldt, 2016).
The final output of a calculation provides risk levels, given in medium risk hours, for 35
impact categories, e.g. fair salary; these impact categories can be regrouped into the
subcategories provided in the S-LCA Guidelines (Andrews, Barthel et al., 2009). The 35
impact categories includes all 56 indicators.

The S-LCA Guidelines define five relevant stakeholder groups: workers, local
communities, society, value chain actors, consumers. Currently, PSILCA 1.0 is only able
to provide indicators portraying four of those, excluding consumers.

In order to progress from results to Interpretation and (policy) recommendations, the

three levels of results (subcategories, stakeholders, locations) given in PSILCA 1.0 need
to be combined in a systematic manner. Hereby, the results level used as starting point
is decisive for the course of interpretation. The definition of an appropriate starting
point depends on the goal of the study, e.g. whether the study compares different
locations or different technologies in the same location.

One aspect that needs to be kept in mind is the fact that, following the S-LCA
guidelines, subcategories and stakeholders are closely connected; in other words, any
subcategory is already linked to a particular stakeholder group whereas a stakeholder
group can entail different subcategories. This limits the number of possible
interpretation pathways to four:
(1) Subcategory (Stakeholder inherent) -> Location
(2) Stakeholder -> Subcategory -> Location
(3) Location -> Stakeholder -> Subcategory
(4) Location -> Subcategory (Stakeholder inherent)

The idea behind this approach is to identify the most problematic impact category
for each result level and then follow the pathway along the other result levels to
reach a better understanding of the underlying causes. All four pathways combine
and link the three result levels in different ways. The recommendations derived
consist of a particular combination of subcategories, stakeholders and locations that
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

156 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Jasmin Werker Session 1H

need to be considered when implementing technologies or products. By using all

pathways for interpretation this approach allows for a comprehensive assessment of
a single product or technology. Pathway (1) exemplifies the pre-given relationship of
stakeholders and subcategories when following the S-LCA guidelines. For stakeholder
and location the weighted average of subcategories is used in order to even out the
amount of impact categories per subcategory.

Case study
In order to illustrate the use of interpretation pathways, a case study investigating the
social impact of industrial hydrogen production by alkaline water electrolysis (AEL) is
conducted. The case study considers the use of a large-scale pressurized 6 MW AEL,
produced in Switzerland and operating in Germany. The social life cycle assessment
is limited to the manufacturing and use phase. As a functional unit, the production
of 1 kg hydrogen is chosen. For further details on the technical dimensions of this
analysis please refer to (Koj, Wulf et al., 2017). As mentioned above, the PSILCA 1.0
database (Ciroth and Eisfeldt, 2016) is used. Overall, the PSILCA analysis results in a risk
level of 19.5 medium risk hours for hydrogen production in Germany. Owing to the
structure of the database the absolute value of medium risk hours does not provide
much informational value. Therefore, a closer look at the results on the subcategory,
stakeholder and location level is necessary.

The interpretation pathways introduced above yield the following results:

(1) Fair Salary (Workers) -> India (22%)
(2) Society -> Health expenditure -> India (29%)
(3) Germany (28%) -> Local communities -> Access to material resources
(4) Germany (28%) -> Access to material resources (Local communities)

The four different pathways lead to three different issues in need for further
investigation before AEL hydrogen production should be implemented in Germany.
Some of those issues are located directly within Germany, others can be found in
upstream industries. The percentages indicate the amount of impact found within the
corresponding locations.

The conclusion drawn from pathway (1) is that parameters of fair salary in India need
to be considered before implementation. At the same time, pathway (2) reveals that
health expenditure is of similar importance. As far as the social issues within Germany
are concerned, access to material resources is shown to deserve special attention.

Discussion & Conclusion

As the presented example illustrates the choice of interpretation pathways can have
significant effects on social issue prominence. In the present study the pathways were
taken in line with the subcategory, stakeholder group and location exhibiting the
highest level of risk. Alternatively, one can also decide to start from a different angle,

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 157

Thema
 Jasmin Werker Session 1H

choosing a particular stakeholder group, subcategory or location to conduct pathway

Interpretation without focusing on the highest risk levels. Generally, the choice of the
starting point as well as the appropriate interpretation pathway is closely connected
to the goal defined in the first phase of the S-LCA.

One of the limitations lies within the nature of generic S-LCA, which provides
information about hotspots of social risks along the value chain. Therefore, the result
of such an analysis is not suitable for explicit policy recommendations but provides
orientation for further investigations. Such investigation should also include a closer
look at the way risks are assessed within the database and where the data for risk
assessment originates from.

Additionally, the identification of relevant sectors in each country can bring important
insights; however, this aspect was excluded from the present example due to the wide
distribution of social risks across all sectors.

This paper presents a first attempt at structured interpretation strategies for S-LCA
based on I-O databases. In order to validate this approach further research and the
application in case studies is necessary. Such case studies could also test whether the
approach is particular to energy technologies or if it can also be applied to other types
of products and technologies. Also, an extension of pathways to include sectors or
alternative pathways depending on the database employed is conceivable. Overall,
the pathways are not intended to provide strict rules but rather a flexible orientation to
guide Interpretation. The structured approach is proposed to increase reproducibility
and allow for a leveled discussion of issues identified through database-based S-LCA.

References
Andrews, E. S., Barthel et al. , 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products:
Social and socio-economic LCA guidelines complementing environmental LCA and Life Cycle
Costing, contributing to the full assessment of goods and services within the context of
sustainable development. Paris, United Nations Environment Programme.
Benoît Norris, C.,G. Norris, 2015. The Social Hotspots Database, in J. Murray, D. McBain,T.
Wiedmann, The sustainability practitioner's guide to social analysis and assessment,
Champaign, Common Ground Publishing LLC: 52-73.
Blok, K., et al., 2013. Handbook on a novel methodology for the sustainability impact
assessment of new technologies - PROSUITE. Amersfoort, PRé Consultants bv.
Ciroth, A.,F. Eisfeldt, 2016. PSILCA – A Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment database:
Database version 1.0 - Documentation. Berlin, Greendelta.
Koj, J., et al., 2017. Site-Dependent Environmental Impacts of Industrial Hydrogen Production
by Alkaline Water Electrolysis. Energies. 10(7), 860.
Martínez-Blanco, J., et al., 2014. Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of
fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 69, 34-48.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

158 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 159

Thema
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

160 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Part 2

Contextualising S-LCA
scientifically

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 161

Thema
 Birgit Brunklaus Session 2C

Choice of social indicators within technology

development – the case of mobile biorefineries in Europe
Birgit Brunklaus, Stefan Molnar, Gustav Sandin, Johan Torén,
Mikael Mangold

RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Gothenburg (Sweden)

Introduction
The EU Horizon 2020 project Mobile and Flexible Industrial Processing of Biomass
(MOBILE FLIP), aims at developing and demonstrating mobile processes for the
conversion of underexploited agro and forest biomass resources into products and
intermediates. The processes will be evaluated in terms of raw material flexibility, as
the biomass resources are typically scattered and seasonal. Process concepts have
been designed around the key technologies pelletizing, torrefaction, slow pyrolysis,
hydrothermal pre-treatment and carbonisation. The products vary depending on
the process concept, such as pellets, biochar for soil, biodegradable pesticides for
agriculture and forestry. The mobile concepts are evaluated with the help of researchers
and industrial partners in the value chains. For the wider sustainability evaluation, life-
cycle based environmental, economic and social evaluations are performed for the
process concepts to clarify the potential for flexible raw material valorisation. Table 1
shows the anticipated end products, the corresponding technologies being developed
in MOBILE FLIP, the raw material(s) for each technology, and the geographical scope
of the assessment.

Product MOBILE FLIP Raw material Country

technology
Metallurgical biochar Slow pyrolysis Forest residues/bark Finland
Particle boards raw Saw dust/carpentry
Pellets France
material shop residue
Forest residues Finland
Slow pyrolysis
Soil amendment Agricultural biomass
material HTC Agricultural biomass France
Torrefaction Agricultural biomass
Animal bedding Pellets Forest residues Sweden
material
Torrefaction Forest residues Sweden
Energy
HT Agricultural biomass France
Activated carbon HTC BSG Finland

Table 1: Products, technology, raw material, country and case within the MOBILE FLIP project
(BSG = brewers’ spent grain, HTC = hydrothermal carbonisation, HT = Hydrotermal treatment)
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

162 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Birgit Brunklaus Session 2C

Materials and methods

In the social assessment, potential social impacts of several value chains and
technologies are evaluated. A social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) will be conducted
that builds on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of
Products as well as related information on the subject, such as the social audits SA
8000 standards, the social responsibility standards ISO 26000, or the corporate social
responsibility guidelines developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (Benoît and
Mazijn, 2009). The social assessment builds on the goal and scope definition of the
environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) performed in parallel within the project,
which set a cradle-to-gate system boundary. The technical system includes agro- and
forest-based raw material acquisition (harvesting, chipping, drying), the mobile units
(slow pyrolysis, hydrothermal carbonisation (HTC), pelletizing or torrefaction) and the
production of the bio-based intermediaries and end products (e.g. pellets, biochar or
animal bedding).

Results and discussion

A pre-study was performed to identify potential socio-economic impacts of the
implementation of mobile biorefinery units, by screening the literature using content
analysis for arguments/standpoints about potential socio-economic benefits (“pro”)
and drawbacks (“contra”) of the implementation of mobile biorefinery units (compared
to stationary units). Primary arguments/standpoints identified were sorted into four
categories: costs (5 pro arguments/standpoints, 14 counter arguments/standpoints),
feedstock availability (pro = 11, contra = 0), rural development (pro = 1, contra = 0) and
forest fires (pro = 2, contra = 0). Secondary supporting arguments were mostly related
to transport costs (pro = 44, contra = 1). In total, 104 arguments/standpoints were
identified from nine reports, five journal articles and 11 newspaper articles (Table 2,
Molnar and Sandin, 2016, based on Höcke and Jacobson, 2015).

A study to adapt the UNEP/SETAC stakeholder categories and impact categories

(Benoît et al, 2009) to the general context of mobile biorefineries was performed. Data
were collected and analysed using content analysis from the documentation in the
MOBILE FLIP description of work. These were complemented with notes taken during
participant discussions in internal MOBILE FLIP workshops, to identify stakeholders
and potential social impacts which are seen as important by the project participants.
The full list of identified stakeholders and potential impacts were categorized in
accordance with the UNEP/SETAC social impact categories: human rights, working
conditions, health and safety, cultural heritage, governance and socio-economic
aspects, as well as 31 sub-categories.

Selecting (social) impact categories and corresponding indicators for social

assessments carried out within technology development projects is not an easy
task. Narrowing down is essential, and the narrowing down process itself generates
a generic understanding of the social impacts/indicators that serve as a base for the
subsequent screening assessment. After all, impacts/indicators traditionally in focus in
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 163

Thema
 Birgit Brunklaus Session 2C

Primary Outcome Secondary Outcome

argument argument
Pro 5 Transport Pro 44
costs Contra 1
Production Pro 1
costs Contra 2
Costs
Contra 14 Development Pro 0
costs Contra 1
Storage Pro 2
costs Contra 0
Pro 11 Weather Pro 11
Feedstock constraints Contra 0
availability Contra 0 Production Pro 7
problems Contra 0
Rural Pro 1 Rural Pro 2
development Contra 0 jobs Contra 0
Pro 2
Forest fire
Contra 0

Table 2: Potential socio-economic impacts (in the form of arguments/standpoints) of implementing

mobile biorefineries, identified in a content analysis.

social assessments, for example child labour, may not be as important in EU compared
to economic poorer regions in Asia or Africa.

The results show that for different stakeholders in the MOBILE FLIP project, there are
overlaps between impact categories. For each stakeholder, three to eight potential
impacts were deemed relevant for mobile biorefineries. In total 17 potential social
impacts were identified and described (Molnar, 2016). The following bullet list shows
the stakeholders and potential social impacts:

• Workers/employees: Health and safety, time away from home, education and
training
• Local community: Local employment (job creation), rural development (self-
sufficiency, education and de-ruralisation), culture, health and safety (forest fires,
traffic and water)
• Society: Economic development (Job creation)
• Consumers: Convenience, price, eco motives
• Value chain actors: New opportunities for value chains actors (farmers,
entrepreneurs/companies)

For more specific impact categories adapted to each technology, further data will
be collected in forthcoming project workshops, with focus-groups for the different
technologies, including stakeholders from the value chains of each of the mobile
biorefinery technologies. So far, an inventory and participant observation study has
been performed in a workshop in France in 2017 focused on some of the MOBILE FLIP
technologies. The workshop included visits to the CPCU black pellets biomass district
heating in Saint Ouen, the Lin-2000 combustion unit of agricultural biomass flax shives
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

164 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Birgit Brunklaus Session 2C

in Granville, the ETIA torrefaction in Beauvais, the IAR demonstration sites in La Salle,
the Semardel greenhouse and waste residues valorisation plant in Vert-de-Grand,
and the bioenergy forest wooden biomass production site in Pontault-Combault. The
results from this study show that among health and safety issues, body protection of
eyes and safety shoes are essential at heating and combustion units (toxic chemicals
are less important), while noise protection is essential for the mechanical treatment of
flax and torrefaction technologies (Brunklaus, 2017).

Conclusions for choosing social indicators

The results from the pre-study show that a literature study using content analysis
helped to identify the arguments for and against the implementation of mobile
biorefineries, among others negative arguments regarding costs (14 arguments) and
positive arguments regarding feedstock availability (11 arguments). The results from
workshops with stakeholder groups and a content analysis helped to narrow down
the large number of social impacts/indicators within the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and to focus on the relevant geographic
area (such as the countries in focus) and the specific technologies (such as mobile
biorefineries in focus). The results highlight the positive and negative potential
impacts for local communities and workers/employees, particularly aspects such as
job creation/education and health and safety. The results from the observation study
point to health and safety issues, such as heating protection and noise protection for
mechanical treatment in the torrefaction process. In the integrated assessment, the
results from the environmental, economic and social evaluations will be integrated
into a multi-dimensional matrix and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats will be discussed in workshops together with internal and external experts.

Future work and developments

As part of the future work within the MOBILE FLIP project, results will be complemented
with semi-structured interviews, surveys and participant observations. Stakeholder
involvement will be an important part of the data collection, which means that
the social hot spots are based on subjective stakeholder views. Therefore, relevant
generic data from public sector bodies will also be collected and analysed with help
of the developed indicators and impact categories. Eurostat data for employment and
working hours, alternatively available social LCA databases PSILCA (2015) or Eco-invent
(Benoît et al, 2015) are used. The analysis should result in a generic understanding
of relevant positive and negative impacts of the technologies, such as employment,
health, education, quality of life, workers’ rights etc. Special focus will be on the most
important social effects of the technologies – the social hot spots.

Further interpretation will be made in the form of an integrated matrix with help of
the Handbook for Product Social Impacts Assessment (HPSIA, 2016), and includes
descriptions of social indicators such as health and safety, training and education,
work-life balance, and employment. Since the S-LCA is part of an integrated

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 165

Thema
 Birgit Brunklaus Session 2C

sustainability assessment, inspired by the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)

framework, the system boundaries are set based on the (environmental) LCA. Instead
of the whole life cycle, here only cradle to gate evaluations are performed. For the
social assessment, the Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment and available
databases might be of help for the evaluation of specific technologies. The integrated
matrix in which the results are presented includes additional aspects more specific for
the project, such as the adaption from fossil to bio-economy, or additional aspects for
the consumer, such as eco branding. Therefore, data collection and analysis should be
seen as an iterative process.

Acknowledgements: This project has received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No
637020−MOBILE FLIP. The authors would like to thank the involved industrial and
research partners and the EU for finacing this research project.

References
Benoît, C., Wernet, G. and Norris, G. 2015. Introducing Social Data in Ecoinvent – First Results.
LCM Conf in Bordeaux/France.
Benoît, C. and Mazijn, B. 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/
SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-
guidelines_sLCA.pdf
Brunklaus, B. 2017. Workshop and study visits in Paris, 26-28 of June 2017, MOBILE FLIP.
Höcke, E., and Jacobson, A., 2015. Socio-Economic Assessment of Implementing Mobile
Biorefineries: A pre-study with focus on the European Union, Report no. 2015:1, Department of
Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Göteborg.
HPSIA, 2016. Handbook Product Social Impacts Assessment. V3.0. Roundtable of Product Social
Metrics.
MOBILE FLIP, 2014. Mobile and Flexible Industrial Processing of Biomass. EU Horison
SPIRE-02-2020. http://www.mobileflip.eu/.
Molnar, S. 2016. Possible stakeholders and social impacts of mobile biorefineries, (Internal
report within MOBILE FLIP).
Molnar, S., and Sandin, G. 2016. Social assessment. 14-16th of June 2016, Workshop in Umeå,
MOBILE FLIP. http://www.mobileflip.eu/.
PSILCA, 2015. PSILCA - A new, comprehensive, interactive database for Product Social Impact
Life Cycle Assessment. Eisfeld and Ciroth, LCM Conference in Bordeaux/France.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

166 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Galyna Medyna Session 2C

Bioeconomy network mapping and assessment

of sustainability performance
Galyna Medyna1, Anu Reinikainen1, Sirpa Kurppa2

1
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Espoo (Finland)
2
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen (Finland)

Introduction
Several countries and regions around the world have created strategies to increase the
size of their bioeconomies in order to help their economies wean off fossil fuels and
other non-renewable resources. For the European Union, the European Commission
defined “bioeconomy” as “encompass[ing] the production of renewable biological
resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value-
added products, such as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy” (European
Commission 2012). The Finnish bioeconomy strategy builds on this definition and goes
on to explicitly mention the importance of aiming for a bioeconomy that promotes
sustainability, including the well-being of Finnish people (Ministry of Employment
and Economy 2017).

The present work forms part of efforts to provide Finnish bioeconomy companies
with tools to innovate and increase their growth while remaining sustainable, thus
respectful of the environment, economically viable and contributing to social well-
being. At first, the forestry sector, and more precisely construction wood, is considered
as over 75% of Finnish land is covered by forests and forestry products make a
significant contribution to the overall Finnish economy. Sustainability is assessed
through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Social Life Cycle
Assessment (SLCA), in an adaption of previously proposed approaches commonly
referred to as “LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA” (Kloepffer 2008).

Project methodology
In order to elicit innovation and promote growth, a network map is made for a specific
product (“construction wood” in the first case study) that looks at actors, stakeholders
and influencing factors along and across the value chain as well those adjacent to the
value chain (e.g. geographically), and the links among them. The mapping is done
using software (Ventana Systems Inc. 2018) that allows the creation of Causal Loop
Diagrams (cf. example of partial mapping in Fig. 1) and stock and flow diagrams.

In a first step, an initial network representation is built using literature and internal
expert input and attempts to list relevant all actors, stakeholders and influencing
factors, from those who simply live next to a forest to end-users of by-products of
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 167

Thema
 Galyna Medyna Session 2C

Public policy

Forest renewal
rate

Population
feedback

Weather
Forest
Population
well-being

Biodiversity

Figure 1: section of early concept for network mapping for “construction wood” case study

the main value chain to alternative products that share the market. The links are
qualified and indicators are chosen to quantify the impacts of actions, whenever
feasible. The aim of constructing as comprehensive a network map as possible is to
spot inefficiencies (e.g. material dismissed as waste instead of being turned into a
by-product) and missed opportunities (e.g. “missing” links between actors). Moreover,
the qualification and quantification of actors, influencing factors and links allows
for discussions on how to improve performance in terms of environmental impacts,
economic returns and social well-being. The choice and application of social indicators
to a network are further discussed below.

In a second step, a select number of Finnish companies providing the product under
study (“construction wood” is the first product case study) will be contacted for
interviews and to present and discuss the established initial network mapping. This
step is expected to help validate sections of the mapping, establish which links are
currently the most important for companies and provide indications as to which other
actors and stakeholders should be consulted and/or other influencing factors added.
The choice of a visual mapping and an easy-to-use dynamic tool was made to facilitate
this step.

Concurrently, the consumption patterns and decisions of end-users for the final
products and by-products of the value chain will be analysed. Recent project work has

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

168 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Galyna Medyna Session 2C

shown that consumer preferences can shift significantly following the introduction
of innovative products (e.g. dairy-free milk alternatives beyond soy milk) and this is
especially true in Finland where large companies such as Fazer do not hesitate to
launch unconventional products (e.g. bread containing a small portion of flour made
of insects (Fazer 2017)) and supermarket chains feature them prominently. As the
final aim of the work is to provide sustainable innovation and growth strategies to
companies, including strategies that steer consumers towards products and services
that contribute overall social well-being, understanding consumers’ willingness-to-
pay (WTP) and adoption behaviour is essential.

Later steps of the project are expected to include the transposition of the network
map into a stock and flow diagram in order to visualise the impact of changes made
by actors and stakeholders and evolutions of influencing factors, both on a company’s
market performance and sustainability performance.

Social indicators in the project

Currently no single method has emerged to qualify and quantify social impacts for
products, processes and services and their analysis relies on public data repositories
that cover impacts that are considered as important and/or the collection of local
data (Sala, Vasta et al. 2015). Moreover, previous studies have highlighted that social
indicators are context-dependent (e.g. child labour and education indicators are not
always relevant (Smeets, Faaij 2010)) and local stakeholder involvement is crucial
(Kurka, Blackwood 2013).

In the case of the forestry sector, several factors highlight the need to consider social
impacts that are tailored to the different actors and stakeholders. Indeed, while the
focus of the work is on the Finnish forestry sector, recent demographic changes of
private forest owners in Finland highlight that social aspects associated with forestry
products are not set in stone. Indeed, as summarized by Korhonen et al. (2010), forest
owners depend less on the income generated by cutting trees and they increasingly
living away from their forest holdings, among other changes.

Thus, in order to understand the most relevant social indicators to consider and
quantify, company and other actor interview will include input gathering on this issue.
In order to start discussions, the following impacts will be included, based on previous
work that considered the social impacts on local forestry stakeholders (Lähtinen 2010)
and the guidelines provided by UNEP/STEC (Benoît 2010): health and safety, working
time, discrimination, work stability, local community development, and relationships
with other companies and suppliers. This list will be augmented throughout the
project and the data to qualify and quantify the impacts taken from existing literature
and the PSILCA database (GreenDelta 2018). In a similar fashion, consumers and other
non-forestry stakeholders will be interviewed to assess the most important social
impacts. Currently the most important indicators are expected to be health and safety,
transparency and end-of-life treatment of products.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 169

Thema
 Galyna Medyna Session 2C

Future developments
While a proof of concept network has already been established, as well as a transposition
to a stack and flow diagram, the majority of company and other stakeholder interviews
are expected to be held in the spring of 2018. The content of these interviews will
refine the network model for the first use case product, construction wood. The
second use case will be milk products. Future work is also expected to include the
creation of a dynamic tool to be used by companies to visualize their sustainability
performance, external influences and how changes will influence that performance.

References
BENOÎT, C., 2010. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/Earthprint.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2012. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions: A Bioeconomy for Europe, COM(2012) 60.
FAZER, 2017-last update, Fazer Sirkkaleipä. Available: https://www.fazer.fi/tuotteet-ja-
asiakaspalvelu/leipa/fazer-sirkkaleipa/ [8 February, 2018].
GREENDELTA, 2018-last update, PSILCA database. Available: https://psilca.net/ [8 February,
2018].
KLOEPFFER, W., 2008. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), pp. 89.
KORHONEN, K., KURTTILA, M. and HUJALA, T., 2010. Typical social networks of family forest
owners in timber trade. Scandinavian forest economics, 43, pp. 161-171.
KURKA, T. and BLACKWOOD, D., 2013. Participatory selection of sustainability criteria and
indicators for bioenergy developments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, pp.
92-102.
LÄHTINEN, K., 2010. Multidimensional sustainability framework to evaluate forest and wood
energy production (BioSus-project). Scandinavian Forest Economics, (43),.
MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY, 2017-last update, Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy.
Available: http://www.bioeconomy.fi/facts-and-contacts/finnish-bioeconomy-strategy/ [7
February, 2018].
SALA, S., VASTA, A., MANCINI, L., DEWULF, J. and ROSENBAUM, E., 2015. Social Life Cycle
Assessment: State of the Art and Challenges for Product Policy Support. JRC Technical Report,
EUR 27624 EN. Italy.
SMEETS, E.M. and FAAIJ, A.P., 2010. The impact of sustainability criteria on the costs and
potentials of bioenergy production–Applied for case studies in Brazil and Ukraine. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 34(3), pp. 319-333.
VENTANA SYSTEMS INC., 2018-last update, Vensim software. Available: http://vensim.com/ [8
February, 2018].

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

170 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Marilyn A. Muñoz Mayorga Session 2C

Social life cycle assessment through the framework

Multi-Level Social Life Cycle Assessment (ML-SLCA)
of the bioelectricity generation in Floreana Island
Marilyn A. Muñoz Mayorga1, Natalia Caldés Gómez2, Eva Iglesias
Martínez1, Irene Rodríguez Serrano2, Israel Herrera Orozco2

1
Food and Biosystems Engineering at Technical University of Madrid. UPM, Madrid (Spain)
2
Energy Systems Analysis Unit, Energy Department. CIEMAT., Madrid (Spain)

Introduction
In September 2015, world leaders defined seventeen global goals to eradicate
poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all its inhabitants as part of a
new agenda for sustainable development. Almost simultaneously in December 2015,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC-COP21) took place
in Paris, where 195 countries signed the first binding global climate agreement (UN
2015a). In this sense, Ecuador has voluntarily adopted different mitigation measures
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the “Zero Fossils Fuels program in the
Galapagos Islands”, in which the Ecuadorian government promotes the development
of biofuels without compromising food security (PNBV 2013). Within this initiative and
the program “Renewable Energies for Galapagos” (ERGAL) is designed to eradicate
the use of fossil fuels in the Galapagos Islands (Ergal 2008), where one of its most
noteworthy projects is the pilot project "Jatropha for Galápagos" (JFG), whose purpose
is to progressively replace diesel by jatropha oil for the production of electricity. To this
end, two rural areas with substantially different socio-economic and environmental
environments are involved: rural population of Manabí which produces jatropha by
living fences system; and the rural Floreana Island where the jatropha oil is used to
generate bioelectricity. Under this premise (Feron 2016) points out the importance of
analyzing the social aspects for the progress of the sustainability of rural electrification.

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach allows the identification of environmental,

social and/or economic impacts of a product or service (AENOR 2006). Social Life
Cycle Analysis (SLCA) methodology described in detail in the work of UNEP-SETAC1,
is a tool that allows providing elements for the decision making process on the
social impacts involved in the production of goods and services (Sala et al. 2015).
However, in comparison with the environmental applications of LCA, its application
and development is still in a very incipient state. In this sense, the purpose of this
study is to identify the social impacts derived from the production of electricity
from jatropha oil by the proposed methodological framework "Multi-level Social Life
1  Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, of United Nations Environment Programmed
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, (UNEP/SETAC).
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 171

Thema
 Marilyn A. Muñoz Mayorga Session 2C

Cycle Analysis" (ML-SLCA) and to analyze the positive and negative social impacts on
the different actors involved in the different phases that shape the Social Life Cycle
Assessment (SHBD, 2016). From the methodological point of view, this research
involves a modification of the traditional SLCA methodological framework, due to
the consideration of three levels (Multi-Level-ML) of social information (international,
country and local), which allow to identify the degree of social vulnerabilities of the
actors related to their socioeconomic environment. Besides, project’s contributions
are identified by surveys conducted to each social actor. These vulnerabilities and
contributions are estimated with the purpose of identifying the social impacts of the
project, which are aligned to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Context of the case study

The geographic and social scope of the project reveals a bilateral cooperation
approach between two provinces. On the one hand, Manabí with a rural population
of 44%, has a precarious education and high level of poverty (76.8%) (Muñoz, M et
al. 2018), with 60.8% of the population engaged in agriculture, forestry, hunting and
fishing activities. In addition, there are environmental problems from the soil erosion
and desertification (Muñoz Mayorga et al. 2018). On the other hand, the Galapagos
Islands have unique flora and fauna characteristics in the world and it is considered
a World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO, 2013). 97% of its total area is
protected and belongs to the Galapagos National Park (PNG 2005). However, its marine
area is threatened by human activity and by the risk of diesel spills (Gruber 2014). In
2013, jatropha suppliers amount to 3000 between producers and jatropha collectors
(IICA 2013). Producers harvest the jatropha from living fences on their farms, while
collectors harvest the jatropha from living fences of the third-party farms with prior
permission. Besides, 61 local collectors were registered, which buy and store fruits and
jatropha seeds (IICA 2013) and they are often community leaders or small grocery
stores owners in the community. Additionally, in 2015, 19 employees participated,
which were linked to the extraction of raw material, refinery and electricity generation.
Users of the electricity are 145 inhabitants of the Floreana Island, in addition to the
occasional tourists.

Methodology
Based on the SLCA framework defined by UNEP-SETAC (UNEP-SETAC, 2013), the
"ML-SLCA" proposes four modifications: (i) the implementation of the ML-SLCA is
structured in six steps, (ii) the social indicators and risks considered in the analysis
are grouped into five impact categories (people, planet, prosperity, peace, and
partnerships), which are reflected in the SDGs; (iii) each indicator or considered risk is
collected and analyzed in three data level (international, country and local) with the
objective of making a diagnosis of the initial situation and identify the vulnerabilities
of the actors in each phase of the life cycle, and (iv) it uses data from surveys,
publications related to project, and results of field ethnographic work to identify the

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

172 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Marilyn A. Muñoz Mayorga Session 2C

contributions of the project to the before identified vulnerabilities. Figure 1 shows,

schematically, the six steps of the ML-SLCA.

Figure 1: Methodological structure of the framework ML-SLCA

i. Definition of the framework by categories, stages, and actors:

Building a matrix as from life cycle phases as well as related actors and social impact
categories: . One of the contributions of this framework is the allocation of indicators
and social risks to each one of the following categories of the SDGs (UN 2015a): People,
Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Alliances..

ii. Selection of indicators and social risks based on the relevance of the project:
For each impact category, indicators/risks are selected according to the objectives,
scope and social nature of the project, which must be linked to the SDGs. (UNEP-
SETAC 2013) and (SHDB 2016).

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 173

Thema
 Marilyn A. Muñoz Mayorga Session 2C

iii. Indicators analysis and social risks for international, country and local levels
The framework considers the selected indicators and, whenever possible, international,
country and local data. The international level is considered as a threshold value, which
is necessary to recognize the situation of an actor, while the national and local levels
are compared against each other to characterize in more detail the socio-economic
environment of the actors.

iv. Identification of the social vulnerabilities at local level:

The degree of vulnerability of the actors, in the "ML-SLCA" presents a procedure to
identify four degrees of vulnerability associated with eight possible vulnerability
situations.

v. Social impacts of the project

Once the vulnerabilities are identified, is needed to identify the project contributions.
In the ML-SLCA, contributions are considered as to an action or measure by a project
when it generates one or more positive/negative social impacts. Data from surveys
of the stakeholders and qualitative information from ethnographic research and
available literature is used.

vi. Recommendations
Finally, once the project contributions, vulnerabilities, and social impacts (positive and
negative) have been identified, a diagnosis is developed to identify those measures
that would be necessary to implement in order to maximize or minimize relevant
impacts for the purpose of increasing the social sustainability and its contribution to
the achievement of the SDGs.

Results and discussion

From ML-SLCA analysis, results showed that 33.4% of Manabí's population lives
in extreme poverty (less than $1.48 per day) which is a much larger value than
Galapagos with 0.7% (INEC 2010b). Based on the above, jatropha suppliers and local
collectors who live in rural zones, show extreme vulnerability. Moreover, at the local
level, the enrollment for primary education (89.9% Manabí's rural population) is
lower than the rates of the Manabí and Galápagos urban populations with 93.2% and
97.5%. Similarly, the enrollment rate for secondary education in Manabí rural zone
is 52.5%, which is lower than rates of Manabí urban zone, and Galápagos of 72.7%
and 76.5%. These arguments disclose that suppliers and local collectors of jatropha
show extreme vulnerability to poorly educated and consequent social exclusion due
to their low education level. Regarding the gender equality, women farmers in Manabí
are vulnerable to food insecurity, social exclusion and gender inequality due to lack of
access to factors of production, scarce social capital and scarce empowerment.

Related to the project contributions and impacts, 92.4% of providers use the additional
incomes of jatropha to meet their daily needs, thus, 84.3% of them consider jatropha
incomes to be very important to their household economy. Additionally, the use of

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

174 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Marilyn A. Muñoz Mayorga Session 2C

live fences system helps to prevent soil degradation, loss of productivity and is not a
threat to food security.

Concerning the SDG of gender equality, the project has a slight positive impact on
inequality, since 10.5% of the employees are women and 4.7% are jatropha producers.
However, such participations are low and should be increased. Conversely, women's
participation help to the 41.5% suppliers to harvest the jatropha but it is considered a
negative impact because this participation is non-formal and does not contribute to
gender equality or empowerment of women.

Finally, about the SDGs for quality education, the participation of children help to
33.3% of suppliers to harvest Jatropha and it is considered a negative impact, because
Manabí shows vulnerability to child labor and low level of education. Therefore, this
could increase the risk of early school leaving, which has significant societal and
individual consequences. This includes the increased risk of unemployment, poverty
and social exclusion.

Conclusions
The ML-SLCA allows identifying vulnerability associated with the jatropha suppliers
such as poverty, poor education and social exclusion, food insecurity, and gender
inequality. Suppliers benefit from a series of contributions that generally generate
a positive impact, which are aligned with the scope of the SDGs. In this regard, it
should be noted that the additional income from the sale of jatropha is used to satisfy
basic needs, the live jatropha fence system is considered a natural capital that helps
to fight poverty and increase the resistance of producers to climatic events adverse.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, measures are needed to combat poverty in a more
sustainable manner, through programs focused on capacity building, especially
for women and young people. Finally, in order to improve the social sustainability
of the project analyzed and to exploit its full potential, it is important to consider
the following key factors: strengthened of social capital, actions that maximize the
empowerment of women, development of activities that increase the education of
children.

References
AENOR, 2006. Análisis de Ciclo de Vida, Principios y Marco de Referencia. ISO 14040.,
Ergal, 2008. Sustitición de combustibles fósiles por biocombustibles en la generación de
energía eléctrica en la Isla Floreana, Available at: http://www.ergal.org/imagesFTP/7734.
Estudio_de_Factibilidad_para_el_Uso_de_Bicombustibles.pdf.
Feron, S., 2016. Sustainability of Off-Grid Photovoltaic Systems for Rural Electrification in
Developing Countries : A Review. , pp.1–26.
Gruber, G., 2014. Pure Jatropha Oil for Power Generation on Floreana Island/Galapagos:
Four Years Experience on Engine Operation and Fuel Quality. Journal of Energy and Power
Engineering, 8, pp.929–938.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 175

Thema
 Marilyn A. Muñoz Mayorga Session 2C

IICA, 2013. Sistematización de Experiencias del Poryecto Piñón para Galápagos

Muñoz Mayorga, M. et al., 2018. Environmental Assessment of Electricity Based on Straight
Jatropha Oil on Floreana Island, Ecuador. BioEnergy Research, 11(1), pp.123–138. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9883-y.
Sala, S. et al., 2015. Social Life Cycle Assessment - State of the Art and Challenges for Supporting
Product Policies, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc.
SHDB, 2016. Social Hotspot Database. Available at: http://socialhotspot.org/.
UNEP-SETAC, 2013. The Methodological Sheets for Sub - categories in Social Life Cycle
Assessment (S-LCA), Available at: http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf.
UNESCO, 2013. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural
heritage. Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session Paris

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

176 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Henrikke Baumann Session 2D

Beyond a CSR context towards pluralism in SLCA:

exploring alternative social theoretical perspectives
Henrikke Baumann, Rickard Arvidsson

Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg (Sweden)

Abstract
Most current efforts in social life cycle assessment (SLCA), and in particular the
UNEP/SETAC guidelines, have corporate social responsibility (CSR) as underpinning
theoretical perspective. However, over 50 years of studies on CSR suggest that the
companies themselves have benefitted more than has society. CSR has therefore
been criticised for legitimising and consolidating the power of large corporations. In
response to this critique and since the social dimension of product life cycles is broader
than the corporate perspective, we explore alternative theoretical perspectives
that can inform SLCA. Two alternatives not departing from a corporate worldview
are the theory of ecologically unequal exchange (TEUE) and actor-network-theory
(ANT). TEUE highlights inequalities between different actors along product chains as
manifested in today’s international trade, in particular between high- and low-income
countries (Hornborg 2009). ANT is a descriptive approach for mapping networks of
relationships between both actors and material (both technological and natural)
entities (Latour 2005). Here, we explore a number of case studies informed by TEUE and
ANT in order to identify the contribution of these alternative perspectives to SLCA. The
covered cases include studies of airbag systems comparing health impacts mitigated
by these devices to health impacts caused during their life cycle and cocoa supply
chains through a north-south perspective. The analysis shows that these alternative
perspectives add to the current SLCA framework in that they enable description of
phenomena and issues hitherto uncovered by it. We go on to discuss the difference
between description and assessment in SLCA and argue for greater pluralism in the
theoretical and methodological approach to SLCA.

References
Hornborg, A., 2009. Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load
displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system. International Journal of
Comparative Sociology 50.3-4: 237-262.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford
university press.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 177

Thema
 Mélodie Caraty Session 2D

How Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) differs

from Product Social Value Assessment (PSVA)
and why they complement each other
Mélodie Caraty1-2, Jean-Pierre Chanteau1

1
Centre de recherche en économie de Grenoble (CREG), University Grenoble Alpes (UGA) (France)
2
Sustainability dept., ArcelorMittal Global Research & Development, Maizières-lès-Metz (France)

Introduction
The development of environmental and social impacts assessment methodologies is
becoming a key issue for both companies and non-economic actors such as NGOs
or public institutions. What is implicitly criticized through such assessments is the
functioning of the economic market, which seems unable to deal with environmental
and societal negative impacts - what economists use to call negative “externalities”.
Environmental impacts are part of those “externalities” and environmental Life cycle
Assessment (LCA) of products has reached a wide legitimacy as a decision-making tool
for reducing environmental impacts of products. Within the social domain, NGOs and
public institutions are pointing out negative impacts such as poverty, economic and
social rights’ violations, unemployment, land grabbing, increase of inequalities, etc. As
a response and as key market actors, companies are willing to prove they also have
positive effects, i.e. they can create value for the whole society with their products:
this is what some companies call “the product social value” (PSV) [ArcelorMittal:
2008, 2013, 2014] which also takes into account the product’s positive contribution
to the society. This paper provides insights on the nature of PSV and underlines the
difference between a PSV assessment (PSVA) and a product social impact assessment
(PSIA) and how they can be articulated.

The limits of a positivist approach to define

the social value of a product
The theory of value in economics aims at explaining what makes a product valuable
to the whole society ( or at least the whole group of people who are participating to
economic exchanges). The challenge is therefore to know whether economists have
effectively identified the PSV. We can divide their answers into two main groups:

The first group (mostly classical economists) considers that the value of a product is
determined by a universal and undisputable reference (either natural or social), as
if the value of a product is contained in the product itself and valid for whoever in
the society needs this product. In other words, the PSV is an intrinsic and common

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

178 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Mélodie Caraty Session 2D

characteristic applicable to all products making them comparable. Numerous authors

have tried to define the PSV by means of a material constraint such as the product’s
scarcity [Walras: 1874], its utility/usefullness (also called the use value (as opposed
to the product’s exchange value) [Condillac: 1776; Turgot: 1769; Jevons: 1871], or
the quantity of work needed to produce it [Smith: 1776; Ricardo: 1817; Marx: 1867].
However, none of those criteria is able to fully explain the value of products because
material constraints are always subject to social mediation: people react according
to the social representations they have of those constraints. Any of those criteria can
therefore be pure objective references, i.e neither undisputable nor universal.

The second group (neoclassical economists) considers that the value of a product
is encapsulated in its price. Economists who support this vision believe that the
product’s market price is equivalent to the aggregation of all individual preferences.
Accordingly, the price of a product matches its PSV since it becomes an objective
value for the whole society by means of an aggregation process in the sense that,
under the conditions of a perfect competition1, no agent has a market power (eg,
the equilibrium price cannot be biased for the benefit of a few). However, it has been
mathematically proved that the aggregation of individual preferences does not equal
the collective preference [Condorcet paradox – theory of social choice: 1785; Arrow’s
impossibility theorem: 1954] even if perfect competition would be achieved2. In other
words, the price of a product cannot be strictly equivalent to its social value, since a
preference will always prevail on another one. The price of a product therefore results
from market powers.

Both groups fail to define PSV through a positivist approach. In the next section we
will look into the perspective of the constructivist approach.

Testing the constructivist approach to build

a definition of the social value of a product
Given the limits of the positivist approach, we have decided to test the implementation
of a constructivist approach within the frame of a case-study. Constructivist social
scientists consider that a value refers to what people give importance to3. It is therefore
directly linked to human judgements4. Accordingly, the PSV is therefore the society’s
judgement on an identified product, what Dewey calls the society’s valuation. Dewey
considers that judgments are observable because they belong to the behavioural

1  In its theoretical sense, the situation of perfect competition fulfils the following 4 requirements: agents
are price-takers; agents are perfectly informed; products are perfectly homogenous; there is a free movement
of production factors in a given activity [F.Knight: 1921].
2  Neoclassical economists demonstrated that market failures occur even in a situation of perfect compe-
tition; and they also demonstrated that perfect competition is an unreachable condition.
3  The idea of “value” in the WBSCD social capital protocol is close. But at any time, it provides a definition
for the terminology of “social value”: “Valuation is the process of determining the importance, worth, or useful-
ness of something in a particular context” (WBCSD, 2017, Social Capital Protocol, p.48).
4  Whereas in the positivist approach, the scientist tries to identify an objective value which avoids the
intervention of any human judgment.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 179

Thema
 Mélodie Caraty Session 2D

sphere: when a person gives importance to something, it deploys an effort to protect

it. We have decided to implement a valuation process which involves the society’s
involvement and combines two stages: a subjective one where people appreciate
(“I like/I don’t like”) and an objective one where people assess (“I like/don’t like
because…”). The second stage falls under a deliberation process, when people have
to present arguments to justify their subjective judgment, which are inherently value-
based judgments. Such value can be of any type: economic, environmental, moral,
religious, aesthetic, practical/utilitarian, etc, but such a deliberation is not only based
on individual preferences because individuals are not isolated within the society.
They interact and their respective preferences also vary according to others. People
behave according to social norms and the culture they have incorporated by means
of a socialisation process. Since a valuation process always takes place in a cultural
context, the objectification process is based on individuals’ inter-subjectivity. In order
to observe what a society values in a product, we therefore need to conduct such a
valuation process. One main outcome will be the possible identification of qualities
a product should ideally have in the society’s opinion. Those criteria would therefore
become what is desirable in a product as an end to achieve.

A comparative analysis between PSIA & PSVA

OECD published in 2015 a report where it considers “social value” and “social impact”
as equivalent [2015, p.3]5, whereas we support the idea that PSVA and PSIA do not
present the same goal.

PSIA as it is practiced today is in fact not able to contribute to sustainable development

as a whole, as it doesn’t have a holistic perspective but rather looks at each stakeholder’s
interests separately. We believe that the role of PSVA is to identify qualities that matter
for the society in a product as a scoping approach, whereas PSIA should assess the
product against those qualities selected by the society itself.

In this perspective, conducting PSVA should become the first step of any PSIA as it
would help S-LCA practitioners to identify the aim of their study and provide a better
legitimacy and relevance of the approach. In fact, as an anonymous reviewer of the
Social Product Impact Assessment handbook [2016, p.92] has written:

“I would suggest that a company shouldn’t count as “social impact” – what matters
is whether those procedures help you to achieve the final social outcomes you are
aiming for.”

The following table summarizes the main features of PSVA and PSIA:

5  “The idea of social impact is strictly related to the social value produced by organisations. The term
‘social impact’ — which may overlap with ‘social value creation’ […] and ‘social return’— has many definitions
and may also be linked to social accountability”.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

180 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Mélodie Caraty Session 2D

PSVA PSIA
Object of study Social value (of a product) Social impacts (of a product)
Definition Society’s judgment on a product Predefined impacts of a product
on stakeholders (SH)
Level of analysis The whole society Beneficiairies / Categories of SH
Ontological conception Collective Groups of interest
Aim Assess the product’s net Assess the causality link
contribution to the society between a product and a SH
category (i.e how a product
affects a category of people)
Scoping aim: identification of an Conformity aim: how a product
end to achieve, i.e of qualities a achieves the qualities identified
product should have in society’s in a PSVA
opinion
Assessment method Pluralistic deliberation based Compliance check (legal or
on inter-subjectivity and performance reference points)
internormativity (valuation – audits
process)
Type of approach Constructivist Positivist
Bottom-up oriented Top-down oriented
Legitimization process Public involvement Experts’ knowledge
Scope Values of people that can be Social topics associated to each
moral, ethical, environmental, SH category
economic, aesthetic, utilitarian,
religious, etc...
Associated “concepts” General interest, Common good, Impacts, Risks, Hotspots,
Sustainable development (SD), Materiality, Performance, Social
Art of living-together, Society’s engineering, Stakeholders’
wellbeing, Social usefullness, etc. wellbeing, etc.

Table 1: Comparison between PSVA & PSIA

Results and discussion

In order to identify what matters for the society in a product (the PSV), we have invited
500 people to get involved in a valuation process. The main conclusion of our work is
that PSV can never be revealed as an objective value, even with the implementation
of a constructivist approach we have adopted. Social topics, social reference values,
social indicators’ choices are subject to different visions and can even support different
conflicting ideas. Those choices cannot be scientifically-based through any positivist
or constructivist approach. The choice of the relevant PSV would always require an
arbitration and the judgement of an authority taking the final decision. Despite this
outcome, it is still absolutely crucial to conduct a PSVA before launching any (Social)
LCA for two main reasons:

1) Avoid never-ending discussions on the choices practitioners make: there

will never be scientific justifications to those critical choices;
2) Empower – by means of a democratization process- the whole society who
is directly concerned by the issues practitioners try to assess.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 181

Thema
 Mélodie Caraty Session 2D

Conclusions and perspectives

PSVA and PSIA fail in the research of an objective definition for PSV but PSV should
drive Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA): society can value that a product
should meet criteria based on its price (evaluated in a LCSA through Life Cycle Costing,
or LCC) or its environmental performance (environmental LCA), as well as any other
criteria people value as “things that matter” for a product (working conditions, product
usefulness, etc). In fact, in our case-study, most participants have primarily favoured
environmental issues when assessing PSV and have considered that each stage of
the product life-cycle was important and should be taken into consideration in a
holistic perspective (i.e PSV goes beyond the product’s utility). Conducting a PSVA will
therefore help companies to identify what a truly “sustainable product” is according
to the society’s opinion, which is one of the recommendations in the UNEP/SETAC
guidelines (p.82): “In relation to the development of sustainability LCA, the issue of
which products can be called sustainable needs to be handled […] and to be further
researched.”

References
Caraty, M. & al. 2014. How to assess the social value of a steel product? Some ontological
thoughts, in Social LCA in progress: Pre-proceedings, 4th SocSem, Montpellier-France, 19-20
Nov. 2014, 63-69 p.
Eames, E.R. & Field, R.W. 2002. Experience and Value: Essays on John Dewey & Pragmatic
Naturalism, 184 p.
Iofrida, N. & al. 2014. Social Life Cycle Assessment in a constructivist realism perspective: a
methodological proposal, in Social LCA in progress: Pre-proceedings, 4th SocSem, Montpellier-
France, 19-20 Nov. 2014, 44-50 p.
Iofrida, N. & al. 2016. Can social paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to SLCA. In IJLCA.
Macombe, C. 2014. Searching for social peace: A theory of justice to determine the nature of
impacts in social LCA, in Social LCA in progress: Pre-proceedings, 4th SocSem, Montpellier-
France, 19-20 Nov. 2014, 56-62 p.
Pizzirani, S. & al. 2014. Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment. in IJLCA,
published online.
Roundtable for Product Social Metrics. 2016. Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment,
version 3.0.
Thomas, J.-S., Birat, J.-P., Carvallo, A. 2013. A metrics for the sustainability value of steel, Seminar
“Which transition for our societies”, Namur-Belgium, February.
UNEP/SETAC. 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products
WBCSD. 2017. Social Capital Protocol. 94 p.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

182 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 183

Thema
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

184 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Part 3

Fields of applications

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 185

Thema
 Gabriella Arcese Session 3A

The role of social aspects evaluation

in the industrial symbiosis models
Gabriella Arcese

Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari (Italy)

Introduction
The circular economy model not only concerns economic models and political
guidelines but also represents a cultural model and behaviour that is becoming
increasingly important on a global scale to the level of production, consumption and
institutional framework in order to pursue the reduction of the usage of primary raw
materials towards models of reuse and recycling of quality materials (Notarnicola et al,
2016). Industrial symbiosis also explains the different modes with which it is possible
to make the practices of symbiosis (utility-sharing or sharing of resources and how it is
possible to initiate the transfer of materials) (Chertow, 2000).

In the processes of the formation of collaborative relationships, it is possible to

distinguish the different stages of development:

1. The first phase is given by the progressive affirmations of the network, in

which there must be some essential conditions of mutual exchange.
2. The second phase is the development of the network, known in the literature
as the probation phase. This phase allows the establishment of relationships
of trust, reduction of the risks associated with trade and the process of
learning by doing.
3. The next phase of expansion and development allows one to establish new
connections and deepen relationships due to the continuous interaction
and accumulation of experience. In this phase, there is a reduction in
transaction costs. This is due to cooperation based on strengthening, trusting
relationships and the increased ability to resolve any problematic situations
in an appropriate manner.
4. Finally, the phase of maturity of the network enables the consolidation of
best practices and research of new exchanges symbiotics.

All the steps include social implications and is useful to define a set of indicators for
social aspect evaluation.

Theoretical background
However, it is generally recognized that the actual benefits or opportunities for
improvement that these models generate must be evaluated. Through the analysis
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

186 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Gabriella Arcese Session 3A

of the case studies, a series of bilateral trade agreements and experiences, the author
identify the main social implications. In example, Kalundborg symbiosis has managed
to achieve significant tangible benefits which have not only benefited companies in
economic terms, but also the population and the environment. Thereafter, Christensen
(2000) suggests a number of preconditions for the success of industrial symbiosis.
Kurup, instead, in 2005, developed a set of indicators based on the triple bottom
line accounting, allowing for improved identification and reporting of the economic,
social and environmental benefits of industrial symbiosis projects.

From the analysis of numerous internationally important cases of industrial symbiosis

and by numerous publications taken into analysis, we reveal the existence of three
basic tools:

1. "Input-Output Matching": This is the fundamental instrument that allows the

identification and matching of inputs and outputs of various entities that can
participate in the symbiotic processes.
2. "Stakeholder Processes and Involvement": This is an instrument that aims to
improve the involvement and cooperation of common agreements between
all stakeholders that are relevant to the symbiosis processes.
3. "Material Budgeting": This is the "mapping" of flows of materials and energy
of a selected system.

In the processes of the formation of collaborative relationships, it is possible

to distinguish the different stages of development. All the steps include social
implications and is useful to define a set of indicator for social aspect evaluation.
The community must be small enough that they all feel that they have a stake in the
outcomes (important stakeholders role).

Social Aspect in Industrial Symbiosis

Already in the second half of the nineties, several studies were carried out which
showed that the presence of innovative networks among companies can influence the
behavior and the outputs of the companies involved (Arcese et al, 2014). According
to Rullani, the idea of clusters, developed in Italy as an industrial district according to
the Marshalliano model (industrial district), has had the great merit of transforming
the territories into resources in recent years. They are not just circumscribed territories
containing economic activities but generate economic value by sharing. The cluster
thus understood exploits geographical proximity and social coexistence (Rullani,
2007). Kurup (2005) has emphasized that the economic, social and environmental
implications need to be considered for each stage of the synergy project life cycle
(i.e., planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning)
and listed the indicators for each dimension. Starting from the Social LCA framework,
useful basis social indicators are: Job creation, Job security, Health and well being,
Community stability, Education standards, Community services, Crime rates, Equality/
Accessibility, Protecting and Enhancing Cultural Heritage, Local Identity and Assets.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 187

Thema
 Gabriella Arcese Session 3A

Conclusions and future developments

The trade-off between the three dimensions of sustainability must be approached
with the utmost care, in order to maintain a sustainable balance, and just that,
turns out to be the main problem still not resolved. The strands of thought are
essentially two: the first part of experts who want to "weigh" the three dimensions
of sustainability in a single-score, and a part of scholars who are deeply opposed. In
the first case, you are facing a new construction of the framework of the LCA which
includes LCC and SLCA in a single analysis, including additional impact categories in
the inventory. The advantage, in this case, is to have a single inventory of data and
consequently of impact categories and a single analysis model with objective and
common purpose. In the second case, the LCSA is based on three distinct assessments
of the life cycle consistent with the boundaries of the system, ideally identical, as
in the general formulation, and composed of the three tools that reflect the three
branches of sustainability.

The three methods should be standardized (as for LCA) or at least harmonized,
performing a formal weighting between the three pillars. The main advantage of this
approach is its transparency and the reduction of subjective assessments and even
more advantageous is the absence of the possibility of compensation between the
pillars. In the future, it is necessary to develop a general framework for social life cycle
implementation in support to the industrial symbiosis model.

References
Arcese G., Lucchetti M., Massa I. 2017. Modeling Social Life Cycle Assessment Framework for the
Italian wine sector, Journal of Cleaner Production, DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.137, Elsevier
Publisher.
Arcese G., Lucchetti M., Massa I., Valente C. 2016. State of the art in S-LCA: integrating literature
review and automatic text analysis, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, DOI:
10.1007/s11367-016-1082-0, Springer Publisher.
Lucchetti M.C., Arcese G. 2014. Tourism management and industrial ecology: a theoretical
review. Sustainability; 6(8):4900-4909, doi:10.3390/su6084900, MDPI Publisher.
Arcese G., Lucchetti M.C., Merli R. 2013. Social Life Cycle Assessment as a Management Tool:
Methodology for Application in Tourism. Sustainability; 5(8):3275-3287, doi:10.3390/su5083275,
MDPI Publisher
Chertow, M. R. 2000. Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Annual review of energy and
the environment, 25(1), 313-337.
Notarnicola B., Tassielli G., Renzulli A.P., Arcese G., Di Capua R., 2016a. Simbiosi industriale in
Italia: stato dell’arte e prospettive di sviluppo future in Italia, Annali del Dipartimento Jonico, in:
Annali del Dipartimento Jonico. ISNB: 978-88-909569-6-6.
Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., & Renzulli, P. A. 2016b. Industrial symbiosis in the Taranto industrial
district: current level, constraints and potential new synergies. Journal of Cleaner Production,
122, 133-143.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

188 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Pasquale Marcello Falcone Session 3A

Transitioning towards bioeconomy: assessing the social

dimension through the lenses of the stakeholders
Pasquale Marcello Falcone, Enrica Imbert, Almona Tani,
Valentina Elena Tartiu, Piergiuseppe Morone

Bioeconomy in Transition Research Group, Unitelma Sapienza - University of Rome (Italy)

Introduction
Transition towards bioeconomy is expected to deliver social and socioeconomic
benefits in a broad spectrum of areas spanning from health and safety, to working
conditions, employment and prosperity, access to material and immaterial resources,
food and energy security, and gender issues (Rafiaani et al., 2017; Sillanpää and
Ncibi, 2017). These areas are deeply intertwined with Europe 2020 objectives and
UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Anand, 2016; Kline, 2016). Specifically, a
bioeconomy transition is expected to bring about improvements to goal n.1 (poverty),
goal n.3 (good health and well-being), goal n.5 (gender equality), goal n.8 (decent work
and economic growth), goal n.10 (reduced inequalities) and goal n.12 (responsible
consumption and production). In this vein, measuring and communicating these
social improvements is of utmost importance for promoting market uptake of bio-
based products.

Yet, social sustainability, has been considerably less investigated until recently. This is
mainly due to the fact that assessment and measurement of social sustainability are
intrinsically more challenging compared to the other pillars as many social criteria are
often subjective (Lehtonen, 2011). Moreover, when it comes to bio-based products
the situation still lags behind (Siebert et al., 2017), given that bio-based products
involve longer and more complex value chains (IEA, 2014) that make the assessment
of social and socio-economic impacts extremely challenging. Since the economic
cost of bio-based products is generally higher than fossil-based counterparts (Haer,
2012), demonstrating that bio-based products are sustainable from a social and
socioeconomic perspective is critical to augment public acceptance and boost
demand (Elghali et al. 2007). Therefore, the success of a sustainable bioeconomy
depends on stakeholders’ acceptance – especially consumers and manufacturers –
leading to a growth in demand for such products.

In this context, there are some examples worth mentioning within a life cycle
perspective, which make increasing efforts to investigate the social and socio-
economic impacts of bio-based products; however, most of them have a strong focus
on biofuels (e.g. Manik et al., 2013; Macombe et al., 2013; Ekener-Petersen, 2014;
Raman et al., 2015). As it clearly appears, there are important topics common to these

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 189

Thema
 Pasquale Marcello Falcone Session 3A

studies such as health and rights of workers and contribution to employment, while
others such as community engagement are less frequently addressed. Moreover, these
studies have often taken different approaches since there is still not a standardised
methodology for S-LCA.

Thus, the use of S-LCA, as a tool to measure social impacts of bio-based products,
need to be better defined so as to put into action improvements to the well-being of
stakeholders. One crucial aspect is to make the analysis as context-based as possible
by integrating the relevant stakeholders. In this sense, the evaluation approaches have
to take into account not only the experts’ opinions on the choice of impact indicators,
but also the viewpoints of other subjects, both of which may be directly and indirectly
affected. Indeed, the choice of ‘what is to be measured’ is the critical point in S-LCA,
and, by using recognised participative techniques, the stakeholders’ involvement can
be used to shape the final sustainability criteria and regulatory recommendations.

Against this background, our study aims at investigating the social dimension of the
transition towards bio-based products, by identifying and validating the main social
impact categories pertaining to the bio-based products realm.

The study is conducted within the framework of STAR-ProBio (Sustainability Transition

Assessment and Research of Bio-based Products) EU H2020 project.

Methodological framework
In order to achieve the objective of our study, we employ a robust three-step
methodological framework encompassing: (i) social impact categories identification,
(ii) stakeholders mapping, and (iii) social impact categories validation. These three
steps are briefly outlined as follows.

(i) Social impact categories identification

Focusing on the social sustainability and S-LCA applied to bio-based products,

an in-depth literature review analysis is performed. This review analysis is further
complemented with information gathered from the so-called “grey literature” (e.g.,
dissertations, reports, white papers). Thus, a preliminary list of social impact categories
is identified.

This list is built upon a set of frameworks that have already been applied in the
literature with the aim of identifying the main indicators along the whole social life
cycle assessment of the impacts of bio-based products. Particularly, this overview
specifies a set of socio-economic themes (i.e. health and safety, social acceptability,
food security, employment, income, human rights and working conditions, gender
issues and discrimination, and access to material resources and land use change), and
related potentially affected stakeholders (i.e. workers, consumers, local community,
value chain actors and society), that should be taken into account for the appraisal of
case studies from a social point of view.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

190 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Pasquale Marcello Falcone Session 3A

(ii) Stakeholders mapping

In the second step of our investigation, we carry out a stakeholder analysis to

identify the potential actors involved in the development of bio-based products.
To this end, we employ a triangulation-based strategy (Falcone et. al, 2017) that
enables us to provide robustness to our outcomes. Particularly, we firstly conduct an
ex-ante semi-structured interview with a leading figure in the bio-economy debate
in Italy. Information collected with this interview merges with supplementary details
gathered by means of the “grey literature” – namely, websites, technical reports, fora,
guidelines, etc. To corroborate these preliminary findings, we administer a follow up
questionnaire to two experts with a long-term expertise in the field of the bio-based
products who are asked to validate or confute the set of actors preliminary identified
and categorize them according to the type of pressure exerted. This allows us to classify
the actors according to their characteristics. In particular, we assume that stakeholders
can be identified according to their power and interest as active, inactive or passive
stakeholders, with regards to bio-based products development. The stakeholder
analysis is carried out distinguishing between impact on local community and impact
on global community (fig. 1).

(iii) Social impact categories validation

The third and final step of our investigation is addressed to validate and integrate
the impact categories identified in step (i) by means of stakeholders’ knowledge
and perspectives. This goal is achieved through the knowledge elicited from various
stakeholders, such as: farmers, forest owners, producers and distributors of bio-based

Global

Stakeholders potentially Stakeholders potentially

promoting biobased products promoting biobased products
by actively influencing the by passively influencing the
global community (e.g…) global community (e.g…)

Active Passive

Stakeholders potentially Stakeholders potentially

promoting biobased products promoting biobased products
by actively influencing the by passively influencing the
local community (e.g…) local community (e.g…)

Local

Figure 1: The stakeholder mapping (adapted from Falcone et. al, 2017)
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 191

Thema
 Pasquale Marcello Falcone Session 3A

products, policy makers, environmental NGOs, end-users, consumer associations

and companies involved in waste management. In particular, within the STAR-ProBio
project, different focus groups and Delphi surveys are conducted with a selected
group of stakeholders with the specific aim of eliciting knowledge on the social
dimensions of bio-based products.

Conclusions and future developments

Social sustainability of the bioeconomy has become a challenging research topic
with a paramount of importance for the market uptake of bio-based products. In
recent years, social and socio-economic aspects have progressively been included
in both the discourses and sustainability analyses concerning bioeconomy. Social
sustainability may be assessed using a variety of methods and indicators, such as the
social footprint, social impact assessment, or wellbeing indices. The UNEP guidelines
on social life cycle assessment provide key elements concerning life cycle-based
social sustainability assessment for product-level. However, it is of utmost relevance
to provide indications on the effective actors’ involvement. Essentially, stakeholders’
viewpoints can be considered to shape the final sustainability criteria and regulatory
recommendations by means of recognition of local and global specificities arising
from experts and stakeholders’ knowledge.

By providing empirical evidence on the social dimension, which incorporates different

visions of the stakeholders involved in the bio-based value chains, our study paves the
way for further developments concerning the integration of social assessments within
the bioeconomy context.

References
Anand, M. 2016. Innovation and sustainable development: a bioeconomic perspective. Brief for
global sustainable development report, GSDR.
IEA 2014. IEA Bioenergy Task42 Biorefining. René van Ree and Alniek van Zeeland (Eds.)
Wageningen.
Ekener-Petersen, E., Höglund, J., & Finnveden, G. 2014. Screening potential social impacts of
fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy, 73, 416-426.
Elghali, L., Clift, R., Sinclair, P., Panoutsou, C., & Bauen, A. 2007. Developing a sustainability
framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy, 35(12), 6075-6083.
Haer, T. 2012. Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability of Biobased Plastics. Bio-
polyethylene from Brazil and polylactic acid from the U.S. Default journal.
Falcone, P.M., Morone, P., Sica, E. 2017. Greening of the financial system and fuelling a
sustainability transition: A discursive approach to assess landscape pressures on the Italian
financial system, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Available online 24 May 2017
Kline, K. L. 2016. Sustainability Standards: A call for reason. In workshop on.
Lehtonen, M. 2011. Social sustainability of the Brazilian bioethanol: power relations in a centre-
periphery perspective, Biomass and Bionergy, 35 (6), pp. 2425-2434.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

192 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Pasquale Marcello Falcone Session 3A

Macombe, C., Leskinen, P., Feschet, P., & Antikainen, R. 2013. Social life cycle assessment of
biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 52, 205-216.
Manik, Y., Leahy, J., & Halog, A. 2013. Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case
study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(7),
1386-1392.
Raman, S., Mohr, A., Helliwell, R., Ribeiro, B., Shortall, O., Smith, R., & Millar, K. 2015. Integrating
social and value dimensions into sustainability assessment of lignocellulosic biofuels. Biomass
and Bioenergy, 82, 49-62.
Rafiaani, P., Kuppens, T., Van Dael, M., Azadi, H., Lebailly, P., & Van Passel, S. 2017. Social
sustainability assessments in the bio-based economy: Towards a systemic approach. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
Siebert A., Bezamaa O’Keeffea, S., Thränab D., 2017. Social life cycle assessment indices and
indicators to monitor the social implications of wood-based products. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Available online 9 March 2017.
Sillanpää, M. and C. Ncibi. 2017. A Sustainable Bioeconomy: The Green Industrial Revolution.
Springer, 2017.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 193

Thema
 Sabrina Neugebauer Session 3A

Social Life Cycle Assessment of Niobium Mining in Brazil

in a Circular Economy context
Sabrina Neugebauer1, Marzia Traverso1, Gian Andrea Blengini2,
Fabrice Mathieux2, Carlos Cesar Peiter3

1
INaB, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen (Germany)
2
European Commission, DG JRC – Joint Research Centre, Sustainable Resources Directorate, Unit D3
– Land Resources, Ispra (Italy)
3
Centro de Tecnologia Mineral – CETEM, Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia, Inovações e
Comunicações (Brazil)

Introduction
Niobium as an essential alloying element is used in various applications, such as high-
strength steels, electronic devices and imaging equipment, for automotive industry,
construction and petroleum industry. It is considered as a strategic material with high
importance for the EU manufacturing sector and, at the same time, with a high risk of
possible supply disruptions. Together with further rare earth materials, e.g. indium or
gallium, it is therefore counted to the list of critical raw materials (CRMs) for the EU –
compare Table 1.

Similarly, to other CRMs, whose global supply is highly concentrated in a very few
countries, and often dominated by China, Niobium mining and production do not
take place in Europe either. Consequently, as the EU almost entirely relies on imports
from one single country, in this case Brazil, Niobium has been included in all the three
editions of the list of CRMs for the EU (EC 2011, 2014, 2017).

The list of CRMs for the EU is the backbone of and a precise commitment to the Raw
Materials Initiative (RMI, 2018), which defines three pillars to secure and improve
access to raw materials:

I. Fair and sustainable supply of raw materials from international markets

II. Sustainable supply within the EU should be fostered
III. Resource efficiency and recycling of those materials should be promoted

As Niobium contains a high supply risk but is also of high economic importance for
the EU, the consideration of Niobium’s mining, production and recycling is of concern,
especially in a circular economy context.

While various studies on Niobium´s manufacturing, material performance and at least

some studies on its environmental performance have been published (e.g. Nakamura
et al. 2017), almost no studies considered the social implications of Niobium mining

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

194 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Sabrina Neugebauer Session 3A

Antimony Baryte Berylium Bismuth Borate Cobalt Coking Coal

Fluorspar Gallium Germanium Hafnium Helium Heavy rare Indium
earth
Heavy rare Magnesium Natural Natural Niobium Platinum Phosphate
earth graphite rubber group metals rock
Phosphorus Scandium Silicon Tantalum Tungsten Vanadium
metal

Table 1: Critical raw materials listed by the EU for 2017 (adapted from TIC 2017)

and production. The aim of this study is accordingly, to address the first pillar defined
by the EU, for assessing social indicators and consequences resulting from Niobium
mining and production.

Therefore, we concentrate on Brazil as the largest producer of primary Niobium,

holding about 97 % of world´s primary production and 95 % of the global reserves.
The country plays on the one hand a key role for Niobium´s availability, yet, on the
other hand Brazil is exposed to a structural change by the raising adoption of a
Circular Economy thinking. Indeed, the Circular Economy Action Plan, proposed by
the European Commission in 2015, envisages the recovery of critical raw materials in
the EU for ensuring the supply security of these materials. This might create changes
in supply and demand of primary materials in this area, including Niobium mining.
Resulting threats and opportunities for Brazilian Niobium mining from a societal point
of view will accordingly be addressed.

Methods and Results

The Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) (Benoit et al. 2009) method is used to reflect
positive and negative social impacts along the value chain of primary Niobium
production originating from Brazil, including e.g. workers, local communities and
supply chain actors. Consequential aspects and risks including potential changes
through Circular Economy efforts are also taken into account.

Primary data for the SLCA study are provided by a case study on a Brazilian mining and
its related industries. Hence, a thorough assessment of potential social impacts going
beyond the typical evaluation of social hotspots (e.g. by means of the Social Hotspot
Database (SHDB)) can be performed. In addition to the primary data, secondary data
on Niobium manufacturing and recycling are considered to reflect social impacts
along the complete life cycle. Common databases, such as SHDB and/or PSILCA are
used in addition to data provided by organisations, like ILO or UN.

The results provide the positive and negative impacts for different stakeholder
groups, such as workers and supply chain actors, as well as the social opportunities
and threats resulting from Niobium production for both Brazil seeing Niobium as a
strategic material and for Europe facing criticality challenges of it. Current and future

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 195

Thema
 Sabrina Neugebauer Session 3A

implications are as well analysed with regard to societal development and changes
from a Brazilian and European perspective, also considering the possible deployment
of a more circular economy, both in Brazil and in Europe. This will provide insights on
the necessary trade-offs to be made.

Conclusions and future developments

Conclusions on the social performance can be drawn from the European perspective
on specific CRMs and related industries, depending on Niobium production and
consumption, as well as for future opportunities and threats of the Brazilian mining
sector. The study will not only provide insights on the social performance of a specific
sector of the Brazilian mining industry, but can also function as a valid source for social
data related to the mining industries, a topic hardly covered by current databases. In
addition, social consequences are indicated addressing the future performance of the
Brazilian mining industry but also the socio-economic chances and challenges for the
EU in terms of Niobium´s criticality.

References
C. Benoit and B. Mazijn, Eds., Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/
SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 2009.
EC 2011. Tackling the Challenges in Commodity Markets and on Raw Materials, COM (2011) 25
final. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium
EC 2014. Report on Critical Raw Materials for the EU, Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on
Defining Critical Raw Materials. European Commission. Brussels, Belgium
EC 2017. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European economic and social Committee and the Committee of the regions on the 2017 list of
Critical Raw Materials for the EU
S. Nakamura, Y. Kondo, K. Nakajima, H. Ohno and S. Pauliuk. 2017. Quantifying Recycling and
Losses of Cr and Ni in Steel Throughout Multiple Life Cycle Using MaTrace-Alloy. Environmental
Science & Technology. 51.9469-9476
RMI 2008. The Raw Materials Initiative—Meeting our Critical Needs for Growth and Jobs in
Europe, COM (2008) 699 final. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium (2008)
TIC 2017. How to make Tantalum. Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center. Bulletin No.
171. ISSN: 1019-2026

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

196 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Diego Peñaloza Session 3A

Using the social hotspots database to assess the social

risks of prospective value chains: The case of D-Factory
Diego Peñaloza1, Heiko Keller2

1
IRISE-Research Institutes of Sweden, Göteborg (Sweden)
2
IFEU – Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg, Heidelberg (Germany)

Abstract
D-Factory is an EU-funded research project that aims to develop a novel concept for a
micro algae biorefinery, based on the cultivation and processing of Dunaliella salina.
The target of D-Factory is to produce multiple nature-based products for multiple
markets. The main novelty of the concept is the separation of high-value carotenoid
products for specific markets. An integrated sustainability assessment was carried
out as part of the project, where the potential impacts of the D-Factory concept were
analysed with a life cycle perspective.

Many attempts to define sustainable development, but many of these definitions

agree on a well-known “Triple bottom line” definition: people, economy and society
must be developed while sustaining nature, life support and community (USNRC,
1999). Microalgae-based processes are increasingly being considered as a promising
alternative to traditional high-impact technologies such as fossil fuels; and while much
is discussed about the contrasting interests of achieving economic feasibility and
decreasing their environmental impacts, social aspects are often ignored (Malcata,
2011). Social issues of algae-based processes have been discussed qualitatively,
namely local work creation in low-employment areas, negative public opinion and
competition with tourism (Montagne, 2013). Even if more recent research projects
may offer some further insights, few studies with quantitative social assessments
have been published (Hingsamer, 2014). Further knowledge is needed concerning the
social impacts of algae-based products.

The goal of the work presented in this abstract is to quantify the risks of social
negative and positive impacts of the D-Factory concept under multiple scenarios and
to identify early potential social hot-spots in these scenarios, by applying social life
cycle assessment (S-LCA). The results are meant to be used as guidance for further
development of the D-Factory concept from research to a full-scale business model
rather than to make comparative assertions to be disclosed to the public.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 197

Thema
 Diego Peñaloza Session 3A

Method
The scope of the assessment is cradle-to-grave. Given that the D-Factory technology is
still in an early stage of development, there is not an actual supply chain to model and
evaluate. Therefore, scenarios based on expert estimates supplemented by generic
data were used to model the processes within the system boundaries. Uncertainty
was taken into account by creating bandwidths depicting conservative and optimistic
future developments. The activity variable used to measure the relative importance of
each process is the amount of working hours, which are normalized in reference to the
functional unit. Quantitative models were available for the foreground system in the
form of scenarios on potential mature D-Factory plants depicting mature technology
in 2025. The functional unit (FU) used is kilograms of dry algae paste produced. The
D-Factory plant produces multiple products, posing a challenge for allocation of
impacts. To solve this allocation problem, system expansion is applied to the social
impacts of the D-Factory.

The working hours per unit of output for each of the processes (also for each potential
location of these processes) within the studied system were calculated using
country-level statistics for different industrial sectors. Data for total output and total
expenditures in wages and salaries (in MUSD) was accessed from the United Nations
Industrial Development Organisation - UNIDO databases MINSTAT and INDSTAT
(UNIDO, 2017). This data is aggregated per year and per industrial sector based on
the International Standard Industrial Classification of all Economic Activities - ISIC, an
aggregation that varies for each country depending on data availability so the best
data available was used for each process. The amount of working hours per process
was finally obtained using the approximate price of goods (unit of output from each
process) and an estimation of the average hourly wages in the respective country.
The data for average country hourly wages was extracted from the OECD statistics
database for OECD countries (OECD, 2017) and from the International Labour
Organisation – ILO statistics for non-OECD countries (ILO, 2017). This approach was
particularly sensitive to the choice of data for price of good for high-value products
because of the uncertainty surrounding the relationship between the price of the
good and the costs from labour, amplified by the relatively high price of the good
per unit of mass. As a consequence, a different approach was used for these, where
data for wages or value created for employees in relation to total output was obtained
from sustainability or financial reports from well-known manufacturers. Similarly for
these products, more accurate data for the wages and salaries in the nutraceuticals
and pharmaceuticals sectors was extracted from the web portal “Payscale” (Payscale,
2017).

To obtain data for the associated social impacts of each of the processes in the
studied system (raw material extraction, manufacturing of specific inputs or energy
generation), the Social Hotspots Database (SHDB) has been used; a tool conceived
for use in social life cycle assessments (SLCA) (SHDB, 2013). The social risks of the
D-Factory were estimated by multiplying the working hours required from each
process per functional unit by the social risk of each process for all the social themes
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

198 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Diego Peñaloza Session 3A

and categories in the SHDB. The same is applied for the working hours required to
produce the avoided production of the benchmark for all co-products, and their
corresponding social risks. The final result of the assessment is the sum of the social
risks from all the processes in the system, in working hours-risk per functional unit.

Since the studied system consists of a prospective supply chain, the results come
with significant uncertainties. To overcome these, sensitivity analyses were performed
testing different key variables: the setting of the D-Factory (different pathways that
were identified internally in the project), location of the plant, staffing requirement for
the plant and efficiency of the up-scaled plant. This resulted in a total of 18 different
scenarios. Furthermore, this study was embedded into a comprehensive integrated
life cycle sustainability assessment covering further sustainability impacts such as
environmental and economic aspects.

Results
As can be observed in Figure 1, significant share of the positive impacts from D-Factory
can be attributed to the substitution of high-value products. This is due to the fact that
these products have both a high value and significant social impacts. With regard to
social hotspots, the main social impacts caused by the D-Factory production system
are concentrated in the health and safety and governance impact categories. The high
risk of negative impacts in health and safety are due to the fact that besides energy,
most of the inputs required by the D-Factory come from the chemical industry, which
is commonly associated with occupational hazards in Spain and Europe. On the other
hand, the high score for governance are caused by the use of oil-based materials such
as heptane, hexane, ethyl acetate, methanol and ethanol, whose market is dominated
by high-risk countries. The processes that have the highest contribution to the
negative social impacts of the D-Factory have been identified.

The results suggest that the outcome of the social risk assessment is not particularly
sensitive to the choice of D-Factory setting (in relation to the possible settings
for development decided within the project). On the other hand, the results are
significantly sensitive to the level of development of the D-Factory system that could
be achieved during up-scaling and underlines that optimisation guided by the results
of this study is very important. The amount of staff personnel required for the plant
does not have a significant influence on the outcome of the assessment either. Finally,
the results depend heavily on the country where the D-Factory is located, as figure 2
shows.

Conclusions and future developments

The main conclusion of the social risk assessment is that the D-Factory concept shows
a significant potential for mitigation of negative social impacts. Still, the magnitude
of this potential can be affected by certain key variables, which leads to the following
key conclusions:

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 199

Thema
 Diego Peñaloza Session 3A

Figure 1: Social risk assessment results for the base case scenario, located in Spain,
with optimistic assumption for up-scale productivity

Figure 2: Social impact results for the sensitivity analysis. The figure shows only the scenarios analysed concerning
D-Factory location, with countries selected because they offer adequate climate and where potential investors
have expressed interest throughout the project. Each scenario features two bars; one with positive values (risks of
negative social impacts with D-Factory) and another with negative values (avoided impacts with D-Factory)
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

200 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Diego Peñaloza Session 3A

• The social impact mitigation potential of D-Factory depends heavily on the

assumption that the aimed high-value products can be substituted, and any
change in that regard would affect significantly the outcome of this assessment.
If D-Factory fails to substitute these high-value products in the market, the
substitution of lesser value products would not be enough to offset the negative
social impacts.
• The results of the social assessment depend heavily on the country where the
D-Factory is located. If D-Factory is implemented in any country outside the
European Union, special measures need to be implemented in order to avoid local
social risks.
• The dependency on location for the social impact mitigation potential of D-Factory
does not mean that the system should not be implemented in the above mentioned
countries. It rather means that if that was the case, the implementation should be
closely followed so negative social impacts are avoided, especially concerning the
impact categories identified as hot-spots.
• The results should not be interpreted as a red or green light for the D-Factory concept,
but rather as a roadmap for future developments. The main recommendation
for stakeholders is to keep in mind the dependency on three key variables; the
successful substitution of the aimed high-value products, the productivity of the
system after upscaling and the location of the plant. Finally, stakeholders should
also be especially aware of the hot-spots identified in future developments.
• The study has weaknesses and limitations inherent to the status of the D-Factory
concept. The scenarios evaluated do not exist because they occur in the future
and they do not represent an established value chain. This is why the assessment
focuses on risks rather than impacts, a method in accordance with the goal of the
study. Nevertheless, it is important that the recommendations are read carefully if
the results are to be used by stakeholders for decision-making.
• Another limitation is the data used for the estimation of working hours, which was
missing for certain countries and time periods. This may affect the accuracy of the
result, but not the main conclusions. What is more, the data used for social impact
risk (from the SHDB) does not have this kind of limitation.

Additionally, this study shows how challenges can be overcome to assess social
impacts of innovative and therefore necessarily uncertain value chains harmonised
with parallel assessments of environmental and economic impacts. This way,
recommendations from a social perspective can be made available to decision makers
otherwise limited to only economic and/or environmental guidance.

Acknowledgments
This work has been carried out with funding from the EU 7th framework programme
for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement
no. 613870.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 201

Thema
 Diego Peñaloza Session 3A

References
Hingsamer, M., Jungmeier, G. (2014). Towards a Standard Methodology for the Sustainability
Assessment of Energy Systems with Algae – An European Approach in FUEL4ME. Presentation,
available at: http://www.fuel4me.eu
International Labour Organization – ILO (2017). “Mean nominal hourly earnings of employees”
and “Average monthly earnings (local currency)” indicator datasheets. Accessed on January and
July 2017 from www.ilo.org/ilostat
Malcata, X. (2011). Microalgae and biofuels: A promising partnership?. Trends in Biotechnology,
Volume 29, Issue 11, November 2011, pp 542-549.
Montagne, X., Porot. P., Aymard, C., Querleu, C., Bouter, A., Lorne, D., Cadoret, J., Lombaert-Valot,
I. and Petillon. O. (2013). Algogroup: Towards a Shared Vision of the Possible Deployment of
Algae to Biofuels. Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles, Vol. 68 (2013),
No. 5, pp. 875-898.
OECD statistics (2017). “Labour – Earnings - Average annual wages” indicator datasheets.
Accessed on January 2017 and July 2017 from www.stats.oecd.org
PayScale (2017). Payscale salary survey. Data accessed on May 2017 from www.payscale.com
SHDB, (2013). Social hotspots database. http://www.socialhotspot.org/ . Accessed November
2017.
United Nations Industrial Development Organisation - UNIDO (2017). “INDSTAT 2016” and
“MINSTAT 2016” databases. Accessed on January and July 2017 from www.stat.unido.org
USNRC – United States National Research Council, Policy Division, Board on Sustainable
Development (1999). Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

202 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Jittima Prasara-A Session 3A

Assessing fair wages in social life cycle assessment

of agricultural product: case of Thai sugarcane
Jittima Prasara-A1, Shabbir H. Gheewala2

1
Climate Change and Adaptation Research Unit (CCARE), Faculty of Environment and Resource
Studies, Mahasarakham University (Thailand)
2
Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi,
Bangkok (Thailand)

Introduction
Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) is a tool used to assess the potential positive and
negative social impacts along product’s life cycle. It helps to identify social hot spots
in its life cycle stages in order to facilitate product improvement (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
Despite the framework of S-LCA being established, Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment
(S-LCIA) methodology is not yet settled. Several contributions on development of
S-LCIA methodologies are reviewed in Chhipi-Shrestha (2014). Another issue of
S-LCA is that the indicators used in social impact assessment are not yet consensual
(Neugebauer et al. 2014). Neugebauer et al. (2014) point out that impact indicators
and inventory indicators are found to be mixed up when used in S-LCAs.

Sugarcane is one of the most significant agricultural products in the Thai economy
(Office of Agricultural Economics 2016). A recent work of the authors made a first
step to apply S-LCA tool in sugar industry (Prasara-A and Gheewala 2018); as well
as a work of Sawaengsak et al. (2015). The results suggest that main life cycle stage
contributing to social impacts is the sugarcane production sector. From field data
collection, one challenge found is related to indicator choices to assess fair wages
aspect. In addition, results in Prasara-A and Gheewala (2018) show that fair wages
issue is identified the most important aspect for stakeholder “workers” in sugarcane
farms. This paper attempts to identify appropriate indicators to assess fair wages in
S-LCA of Thai sugarcane product. In addition, recommendations on how to interpret
the inventory indicators will be provided.

Fair wages in Thai sugarcane sector

Fair wages is defined in UNEP/SETAC (2009) as “a wage fairly and reasonably
commensurate with the value of a particular service or class of service rendered”. A
more detailed definition of fair wages is given in Fair Wages Network (2015) as “Wages
levels and wages-fixing mechanisms that provide a living wage floor for workers, while
complying with national wages regulations (such as the minimum wages, payment of
wages, overtime payments, provision of paid holidays and social insurance payments),
ensure proper wages adjustments and lead to balanced wages developments in the
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 203

Thema
 Jittima Prasara-A Session 3A

company (with regard to wages disparity, skills, individual and collective performance
and adequate internal communication and collective bargaining on wages issues)”.
More specifically, Fair Wage Network (2016) describes fair wages in different
dimensions; i.e. payment of wages, living wages, minimum wages, prevailing wages,
payment of working hours, pay systems, communication and social dialogue, wages
discrimination and wages disparity, real wages, wages share, wages costs, work
intensity and technology and up-skilling. Despite descriptions of fair wages for each
dimension are given, indicators used to assess each dimension are not provided.

Inclusion of the fair wages subcategory in S-LCA is recommended in the UNEP/

SETAC guidelines for S-LCA of products (UNEP/SETAC 2009). Fair wage is believed to
link to social justice and social well-being. Neugebauer et al. (2014) propose impact
pathways of fair wages to the mentioned social themes. Moreover, Neugebauer et al.
(2014) propose indicators to assess fair wages in S-LCA studies. However, the indicators
suggested are for general sectors and not for specific country.

In Thailand, most jobs in the sugarcane sector are normally temporary and not
contracted jobs. The employers are sugarcane farm owners. Sugarcane farm owners
are either individuals or sugar factories (normally these are large farms and not the
majority). Majority of the sugarcane farm owners in Thailand are individuals. Some of
the sugarcane farms are contracted with the sugar factories, but some are not. In small
farms, there are both self-employed and employed workers (laborers). In general,
owners of small farms also work for themselves and hire laborers when needed. In
small farms, laborers are normally from local area. In larger farms, laborers may be
both from local and other regions.

In order to assess the fair wages aspect of the Thai sugarcane sector, each job in
the sugarcane production stages has to be considered in detail. There are different
norms of payment basis for each job. This may make it difficult to calculate wages to
the desired indicators. However, several jobs in sugarcane production are paid per
day. It may be worthy to estimate payment of other jobs converted to daily wages
equivalent. This will make it easier for comparison of wages paid in different jobs.

Selection of indicators for the Thai sugarcane sector

A variety of indicators could be used to assess fair wages aspect in S-LCAs. It was
suggested in the guidelines for S-LCA of products (UNEP/SETAC 2009) that selection
of indicators to be used is dependent on the objectives of the study. Like other S-LCA
studies, the objective of the S-LCA of Thai sugarcane product is to improve social
well-being along the life cycle stages. The fair wages aspect directly involves workers.
Therefore, indicators selected should reflect fair wages for all workers involved in all
sugarcane production stages. The common indicators used for fair wages assessment
in S-LCAs are selected to analyze their aspects of validity, practicability and usability
following the concept presented in Jørgensen (2010). A summary of these aspects of
the indicators are presented in Table 1.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

204 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Jittima Prasara-A Session 3A

Indicators Validity Practicability Usability

Wages amount to at least country legal minimum wages ? / /
Wages amount to at least living wages for the concerned region / ? /
Wages amount to at least prevailing sector wages ? ? /
Wages amount to at least non-poverty wages ? ? /
Overtime wages are paid at premium rate / / /
Wages are paid on time with regular intervals / / /
Deductions in wages are only made with the consent of the / / /
employees and never for disciplinary purposes
Satisfaction in wages paid by employers / / ?
There is no wages discrimination / / /

Table 1: A summary of validity, practicability and usability analyses of the indicators

for fair wages assessment in S-LCAs

It should be noted that the indicator “Wages including bonuses and other benefits
additional to ordinary wages” is not taken into consideration. Although this indicator
seems to be valid in assessing the fair wages aspect, it is not seen to be relevant
to the workers in the Thai sugarcane sector. Most jobs in Thai sugarcane farms are
temporary and not contracted. The workers received fixed wages and there is no
bonus system in the employment. Though wages discrimination is not found to be
used as an indicator to assess fair wages aspect in S-LCA literature, it should also be
taken into consideration. Wages discrimination is one of the twelve dimensions of fair
wages defined in Fair Wage Network (2016). They suggest that equal work should be
paid equal wages. In this sense, the assessment could be done to see whether there is
wages discrimination based on gender, age, race or original location of workers. The
authors then take this indicator to analyze along with the other selected indicators.

Proposed indicators to use and their interpretation

Based on their validity, practicability and usability of indicators, a list of proposed
indicators to assess fair wages in S-LCA for the Thai sugarcane sector and their
suggested interpretation guides are shown in Table 2.

Difference of wages received and wages required

This indicator is thought to gauge whether the workers earn enough to live. Normally,
this can be calculated by subtracting wages received by standard living wages in the
area study. However, in Thailand, there is no standard living wages in different areas.
Moreover, living wages differs among workers. The authors then propose using an
average of difference values of wages received and wages required for each worker.
This is calculated by subtracting wages received by wages required for each worker.
Then, all values obtained are averaged. This average value is then used to interpret.
For this indicator, the large positive value shows best performance. This means that

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 205

Thema
 Jittima Prasara-A Session 3A

worker earn more wages than needed. If the value is negative, this is crisis. This would
need urgently improvement.

Difference of wages received and legal minimum wages

This indicator shows whether wages paid in the Thai sugarcane sector comply with
the country regulated minimum wages. This indicator is calculated by subtracting
average wages received by legal minimum wages. Like the first indicator, the large
positive value shows best performance. If the value is negative, improvement is
needed.

Overtime wages, regular wages, absence of deductions in wages,

wages satisfaction and wages discrimination

Workers are considered receiving fair wages if their overtime work is paid at premium
rate; their wages are paid on time with regular intervals; no deduction in wages occur
without the consent of workers, workers are satisfied with wages received and there
is not wages discrimination. However, at present, Thailand has no specific regulations
for payment mechanism in sugarcane sector. Relevant international standards such as
Bonsucro (2014) and UNEP/SETAC (2013) suggest that a hundred percent of workers
should report that their overtime work is paid at premium rate; their wages are paid on
time with regular intervals; there is no wages discrimination; and there is no deduction
in wages. Therefore, a hundred percent is set as best practice for these indicators.

Conclusions and future developments

S-LCA is a tool used to assess social impacts of product/service along its life cycle
stages. Interest in S-LCA has been increasing recently. With interest in using S-LCA to
help improve social conditions of the Thai sugarcane sector, this paper aims to find
appropriate social indicators to assess fair wages in this sector. Fair wages aspect is
focused on in this paper as it is identified as the most important social subcategory
in the Thai sugarcane sector. Based on literature review and authors’ experience on
the field, a list of indicators to use is proposed. The selection is based on validity,
practicability and usability. These indicators include daily wages received, daily living
wages required, legal minimum wage, overtime wages, regular wages, absence of
deductions in wages, wages satisfaction and absence of wages discrimination. For
living wages indicator, the authors propose using difference value of wages received
and wages required for each worker as an indicator. This is because, at present,
Thailand has no standard living wages in different areas. In addition, living wages are
subject to each worker. For payment basis indicators, it is suggested to calculate the
indicators to percentages of numbers of workers answering “yes” to a question asked
for each indicator. In addition, suggested interpretation approach of the proposed
indicators is provided. It should be noted that the same approach proposed in this
paper could also be applied for other social subcategories such as health and safety,
working conditions, water and land rights. Moreover, it is suggested for future research
to find weighting values for each indicators for an improvement of interpretation.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

206 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Jittima Prasara-A Session 3A

Inventory Calculated Worst Acceptable Better Best

indicators indicators practice practice practice practice
Wages received (B/day) Average (wage Largest 0 Positive Largest
received - wages negative results positive
required) results results
Wages required (B/day)

Legal minimum wages (B/day) Average wages Largest 0 Positive Largest

received - Legal negative results positive
minimum wages results results
Overtime wages are paid at Percentage of workers 0-89 90-100 91-99 100
premium rate (yes/no) answering “yes”
Wages are paid on time with Percentage of workers 0-89 90-100 91-99 100
regular intervals (yes/no) answering “yes”
Deductions in wages are only Percentage of workers 0-89 90-100 91-99 100
made with the consent of answering “yes”
the employees and never for
disciplinary purposes (yes/no)
Satisfaction in wages paid by Percentage of workers 0-89 90-100 91-99 100
employers (yes/no) answering “yes”

There is no wages Percentage of workers 0-89 90-100 91-99 100

discrimination (yes/no) answering “yes”
B is Thai Baht, Thai currency unit

Table 2: Proposed indicators and their interpretation

References
Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2014) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on
current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method Clean Technologies
and Environmental Policy 17:579-596 doi:10.1007/s10098-014-0841-5
Fair Wage Network (2015) Definition of Fair Wages. Fair Wage Network. http://www.fair-wage.
com/en/fair-wage-approach-menu/definition-of-fair-wages.html. Accessed 21 November 2015
Fair Wage Network (2016) The 12 Fair Wage Dimensions. Fair Wage Network. http://fair-wage.
com/en/fair-wage-approach-menu/12-fair-wage-dimensions-menu.html. Accessed 4 March 2016
Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang Y-J, Wolf K, Finkbeiner M (2014) Impact Pathways
to Address Social Well-Being and Social Justice in SLCA—Fair Wage and Level of Education
Sustainability 6:4839-4857 doi:10.3390/su6084839
Office of Agricultural Economics (2016) Agricultural Product Calendar: Year 2015/2016. Office
of Agricultural Economics. http://www.oae.go.th/download/banner_files/calendar1-10-57.pdf.
Accessed 27 February 2016
Prasara-A J, Gheewala SH (2018) Applying Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Thai Sugar
Industry: Challenges from the field Journal of Cleaner Production 172:335-346 doi:https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.120
Sawaengsak W, Assavarak P, Gheewala SH (2015) Identifying Suitable Social and Socio-economic
Indicators for Biofuel Systems in Thailand Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environment 6:37-41
UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 207

Thema
 Manuela D’Eusanio Session 3B

How experiences and existing data of companies

can be used to define the Goal and Scope in a Social
Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA)
Manuela D’Eusanio1, Annekatrin Lehmann2, Alessandra Zamagni3,
Matthias Finkbeiner2, Luigia Petti1

1
Department of Economic Studies (DEc), “G. d’Annunzio” University, Pescara (Italy)
2
Department of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin (Germany)
3
Ecoinnovazione Srl – ENEA spin-off, Ponte San Nicolò (Italy)

Introduction
Companies need to assess the social sustainability of their supply chain, in order to
improve their awareness of the corporate sustainability (Draucker L., 2013). Indeed,
companies are aware that their own supply chain's engagement is a determinant
to reach the business goal in sustainability terms (Mentzer et al., 2001; Seuring and
Mülller, 2008; Fallahpour et al., 2017). The O-LCA methodology can be suitable for
achieving a sustainable supply chain management, in order to recognise in which
areas it is necessary to act, so that the sustainability may be improved (D’Eusanio et
al. 2017). O-LCA evaluates input, output and potential environmental impacts of the
activities in the entire organisation or in a portion of it (i.e. business division, brand,
facility) from a life cycle perspective (UNEP/SETAC, 2015). This approach allows to
have an overview of the entire life cycle of the analysed organisation and be aware
of which levels require to be improved. O-LCA technical framework may be adapted
from social sustainability perspective in order to support the decision-making process
of the company.

Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment

Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA) is a methodology to evaluate

the social performance of the organisation along its supply chain. Martínez-Blanco
et al., (2015) give a first definition of SO-LCA as “a compilation and evaluation of the
social and socio-economic aspects and the positive and negative impacts of the
activities associated with the organization as a whole or a portion thereof adopting
a life cycle perspective.” (pp.1590). Furthermore, it may overcome the challenges of
the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), such as the allocation of the indicators or
impacts to a product level, the absence of databases and the consideration of the
whole life cycle in the case-studies (Martinez-Blanco et al. 2015). SO-LCA supports
the organisation within decision-making processes, by optimising the efforts and
resources of the company in order to achieve the social sustainability of its own
products portfolio. Moreover, this methodology allows to support the informed
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

208 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Manuela D’Eusanio Session 3B

decisions on the potential social impacts of the analysed processes towards an

opportunity for improvement (D’Eusanio et al. 2017). SO-LCA acquires the same
technical framework adopted by O-LCA and S-LCA according to the ISO 14040:2006
standards. Four phases are proposed: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory
analysis (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and life cycle interpretation. The
implementation of this methodology in a company may be supported using existing
experiences of the company that Martinez-Blanco et al. (2015) classify into three
categories: experience with social organisational approaches, with environmental
life-cycle approaches and with product social life-cycle approaches. Figure 1 shows
the experiences supplied by other methods to SO-LCA, as illustrated below: a) the
social indicators at an organisational level according to the Global Sustainability
Standards (such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Social Accountability 8000,
AccountAbility 1000, Social Impact Assessment (SIA)); b) the social product life cycle
assessment by the S-LCA, which includes the consideration of stakeholder categories
and subcategories; c) the guide to assess the sustainability at an organisational level,
provided by the O-LCA (D’Eusanio et al., 2017). In addition, if the organisation has a
previous experience with environmental or social methods could follow three types
of pathways to facilitate the implementation of SO-LCA. Pathway 1 is followed when
the organisation has the experience with social organisational approaches. Pathway 2
is conducted if the organisation has the experience on product life cycle approaches
and Pathway 3, if it has an experience with environmental life cycle approaches
(Martinez-Blanco et al. 2015). In order to be implemented and the assessment of the
social performance of the organisation to be obtained, it may be appropriate the
integration of different approaches and methodologies.

S-LCA

SA8000
GRI, SIA, SO-LCA O-LCA
AA1000

Figure 1: The conceptual framework of SO-LCA

Goal of the paper

This paper is aimed at showing how the existing experiences of the organisation,
including e.g. availability data on the supply chain, are considered for the definition
of the goal and scope phase in the SO-LCA. For this purpose, a pilot case-study in a
company from the wine sector is used to identify the potential advantages, limitations
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 209

Thema
 Manuela D’Eusanio Session 3B

and recommendations for the further steps. This paper is a preliminary analysis to
reach the ultimate goal to implement the first SO-LCA case-study in the wine sector.
The next section begins with the wine case-study description and an overview of the
Italian wine sector, followed by the description of how to define the goal and scope
phase. The results are finally presented. After drawing the conclusions, suggestions for
a future research are recommended in the last section.

Case study
Italian Wine Sector Overview

The wine is the most characteristic Made in Italy agro food product (Carbone and
Henke, 2010; Istat, 2017). The global wine production (resulting from the grapes
harvested in autumn 2016) falls to 267 million in 2016, a decline compared to the
preceding years (270 mhl in 2014 and 276 mhl in 2015 production) (OIV, 2017). At
EU level, Italy is the second largest wine producer after France (9.7 billion for France

Description The wine company analysed is a consortium located in the Abruzzo, a region
of the in Central Italy. It gathers 9 wineries in the province of Chieti and these wine
organisation grower associations collect 3 000 members. They also are the grape supplier
of the 9 wineries. Indeed, the business of the consortium is bottling the wine.
The production process starts with the transfer of wine from the 9 wineries
cooperative to the consortium.
Previous The company has certifications to ISO 9000:2008 Quality, ISO 14001:2004
experiences on Environmental Management Systems and ISO 22000 on Food Security
of the Systems. The company obtained the BRC (British Retail Consortium) and ISF
organisation (International Featured Standards) to guarantee the consumer the quality
of the final products. Furthermore, the company has SA8000 certification to
verify the working condition and ethical sourcing of the products.
Goal The goal of this study is to provide a better comprehension of the social
performance of the entire cycle of the wine company. The main objective is to
achieve an efficient solution to time-saving in the social data management in
the Supply Chain Management perspective and create a tool to support the
social decision making of the organisation.
Scope: Subject of study: The NIRO brand of the company is the object assessed. It is
Reporting composed by five wines types (e.g. Montepulciano d'Abruzzo, Cococciola,
organisation Passerina, Cerasuolo, Pecorino) which obtained the EU quality logos.
and reporting Consolidation method: The wine company possesses absolute control on
flow financial and operational terms.
Reference period: 2017
Reporting flow: Economic revenue of the analysed brand
Scope: System Cradle-to-gate
boundary

Table 1: Goal and scope definition of the case-study

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

210 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Manuela D’Eusanio Session 3B

plant pesticides water fuel

marcot herbicide tractor atomiser
equipment fertiliser trailer bulldozer

Agriculture process

Enological
Harvest process
products
Grappe
Tank truck

Cardboard Wine production

Seal
Bottle Wine
Label
Coak
Bottling process
NIRO

Figure 2: Flow chart of the NIRO brand life cycle

and 6.6 billion for Italy on an average of five years); followed by Germany and Spain
(OIV, 2017). In addition, Italy is the European country with the highest number of
agro-food products with quality logos. At EU level, the EU Quality Logos guarantee
legally that the products are authentic or made in the original town or region with
real ingredients. The Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) label shows that the
quality or reputation of the food is linked to the place or region where it is produced,
processed, or prepared. The Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) label guarantees
that the product is produced, processed and prepared in a specific geographical area,
using ingredients from the involved region and the know-how of local producers
(Council Regulation, 2006). In Italy, the quota of PDO wine production is equal to 39%
of the total, adding to this a 31,7% of PGI (Istat, 2017). Generally, there are 408 Italian
PDO wines and 118 Italian PGI wines that constitute the cultural heritage of the local
community where the grapes and wines are produced. The wine is closely related
to the life and work of the people who generate it (Gottardo, 2014). Furthermore,

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 211

Thema
 Manuela D’Eusanio Session 3B

Figure 2 shows the flow chart of the life cycle of one specific wine brand (called NIRO)
distinguishing between background and foreground processes.

Goal and scope definition in the case study

The definition of the goal and scope of the case-study is shown in the Table 1,
according to the Guidance on O-LCA (UNEP/SETAC, 2015). Several elements have
been taken as such by the O-LCA methodology, i.e. goal, reporting organisation and
system boundary. Otherwise the reference flow has been adapted to the inclusion
of social aspects. Indeed, the reference flow based on non-physical elements as the
social aspects may do not have a direct connection with input and output of the
process (Martinez-Blanco et al., 2015).

How existing experience and data of the company helped to define

goal and scope

The existing experience and data on social and environmental practices of the
company provide information on the organisation, suppliers and workers which is
also needed for defining the goal and scope phase in SO-LCA (see Table 2). More in
detail, the ISO14001:2004 and ISO 9001:2008 provide data collection schemes on
the lay out of the company for the business system working. Indeed, it is provided a
specific processes mapping, such as the description of the generic and operational
company activities. The British Retail Consortium (BCR) may help to identify the
system boundary, providing an overview of unit processes and supplier involved
in the subject of the study. The identification of the suppliers, their location and
the traceability of the raw materials can be a starting point for defining the system
boundaries of the study. Thus, it is possible to define the suppliers involved in the
life cycle of the subject analysed in the examined reference period. SA8000 helps to
define the supply chain of the company but also it allows to obtain a starting point

Foreground processes involved

Existing data
Harvest Wine Bottling Information provided
production
x x x Structure of management team
x x Mapping of unit processes
ISO 14001:2004
x Lay out of company
ISO 9001:2009 Evaluating and monitoring of the
x x
suppliers
Information on suppliers
x x Health and Safety on facilities and
BRC
workers
x Mapping of supply chain
Workers conditions (Salary, Child
SA8000 x x Labour; Discrimination, Health/Safety,
Working Hours, Freedom of Association)

Table 2: The information provided to the different parts of the life cycle through the existing practices
and certifications applied in the company
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

212 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Manuela D’Eusanio Session 3B

for data collection about the worker’s conditions, supplier’s ethical behaviour and
the stakeholder identification. In this way, several challenges have been overcome
for the practitioner, such as to communicate with a company, know where it looks,
obtain necessary data and identify which data are necessary to implement SO-LCA.
The existing data of the organisation helps the practitioners to implement SO-LCA by
providing a starting point to define Goal and Scope phase. The SO-LCA methodology
allows to provide a comprehensive social performance assessment of the organisation
by involving different departments and management levels. Thus, the involvement of
different resources may lead a long term benefit in the data collection phase.

Conclusions and Future Developments

This work presents which available information in the organisation may be collected
and analysed to define the goal and scope phase of SO-LCA. A pilot case-study on
a wine company has been conducted to show these benefits. The practitioner or
the consultant has a lot of information on social and environmental aspects of the
organisation, such as the mapping of the suppliers, the evaluation of some indicators,
the social policy and the system practices made by the organisation. This information
allows to have a preliminary knowledge of the aspects and topics to analyse. In this way,
time and resources saving should be expected to apply to goal and scope phase. This
preliminary application suggests maybe there is also an advantage in the application
of the other phases of the SO-LCA. For this reason, further developments relate to the
need to identify if and how the existing experiences can support also for the other
phases, especially the LCI. Indeed, the data collected in the previous experiences allow
to get the information on the supply chain and answer to some indicators suggested
by UNEP/SETAC, (2013) (e.g. worker conditions; fair salary; child labour; working hours
and forced labour). To validate this assumption, an implementation of the pilot case-
study for the LCI phase may be suitable.

References
Carbone A., Henke R. 2010. Performance e competitività del vino italiano sui mercati
internazionali. Agricoltura nei paesi in via di sviluppo. Agriregionieuropa 6(22).
Coucil Regulation (EC). 2006. On the protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. No 510/2006. 20 March 2006
D’Eusanio M., Zamagni A., Petti L. 2017. La Social Life Cycle Assessment a supporto del Supply
Chain Management. Atti del XI Convegno della Rete Italiana LCA, Resource Efficiency e
Sustainable Development Goals: il ruolo del Life Cycle Thinking. Siena, Italy. ISBN: 978-88-8286-
352-4
Draucker, L., 2013. In: GHG Protocol: Moving Corporate Accounting beyond GHGs. Abstr. B.
SETAC North Am. 34th Annu. Meet. Nashville, USA.
Fallahpour, A., Olugu, E.U., Musa, S.N., Wong K.Y., Noori S. 2017. A decision support model for
sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Computers&Industrial
Engineering 105:391-410.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 213

Thema
 Manuela D’Eusanio Session 3B

Gottardo G. 2014. Quando il vino interpreta il territorio. Editoriale Turismo e Psicologia Vol.7,
Issue 1. DOI: 10.14658/TP-2014-1
ISO/TS 14040, 2006. Environmental management—life cycle Assessment—principles and
framework (ISO 14040); ISO: Geneva, Switzerland.
Istat, 2017. L’andamento dell’economia Agricola. Anno 2016. Statistiche report. 19 maggio 2017.
Martinez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Chang, Y.J., Finkbeiner, M., 2015. Social organizational LCA
(SOLCA):a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 20,1586–1599.
Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D. and Zacharia, Z. G. 2001.
Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics. 22,1–25.
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV). 2017. State of the vitiviniculture world
market. April 2017.
Peirson, G., Brown, R., Easton, S., Howard, P., Pinder, S. 2006. Business finance, 9th edn, McGraw-
Hill, North Ryde, NSW.
Seuring, S., Mülller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management. J Clean Prod. 16,1699–1710.
Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J.A.J., Lupton, R.A., 2010. The art of writing a scientific article. J. Sci.
Commun. 163, 51–59.
UNEP/SETAC, 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Life-Cycle Initiative,
United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Paris, France.
UNEP/SETAC, 2013. The Methodological Sheets for Sub-categories in Social Life Cycle
Assessment (S-LCA). Life-Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme and Society
for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Paris, France,
UNEP/SETAC, 2015. Guidance on Organizational Life Cycle Assessment. Life-Cycle Initiative,
United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Paris, France.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

214 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Annekatrin Lehmann Session 3B

How can Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)

benefit from existing and improve future
sustainability reporting of companies?
Annekatrin Lehmann1, Masaharu Motoshita2, Matthias Finkbeiner1

1
Technische Universität Berlin (Germany)
2
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Ibaragi (Japan)

Abstract
The concept of Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) becomes more and more
relevant all over the world and a growing number of companies already incorporates
CSR in their strategy and discloses social and environmental information in CSR or
sustainability reports. However, existing reports vary significantly, e.g. regarding the
number and type of social issues addressed and the level of detail in which the supply
chain is considered. Generally, tools such as social life cycle assessment of products
(S-LCA) can help to assess social issues and provide information for CSR sustainability
reports. However, current product S-LCA is not yet broadly implemented because of
the gap between theory and practice, e.g. many social indicators are rather related
to the organizational than the product level. To support implementation of social
life cycle assessments in practice, a new approach – the social organizational LCA
(SOLCA) – was proposed. The conceptual framework of SOLCA builds on S-LCA and
organizational LCA (O-LCA) and is currently focused on scope and inventory. The
overall goal of this study is to further develop the SOLCA framework by proposing
an applicable indicator set to support future life cycle based social assessments in
companies. To achieve this a two-fold approach was chosen: First, a status quo and
gap analysis of several CSR/ sustainability reports from different sectors and regions
is currently conducted to identify which social issues and indicators from existing
product S-LCA are already assessed and to which extent the supply chain of the
company (and life cycle of products) is considered. Second, the findings will be used
to develop an applicable indicator-set by using a combined bottom-up and top-down
approach (using both existing companies´ experience and available guidelines). The
analysis of the CSR/sustainability reports is still ongoing, but it is already shown that
they vary significantly with regard to the addressed social issues, indicators and
supply chain stages. While social issues related to workers are addressed in all reports,
information e.g. related to the local community are seldom disclosed. Moreover, most
of the social issues addressed in the reports refer to only selected supply chain stages.
Based on this analysis an applicable indicator set for SOLCA will be proposed taking
into account their level of methodological development and the availability of data.
This study delivers guidance for the potential use of SOLCA within companies and
hence supports future life cycle based social assessments. Moreover, it highlights
further research demand regarding indicator development.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 215

Thema
 Elisabetta Zerazion Session 3B

Setting the SOLCA concept framework to the artisanal

and small-scale mining sector: a case study
Elisabetta Zerazion1, Annekatrin Lehmann2, Matthias Finkbeiner2, Anna
Maria Ferrari1

1
Dept. of Sciences and Engineering Methods, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy)
2
Dept. of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Office Z1, Berlin (Germany)

Introduction
In discussing extractive sector, reference is made solely to the mining industry
especially if the focus concerns the sustainable aspects of the social dimension (e.g.
the need of promoting social initiatives in the local communities by the mining
enterprises). This view alongside the widespread negative perceptions of ASMs has
contributed to isolate the ASMs and to exclude them from the progress programs.

Latterly it is possible to observe an initial inversion of this pattern due to either internal
and external reasons to the mining world resulting in the incremented numbers of
studies related to ASM activities. As said the grounds are multiple, starting from the
great interest to the supply chain of critical materials (e.g. precious metals) and to
the international efforts for attaining the SDGs, that considering the geographical
location of ASMs and the numbers of people involved (25-50 million). The promotion
of sustainable practices in ASMs could bring improvements to the sector as well as to
the affected countries and thereby be contributing to achieving the SDGs. As far as the
internal reasons, the incremented conflicts between ASMs and the relative states (e.g.
informality issue) and between ASMs and Large Scale Mining (LSM) companies (e.g.
land rights disputes) and last but not least the social pressure on local communities by
the ASM activities, all this factors have contributed to bring to light the ASMs reality.

In line with this perspective, the study aims to identify and develop a framework
suitable for assessing the social performance of ASMs in order to promote and achieve
a more inclusive and responsible mining sector. Besides, the research focuses on
testing the applicability of SOLCA concept framework to ASM context applying in this
way a life cycle approach to solve this query.

Consequently, the main research questions of the work are as following:

• Can social issues associated with ASMs be analysed from a life cycle perspective?
• Is the Social Organizational LCA concept framework a valid structure for developing
a social assessment?
• Can the Social Organizational LCA being adopted for the particular ASM context
and being adjusted to this specific case?

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

216 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Elisabetta Zerazion Session 3B

Methods
Considering the Social LCA as well as the Social Organizational LCA, one of the main
features that characterized both frameworks is the goal and scope phase, in which
the assessment framework’s and the stakeholder map play a relevant role in affecting
directly the final results of the social assessment. Hence, in order to answer the identified
research questions, it was opted for focusing on this two main steps of the goal and
scope phase.

To accomplish this both the S-LCA Guidelines (Benoît Norris 2009) and the SOLCA
concept framework (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2015) a literature review on the existing
studies developed on Social LCA and ASM sector was conducted, since SOLCA was
not applied at the present time of the work (2016). Then, based on this, each step
considered in the “goal and scope” phase was defined both according to S-LCA and
according to SOLCA - as though constructing two separate studies for assessing the
social performance of ASM. The main aim of this step was to underline, when present,
the main gaps for accomplishing a social assessment of ASM sector and to compare
both frameworks and find out which of the two frameworks can be more suitable for
describing the ASM sector.

Then, the systematic literature review was carried out in scientific papers, international
reports, international standards, etc. dealing with at least one social aspect associated
with ASM organizations, aiming a better understanding of the social ASM context.
Besides, this top-down approach was applied to identify the main social issues related
to ASM, that should be investigated in a SLCA/SOLCA study, i.e. to define categories,
subcategories, and indicators suitable for the ASM as well as to identify/map of
stakeholders.

The top-down approach (which leads to a “theoretical” list of social topics/stakeholders)

was accompanied by a bottom-up approach: In a case study, this theoretical framework
was applied for studying the social performance of a gold ASM situated in Colombia. In
Autumn 2016, the field activity was conducted pursuing several objectives: i) carrying out
semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders identified throughout the literature
analysis; ii) consultation of different actors apparently not directly affected by the ASM
impacts (open interviews); iii) integration of the top-down results with the primary data
obtained through a participatory approach (International Finance Corporation 2014;
Mathe 2014; McCabe and Halog 2016), this both for realizing the stakeholder map and
the framework of categories, subcategories, and indicators chosen for describing the
ASM organization in its entire life-cycle.

Results
The confrontation of each step considered in the “goal and scope” phase has allowed
to highlight the specific features of ASM sector for assessing its social performance. For
brevity it is reported the result related to the definition of the Functional Unit (Table 1)
which represents one of the most significant gap between the two analysed framework.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 217

Thema
 Elisabetta Zerazion Session 3B

S-LCA SOLCA NOTES

• The object of study • The reporting unit is the • Although Martínez-Blanco suggests
is the gold produced organization itself, i.e. the to express in non-physical terms the
by a Colombian ASM. ASM and its portfolio is reporting flow, it is still observed a
represented by the gold non-overlapping whether generic
• The functional production. indicators are considered in the
unit is 1kg of gold assessment (e.g. governance related
produced in the • The reporting flow is indicators). Besides, the suggested
studied ASM over indicated as the total revenue quantification of the product portfolio,
a certain period of of the ASM obtained in the i.e. the economic revenue, is not an
time. considered time frame. easy term to define in ASM context.

Table 1 Confrontation of the analysed system and F.U. (Reporting Unit and Reporting Flow) applying both S-LCA
and SOLCA in ASM context, expressed using a Colombian gold ASM as case study.

During the analysis of the state of art, it was observed an evident gap in the literature
regarding the correlation between S-LCA and ASM. This is valid independently of the
type of the article (i.e. quantitative, quantitative, etc.). In fact, there are few examples
of applying the Social LCA in ASM sector (Tsurukawa, N., Prakash, S., & Manhart 2011;
Ochoa et al. 2014), where the authors set up their work on the basis of the Social
Guidelines instructions (Benoît Norris 2009). Therefore, the latter was taken as the
reference mark for the current study.

Consequently, the resulting main literature references for this study are the Social
Guidelines and the work of Martínez-Blanco (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2015) and,
analysing how both track the stakeholder map and the framework of categories,
subcategories and indicators, it is possible to highlight that the studied steps of
the goal and scope are not defined following a standardized method. The common
element is represented by the UNEP/SETAC Methodological Sheets (UNEP 2013)
that were used as starting point for setting up the framework of the categories,
subcategories and indicators and the stakeholders identification in the current study.
This framework was modified according to the resulting input obtained from the
literature review focused on ASM sector and subsequently integrating the findings
obtained from the participatory approach.

Once identified the social themes that are relevant for carrying out the social
assessment of the ASM organization, it was defined the stakeholder map as well as
the categories, subcategories, and indicators. The actors that are considered to be
involved in the ASM activities are as follows:
• Organization: bosses and/or administrators and the employees (indicating the rank
and task, e.g. Chatarrero, i.e. scrap mining and barequeo, i.e. gold panning).
• Suppliers: sellers, traders and transporters.
• Customers: sellers (e.g. local gold shops), traders and transporters.
• External actors: Government authorities (both local and national), Responsible for
the public health, Health workers, Local community, International or civil society
organizations, i.e. NGOs., Trade Unions and/or Committees, Farmers.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

218 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Elisabetta Zerazion Session 3B

Impact categories Subcategories Indicators

Food insecurity Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity
in the population, based on the Food Insecurity
Experience Scale (FIES).
Agri-food Volume of production per labour unit by classes of
production farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size.
Food price Indicator of food price anomalies.
Land degradation The portion of degraded land out of the total land
area due to ASM activity.
Ecosystem services According to the potential ecosystem services of
loss the mining area, indicate its loss due to the ASM
activities as the gap out to the previous conditions.
Food security
Mine site closure Seek to mitigate, in greater detail, the broader
and Land
negative effects of site closures on mining
degradation
communities, especially the social, economic and
environmental effects associated with site closure.
Waste treatment Properly treat or dispose of hazardous material and
waste from its site(s).
Presence or provide for safe storage and disposal of
residual wastes and process residues.
Transport of Safe handling and transport of hazardous materials.
hazardous materials
International Application and respect of the International
Cyanide Cyanide Management Code.
Management Code

Table 2 Fragment extracted from the framework of categories, subcategories and indicators
developed for ASM context.

The entire developed framework is constituted by eight main categories, i.e. Working
conditions, Occupational health and safety (OHS), Health and Safety, Governance,
Community infrastructure, Food security and Land degradation, Trade; for the sake of
brevity, it is reported a fragment in Table 2.

As summarized in Table 2, one of the aspects emerging from the study is the
relationship between the ASM activities and other economic business, such as the
Agri-food sector. This link has relevant consequences in terms of food security and
land degradation, both aspects that shall be investigated following the presented
indicators.

Conclusions and future developments

The social themes inherent to the ASM activities along the life cycle have been well
defined thanks to the SOLCA concept framework, the Methodological Sheets and the
specific literature on ASMs. The framework of categories, subcategories, and indicators
was developed considering the ASM organization and not the resultant product
from its activities. However, for answering the second research question is needed
to develop an assessment for emerging the criticalities of SOLCA concept framework
and of this implemented set of categories, subcategories, and indicators. Although,
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 219

Thema
 Elisabetta Zerazion Session 3B

the authors stress out that the shift in considering the organization as the subject of
the analysis instead of the product could bring to several levels of interpretation since
the considered assessment framework is more comprehensive as well as the studied
stakeholders.

As mentioned above, the literature review has played a significant part for setting
the SOLCA concept framework, but the authors also highlight the crucial role of the
participatory approach for investigating and defining the social hotspots and the
people affected. The integration of the top-down and bottom-up approaches by
relying on the participatory approach is also recommended by the authors, because it
makes possible to take in considerations the opinions of public decision-makers who
affect the evolution of these impacts through regulatory measures as well as the main
stakeholders.

References
Benoît Norris, C. , 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. BENOÎT,
Ca. UNEP/Earthprint, Druk in de weer, Belgium. Available at: http://www.unep.fr/shared/
publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf [Accessed April 5, 2017].
International Finance Corporation. , 2014. A Strategic Approach to Early Stakeholder
Engagement A Good Practice Handbook for Junior Companies in the Extractive Industries.
1–170. Available at: https://commdev.org/userfiles/FINAL_IFC_131208_ESSE Handbook_web
1013.pdf.
Martínez-Blanco, J, Lehmann, A, Chang, Y-J, and Finkbeiner, M. , 2015. Social organizational LCA
(SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1586–1599.
Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-015-0960-1 [Accessed April 4, 2017].
Mathe, S. , 2014. Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA
participatory approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 1506–1514. Available at: http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/s11367-014-0758-6 [Accessed April 6, 2017].
McCabe, A, and Halog, A. , 2016. Exploring the potential of participatory systems thinking
techniques in progressing SLCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.1–12. Available at: http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/s11367-016-1143-4 [Accessed April 13, 2017].
Ochoa, K, Castaño, I, and Alvarez, B. , 2014. Social Life Cycle Assessment for Open Pit Gold
Mining in Colombia : a case study in Tolima. Soc. LCA progress, Pre-proceedings 4th Int. Semin.
Soc. LCA90–92.
Tsurukawa, N., Prakash, S., & Manhart, A. , 2011. Social impacts of artisanal cobalt mining in
Katanga, Democratic Republic of Congo. Freiburg. Available at: http://resourcefever.com/
publications/reports/OEKO_2011_cobalt_mining_congo.pdf [Accessed January 12, 2018].
UNEP. , 2013. The Methodological Sheets for Sub-Categories in Social Life Cycle Assessment
(S-LCA). UNEP/SETAC [ed.],. Available at: http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf [Accessed April 25, 2017].

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

220 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Umberto Eynard Session 3C

Social risk in raw materials extraction:

a macro-scale assessment
Umberto Eynard1, Lucia Mancini1, Franziska Eisfeldt2, Andreas Ciroth2,
David Pennington1

1
European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra (Italy)
2
GreenDelta GmbH, Berlin (Germany)

Introduction
Raw materials are essential for any modern society and they can contribute to the
achievement of many of the Sustainable Development Goals launched by the United
Nations [1]. On the other side, the production of materials can generate severe social
impacts, especially in case of poor governance and weak institutional and legal
framework [4]. Improving social performance is a relevant objective for industries
involved in raw materials production, in terms of good business practice, including
in view of gaining trust and acceptability. This is e.g. reflected in the growing role
of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and information disclosure practices, like
the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) [5]. Several individual companies and also
governmental authorities are equally increasingly addressing social performance of
supply chains. From a trade perspective, the import of minerals from conflict-affected
and high-risk -areas1 is an issue of concern for policy and downstream operators trying
to sustain legitimate trade.

The interconnections among the various economic sectors in the global economy
are becoming more and more complex. In many cases raw materials and final goods
used in the developed countries are produced in other regions, where economic,
environmental and social conditions may be critical. However, these impacts are
hidden to the final customers, as they occur in the upstream phases of the supply
chain. Global trade has therefore a fundamental role in influencing social conditions.
From a customer and societal perspective, awareness, requests, and obligations for
transparency on hidden impacts are increasing. In the case of electronic products
supply chains, production phases of components and manufactured goods often
take place in e.g. Asia. In many cases raw materials are extracted in countries where
economic and geopolitical conditions happen to be considered very critical, such as
in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In this area some mineral extraction and
trade has been proved to finance conflicts and civil wars, leading to the definitions of
“conflict minerals” [6].

1  “'conflict-affected and high-risk areas' means areas in a state of armed conflict, fragile post-conflict as
well as areas witnessing weak or non-existent governance and security, such as failed states, and widespread
and systematic violations of international law, including human rights abuses” [2]
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 221

Thema
 Umberto Eynard Session 3C

In order to face this challenge and to separate good from bad practice, many
countries, including in the European Union, have issued e.g. regulations to improve
transparency in product supply chains. In the case tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold
companies are required to perform a supply chain due diligence, in order to facilitate
that suppliers are not involved with conflicts, human rights violations, illegal trade,
etc., based on guidance from the Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
[7]. An additional challenge related to raw materials, of high concern to governments
and to companies, is their security of supply. To help address this challenge at e.g. the
EU economy scale, the European Commission published a list of Critical Raw Materials
(CRMs), based on their economic importance for the EU industrial sectors and their
supply risk. In order to support the EU raw materials policy, the European Commission
is developing the Raw Materials Information System (RMIS)2 and issued the 2016 Raw
Materials Scoreboard [8].

Given the above context, assessing social impacts associated with supply chains could
support decision making in policy and business contexts, in order to progress towards
the sustainable supply of raw materials and sustainable development goals. Adopting
life cycle approaches in such assessments could highlight the main considerations in
supply chains, and help to avoid burden shifting among impacts and geographical
regions. Within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies, Social LCA (SLCA)
addresses social and sociological aspects of products, their actual and potential
positive as well as negative impacts along the life cycle.

The purpose of this study is to apply SLCA databases to perform a macro-scale

assessment of social performance of the mining and quarrying sector in six extra-EU
countries, compared to the EU-28 average. This approach has also been considered
in background developments for the “2018 Raw Material Scoreboard” developed
by European Commission. The analysis offers a chance to reflect upon the current
feasibility and robustness of a prominent quantitative assessment approach of social
sustainability and the use of this information for supporting e.g. policy making in
the European context. In particular, we highlight the potential and the limitations of
using this SLCA approach and databases for performing supply chain due diligence
analyses.

Methodology
In order to analyse social considerations associated with supply chains of raw
materials we selected the PSILCA database among the existing SLCA data sources
as a prominent example. The underlying reasons for this choice are that PSILCA is
a relatively well updated data source with transparent documentation of original
sources. Moreover it provides a data quality assessment [9]. The software used for
calculations was openLCA v 1.6.3. Equally important, it is somewhat comprehensive
in terms of the social considerations to be assessed in this study. This database was
therefore considered representative of good practice for the approach assessed here.

2  http://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

222 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Umberto Eynard Session 3C

For the comparison among countries and at the EU-28 scale, we proceeded with
the selection of relevant Country-Specific Sectors (CSS) (such as “iron ore mining
in Australia”) from the database, and the aggregation of European CSS for the 28
EU countries, in order to have an average EU-28 result. The analysis of the social
performance regards the EU mining sector, in comparison with six extra-EU countries:
Australia, Brazil, China, Russian Federation, South Africa and United States. Results
are expressed in medium risk hours, which is the number of worker hours along the
supply chain that are characterized by a certain social risk. We aggregated the EU
countries with a weighted average, where the production values for each economic
sector are used as weighting factors, using latest available data from Eurostat. In order
to select the relevant impact categories from those present in PSILCA, we developed
a set of seven criteria. They refer to the relevance of the topic for the RM sectors and
policy, the impact assessment method used to assess the social risk and the quality
of the data available in the database. The final category selection includes: Child
labour; Contribution to economic development; Corruption; Fair salary; Freedom
of association and collective bargaining; Health and Safety (for workers); Migration;
Respect of indigenous rights; Working time.

Results
The countries selected for the investigation are compared based on their social
indicators, for a set of impact subcategories. In Figure 1, overall social indicator results
for the nine impact categories are displayed for the mining and quarrying sectors for
the seven countries/regions. The different impact categories are displayed on the
x-axis and the respective social indicators for the separate countries can be compared
on the basis of the coloured bars. Social indicators are presented in medium risk hours.
In addition, results of the study offer an insight into the contribution of country-sectors
in a certain supply chain. In the case of the EU mining and quarrying sector, the three
top locations contributing to the social indicator for the impact category “fair salary”
are India, China and UK. The pie charts in Figure 2 present which sectors are mainly
contributing to the social risk results in the corresponding countries.

Data quality and uncertainty

For every process and indicator, PSILCA provides a data quality assessment based on
a pedigree matrix [9]. In our analysis, main data quality concerns are mainly for the
following impact categories:
• Child labour: estimates are not specific for the sectors; they are sometimes old.
• Corruption: low reliability of data source for one of the indicators.
• Freedom of association and collective bargaining: for some indicators in data are
not specific for the sector.

Concerning the methodology used in this study, the main sources of uncertainty are
likely to include the aggregation of countries in the EU-28 group and the application
of cut-off criteria (1E-04), necessary to run the calculation in a reasonable timeframe.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 223

Thema
 Umberto Eynard Session 3C

Mining and quarrying

30

25 A B C EU-28 D E F

20
medium risk hours

15

10

0
Child labour, Contribution Corruption Fair salary Freedom of Health and Migration Respect of Working time
total to economic association Safety indigenous
development and collective (Workers) rights
bargaining

Figure 1: Comparison of social indicator results of this study for the mining and quarrying sector,
in all selected countries and in EU-28

Figure 2: Map with locations hotspots and sector contribution to the impact category indicator “Fair salary”
in the mining and quarrying sector, in EU

Concerning the SLCA methodology used here and the PSILCA database used for this
analysis, uncertainty derives from the underlying multi-regional input/output model,
as described in Lenzen et al. (2010) [10]; in the data on social aspects retrieved from
international statistical agencies; as well as how the different sources of information
are integrated to e.g. align sectors. The international statistical date are from different
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

224 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Umberto Eynard Session 3C

sources (e.g. surveys, administrative records, etc.), each of them having its limitations
in terms of data quality, uncertainty, and gaps.

Conclusion and outlook

In this study we used the SLCA database PSILCA with a top-down (I/O-based) LCA
approach to assess at macro-scale the social performance attributable to the mining
sector, providing a quantitative comparison among different countries. Results give
an overview of overall social performance, and hotspots concerning countries, impact
categories, and sectors. This could be a basis for an evaluation of e.g. social footprint
assessments and evaluation of trading partners. Results offer also insights into the
supply chains at a macro scale, showing which upstream country-sectors are mostly
contributing to different indicators. While we focused on the extraction phase of raw
materials, similar analyses could include the end-of-life phase, which is also critical in
terms of social conditions of workers, local communities, etc. It should be noted that
the life cycle approach adopted in this study and the database chosen to be used
reflect typical current practice for macro scale insights. Uncertainties and robustness
of the results must be carefully evaluated. More detailed studies will remain necessary
for insights related to specific products/sectors, including supply chain modelling and
site/domain-specific information for social considerations to be assessed.

References
[1] UN General Assembly, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development,” New York: United Nations. 2015.
[2] European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin,
tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-ri. 2017.
[3] UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products.
2009.
[4] L. Mancini and S. Sala, “Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and
comparison of indicators frameworks,” Resour. Policy, 2018.
[5] Global Reporting Initiative, “G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Reporting principles and
standard disclosures,” 2013.
[6] P. Le Billon, “The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts,” Polit. Geogr.,
vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 561–584, Jun. 2001.
[7] OECD, “Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-
Affected and High-Risk Areas. Third Edition,” 2016.
[8] EC, “Raw Materials Scoreboard - European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials,” 2016.
[9] A. Ciroth and F. Eisfeld, “PSILCA – A Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment database.
Documentation.” 2016.
[10] M. Lenzen, R. Wood, and T. Wiedmann, “Uncertainty analysis for multi-region input–output
models – a case study of the uk’s Carbon Footprint,” Econ. Syst. Res., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43–63,
Mar. 2010.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 225

Thema
 C. Vassillo Session 3C

The experience of Urban Wellbeing Laboratories.

A study of the social, energy and environmental costs
of the food supply chain in Campania Region
C. Vassillo, D. Restaino, R. Santagata, S. Ulgiati

Department of Sciences and Technologies, Parthenope University of Napoli (Italy)

Abstract
Nowadays, the growing interest in energy shortages and environmental integrity
issues is leading to reconsider the impacts of human activities on the dynamic of
the planet. Loss of biodiversity, increased waste and pollution, water contamination,
energy constraints and poverty, deforestation, toxicity are no longer unknown words
in daily life. According to the media, experts, and social society, topics such as climate
change, energy efficiency, reduction of carbon footprint, sustainable development,
resources distribution, are increasingly becoming important topics of discussions and
it is important to engage stakeholders to manage these situations.

Communicating with stakeholders and providing them all the information considering
energy, environmental, economic and social aspects and impacts, is not easy,
especially in situations where a large number of different stakeholders, with different
stakes, interact.

Engaging the stakeholders is equivalent to structuring a systematic pattern of

interactions, which can be followed through the entire life cycle of the project,
plan, program or activity. Planning their involvement in a systematic process at
different stages of an activity, gives the possibility to support the activity itself, and
government and policies that might be successful thanks their involvement. For this
reason, we designed and implemented a proposal for urban wellbeing laboratories,
i.e. opportunities to work together, compare problems and solutions, identify patterns
for improvement.

In the present study, the urban wellbeing laboratory team focused on the food
supply chain in Campania Region, in order to analyze all the impacts and potential
improvements, all over the supply chain, from agricultural activities to distribution, by
means of questionnaires, focus groups, statistical data processing and social and LCA
approach. Results suggests that the perfect solution does not exist, while instead an
optimum compromise can be reached to meet at least partially the expectations and
the needs of all the stakeholders and, at the same time, gain energy and environmental
benefits.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

226 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Mark Goedkoop Session 3D

The Product Social Metrics consensus

developed by major companies
Mark Goedkoop1, Ilonka de Beer2

1
PRé Sustainability, Amersfoort (The Netherlands)
2
Sandalfon Sustainability

Introduction
Since 2013 a group of sustainability experts from over a dozen leading companies have
come together in the Roundtable for Product Social Metrics, aiming to make social
impact assessment more accessible and meaningful through the development of a
handbook for social impact assessments of products and services along value chains.

Development process
The initial step was to bring internal sustainability experts from a few proactive
companies together, and discuss how a method can be developed, that can work in
a decision-making context as well as for communicating social impacts. After three
meetings the companies decided to fund a project to start a development process,
which is illustrated in the figure below:

Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4:,

Develop Refine handbook Support Reach out and Phase 5:
handbook & disseminate implementation extend Towards real
(2013) (2013 - 2014) (2014-2015) (2016- 2017) impact
(2017-2018)
Agree on Refine and test Cases and Accelerate
principles and handbook methodology acceptance Clear strategy
metrics updates and
Evaluate and governance
Engage with
Guidance on test data tools
Consult external other initiatives
organizations communication Update with
Extend focus on
method for SDG’s and CE
small-holders

Figure 1: Overview of the 5 development stages

The method
The methodology was developed by carefully evaluating existing publications, such as
the UNEP-SETAC LC initiative Social LCA handbook (UNEP/SETAC 2009), and comparing
this with what companies can realistically handle. The core function of the roundtable
is thus to develop a compromise between sophistication and practicability. This also
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 227

Thema
 Mark Goedkoop Session 3D

means much effort is spent on developing case studies to test the method and learn
how it can be improved.

The method is described in a freely available handbook (Fontes et al. 2016). It assesses
the impacts on workers, users and local communities using in 19 topics (or impact
categories). The previous handbook contained a quantitative and a qualitative version.
The quantitative version proved very difficult to use, and was dropped. The qualitative
version uses a five point scale. The measurement itself is done with performance
indicators. The measured values of the indicators determine a position on the 5-point
scale. During the fourth phase of the project, the roundtable has also started to work
with on-line data collection tools such as the SupplyShift tool and an extension of the
method was developed to include an additional stakeholder group – smallholders.

+2 Ideal performance; a positive output achieved and reported

+1 Progress beyond compliance is made and monitored
0 Compliance with local laws and/or aligned with international standards
-1 Non-compliant situation, but actions to improve have been taken
-2 No data, or Non-compliant situation; no action taken

Figure 2: The handbook describes two versions of the method; one with a qualitative 5-point scale
and a quantitative method. Above an example of the 5-point scale is provided from the previous version
of the handbook; the third level is the reference level

As the companies developed about a dozen case studies (mostly internal), much
experience was gathered on the practical applicability and we got insights
what works and what does not. Furthermore, the recent interests in Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and Circular Economy (CE), as well as the experiences from
the development of the smallholder extension prompts us to move from measuring
compliance to measuring real progress.

The planned update

This presentation will provide an overview of the results of the update process. This
update has the following elements: (1) a better link with the SDGs, (2) a better link
with CE, (3) a full integration with the recently developed fourth stakeholder category:
smallholders (Indrane 2017(1)), (4) moving focus from measuring of compliance to
measuring positive (or negative) outcomes, using the Theory of Change (C. Chris et. al
(2011), (5) a more consistent link between indicators and the 5-point scales, (6) a much
more efficient data collection procedures by adding a hotspot screening step before
the actual data collection, (7) experimenting with hotspot databases and tools and
finally (8) making the handbook more in a “how to” mode.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

228 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Mark Goedkoop Session 3D

Better link to the SDGs

The SDGs brought clarity in the direction society and thus companies will develop.
Thus, companies are very active in trying to understand what this means for them
and they are trying to understand and communicate to what extent they are and
will be contributing to SDGs. At the end of phase 4 of the project, the consensus was
that we need to link the methodology to the SDGs. While this sounds attractive; it is
much harder than it seems if one wants to substantiate these linkages. The problem
is that the indicators underlying the SDGs are developed for governments and not for
companies. Our research also led to the realisation that in the current handbook the
emphasis is on compliance, and not on measuring progress. Now companies agree
that indeed we must move beyond compliance and see if and how actors in the supply
chain are making progress. The SDGs can never be met without such progress. For
these reasons, all the topics are updated to move away from measuring compliance
to measuring progress . The Smallholder extension was already developed with this
principle in mind (Indrane et al. 2017(2)).

More efficient and realistic data collection

procedures to assess the supply chain
While pragmatisms and efficiency are in the core of the mission of this roundtable, in
practice data collection was really cumbersome. Based on the inputs from some of the
roundtable members, the data collection will be split up into two steps. The first step is
to perform a screening for hotspots; the second step is the actual data collection from
these hotspots. The screening can be done with various tools, like the Social Hotspot
database or the PSILCA database on the sector and country level, or more specific
with commercial tools, who assess individual companies using human and artificial
intelligence to interpret messages that can be found on internet and sustainability
reports. The screening is also a good check on the compliance level, as companies will
probably never admit in a questionnaire they are not compliant. In the second step
questionnaires are used to find out more about the hotspots, via Excel or commercial
tools developed for this prurpose.

Addressing the use-phase and

the Circular Economy Concept
In the previous handbook the impacts in the use-phase were measured in terms of
Health and Experienced Wellbeing. Especially the latter proved difficult to apply. A
new development is also the popularity of the Circular Economy (CE) concept. It is
important to understand that CE is not only about recycling and reuse, but also about
reinventing business models, like offering product service systems. This experience
and the new CE perspective has led to developing a separate assessment where the
product functionality and the services associated with the products are assessed, and
where possible linked to the SDGs. The big benefit of this separation is that often a
certain business unit has one supply chain, but makes many different products. This
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 229

Thema
 Mark Goedkoop Session 3D

means it is not necessary to repeat the data collection each time a new product is
developed that uses the same supply chain. Consistent with the CE concept, the
end of life processes are handled as if they are part of the supply chain, either for the
product at hand or for the next product.

Conclusions
Working with companies is a great way to find out what will work in a business context
and what will not. This means we are not trying to focus on the best possible science,
but we are bringing the science around us on to the table of the decision makers. The
companies also find it very important that we also link to other initiatives in this area
and we have an open dialogue with science, NGO’s and other initiatives, and therefore
our initiative must remain open source and freely available for all.

References
UNEP/SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Management (Vol.
15). https://doi.org/DTI/1164/PA
Fontes et al, 2016. Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment, Version 3.0. PRé
Sustainability 2016 (https://product-social-impact-assessment.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/07/Handbook-for-Product-Social-Impact-Assessment-3.0.pdf ).
Indrane et al, 2017 (1). Small but Complex: Assessing social impacts on smallholders in agri-food
sector. Manuscript submitted to the SLCA Conference, 2018 in Pescara.
Indrane et al, 2017(2). Consistent assessment of positive impacts. Manuscript submitted to the
SLCA Conference, 2018 in Pescara.
C. Chris et. al (2011). "A Systematic Review of Theory-Driven Evaluation Practice from 1990 to
2009". American Journal of Evaluation. 32 (2): 199–226. doi:10.1177/1098214010389321.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

230 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Selamawit Mamo Fufa Session 3D

Challenges and opportunities of using Social LCA

in the Norwegian construction and public procurement
Selamawit Mamo Fufa, Åshild Lappegard Hauge, Sofie Mellegård

SINTEF Building and Infrastructure, Oslo (Norway)

Introduction
The building industry is responsible for over one-third of all final energy and half
of global electricity consumption and also responsible for about one-third of GHG
emissions. Accordingly, the construction sector has major impact on the reduction
of energy use and GHG emissions. In response to Paris deal in 2015, Norway is
committed to a target of a minimum of 40 % reduction in GHG emissions by 2030
(compared to 1990 levels) and to becoming a low emission society by 2050 [1]. The
Norwegian government's expert committee for green competitiveness proposed
10 principles to form the basis for policy-making for the green shift, including: 1)
informed decision-making should be facilitated; 2) public procurements should
require green solutions; and 3) a life cycle perspective has to be the basis for all public
investments and procurements [2]. Furthermore, the revised Norwegian guidance
to public procurement include regulation that require to include pay and working
conditions in public contracts (in order to combat social dumping) and consideration
of socially responsible public procurement which verifies that human right and the
ILO core conventions are respected during the production process.

The use of life cycle thinking enables to support different stakeholders in the
building industry to make informed decision-making. In Norway, there are strong
research environments and a growing market demand for the application of life cycle
assessment (LCA) in buildings. Environmental product declaration (EPD) is also used as
a tool to evaluate, document and communicate the LCA results of building products
in order to facilitate fair comparison and help users to make informed material
selection [3]. EPD has gained ground in the Norwegian building industry, especially
after the launch of BREEAM-NOR, which awards credits to projects that use products
documented by EPDs.

Evaluation of buildings should not only capture the functional and environmental
performance required, but should also consider the economic and social impacts
originated during the product life cycle. The LCA methodology has been extended
to address the associated social and socio-economic aspects, and potential positive
and negative impacts of a product throughout its life cycle, using Social life cycle
assessment (SLCA). SLCA can be used to identify social hot spots, communicate,
and report social impacts, set up strategies and action plans to minimize negative
impacts and inform management policies and purchasing practices. Unlike LCA and
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 231

Thema
 Selamawit Mamo Fufa Session 3D

Life cycle costing (LCC) used for economic analysis, SLCA still lacks clear definitions of
impact categories and social indicators, sufficient analytical and theoretical tools, and
a standardized approach [4]. The social aspects are context dependent, and may be
considered by different stakeholders (workers/employees; local community; national
and global community and consumers), different countries, and regions in diverse
manners.

Aim and Methodology

The objective of this study is to identify and evaluate the main challenges and
opportunities of SLCA in the Norwegian construction industry. Further, the aim is to
identify social hotspots and encourage socially sustainable production and use of
products for the Norwegian construction industry. The findings are based on literature
review of research on challenges in the Norwegian construction industry, in order to
evaluate and relate previous research to SLCA studies.

Results and discussions

The Guidelines for SLCA of products published by a working group within the UNEP/
SETAC life cycle initiative [5] have been evaluated for their usability and applicability
by different researchers around the world. The European standard NS-EN 15643-
3:2012 Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of buildings - Part 3:
Framework for the assessment of social performance defines a general framework
for the assessment of social performance of buildings based on a life cycle approach,
with a list of social performance categories to be addressed. General guidelines for
the evaluation of social performance categories for the user phase of a building are
provided by standard NS-EN 16309:2014+A4:2014 Sustainability of construction
works - Assessment of social performance of buildings - Calculation methodology,
and its effective assessment is mainly based on qualitative criteria and a checklist
approach. These criteria and checklists are also evaluated by some studies [6].

In Norway, there is a lack of SLCA studies in the construction industry even if SLCA
guidelines are tested and evaluated in some other areas [7, 8]. Incorporating the SLCA
can enable evaluation of the social impact, not only from local production, installation,
use and end of life phase of building products and buildings, but also throughout the
supply chain. This can also help to prevent negative social impact along the supply
chain, as most construction materials are imported from abroad.

One recent study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
shows that counterfeit or fake materials is an increasing problem in the construction
industry. This leads to increase costs, and affects quality, health and safety of the end
users [9]. Lack of awareness and anti-counterfeit strategies, a high degree of trust
combined with lack of controls and a constant time- and cost pressure, are parameters
that make the construction industry vulnerable to counterfeit materials. Especially,
new type of products seems to be vulnerable due to lack of knowledge, standards

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

232 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Selamawit Mamo Fufa Session 3D

and documentations. Although testing and certification of products helps to assure

quality, fake documentations are also in use.

SLCA studies are incorporated in very few environmental product declarations (EPDs)
published from the Swedish programme operator (International EPD system). SLCA
is recommended to evaluate the social performance of a product as the inclusion
of economic and social aspects as additional information in EPDs as suggested
by the programme operator [10]. This enables to avoid burden shifting from one
sustainability issue to another. However, there is no EPD from EPD Norway declared
with SLCA included in the EPD. Development and introduction of SLCA in the well-
used Norwegian EPD system can contribute to the expansion of SLCA with the
accepted set of indicators for evaluation of social sustainability.

Evaluation of the social implications of building products and buildings along the
full life cycle, results in possibilities not only to address the “social dimension” in
sustainable material production and selection, but also possibilities for improving
the circumstances of affected stakeholders involved in different life cycle stages of
the building. The Norwegian government has introduced laws and regulations at the
beginning of 2008 which require employers in the construction industry to supply all
their employees with identity (ID) cards. The ID cards were introduced with the aim
to facilitate control measures, and to prevent undeclared work and social dumping.
The ID cards were also introduced to improve the health conditions of the workers,
and increase the focus on the work environment and safety at the construction sites.
However, these laws are not always applied. Building owners and developers may use
undeclared labour, mainly foreign workers, for example for maintenance, replacement
and refurbishment of buildings, to get the job done as cheap as possible. Another
challenge is the use of modules or prefabricated products during the construction
phase. These modules can be environmental-friendly due to shorter construction
period and the associated emissions, however the modules can have negative impacts
on local employment, if the prefabricated materials or modules are imported.

The Norwegian regulation requires contracting authorities to include a clause in their

contracts that obliges contractors and subcontractors to make sure that collective
agreements or minimum pay and working conditions considered normal for the
place and profession concerned are respected. For the production of products in
countries where national legislation and internationally recognised principles relating
to human rights and labour standards are not fully respected, supplier is responsible
for safeguarding contract clauses concerning socially responsible production. Even
if the revised Norwegian guidance to public procurement include regulations that
require socially responsible public procurement (SRPP), only few public institutions
have the capacity or expertise to monitor whether their suppliers do so. There are
success stories in SRPP where framework agreement on monitoring ethical standards
in the supply chains of municipal contract is established. A clarification of this can
enable the construction industry to be more offensive in battling labour crime, and
more proactive in achieving healthy working conditions. BREAM-NOR was one of
the main drivers for Norwegian construction industries to evaluate and document

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 233

Thema
 Selamawit Mamo Fufa Session 3D

the environmental performance of their products. Cooperation with BREEAM-NOR

for including a requirement for documentation of SLCA in the 15 EPDs they currently
require for providing credits, can be one way of increasing the use of SLCA in Norway.

Conclusions and future developments

The challenges of Norwegian municipalities to claim social sustainability in public
procurement are partly known. In order to reach the goal that Norwegian construction
sites comply with the new rules on healthy working conditions and the use of
construction materials that are produced fairly and in accordance with human rights,
it is necessary to raise the level of competence among the stakeholders' subject to the
new regulations and the opportunities offered by public procurement.

In this study, health and safety of workers and end users, local employment (work
force hired locally), fair competition, social responsibility along the supply chain, and
transparency using labels or certifications, are some social hot spots identified in the
Norwegian construction industry. These are preliminary results.

SLCA can provide different stakeholders with a method to measure and document
social sustainability and contribute to innovation in public procurement in the
field of social sustainability. Thus, further evaluation of social sustainability aspects,
social hotspots and social indicators should be conducted through interviews and
questionnaires of different stakeholders in the construction industry. Network and
collaboration between researchers, municipalities and state actors will help sharing
experiences and best practice, and increase awareness for social hotspots. A network
of this type could develop strategies for socially sustainable construction sites and
products through innovative public procurement using SLCA. Furthermore, cross-
disciplinary teamwork between LCA practitioners and social scientists together with
different stakeholders in the construction industry will help to develop expertise in
this field and break barriers between different fields of expertise.

References
[1] Lovdata, Lov om klimamål (klimaloven) in LOV-2017-06-16-60. Klima- og
miljødepartementet. Lovdata: Norway. 2017.
[2] Green Competitiveness. Executive summary of report from the Norwegian government’s
expert committee for green competitiveness. October 28, 2016 Oslo.
[3] Ibáñez-Forés, V., B. Pacheco-Blanco, S.F. Capuz-Rizo, and M.D. Bovea, Environmental Product
Declarations: exploring their evolution and the factors affecting their demand in Europe.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016. 116: p. 157-169.
[4] Siebert, A., A. Bezama, S. O’Keeffe, and D. Thrän, Social life cycle assessment indices and
indicators to monitor the social implications of wood-based products. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2017. 172: p. 4074-4084.
[5] UNEP/SETAC, The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social life cycle assessment
(S-LCA). UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. 2013.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

234 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Selamawit Mamo Fufa Session 3D

[6] Santos, P., A. Carvalho Pereira, H. Gervásio, A. Bettencourt, and D. Mateus, Assessment of
health and comfort criteria in a life cycle social context: Application to buildings for higher
education. Building and Environment, 2017. 123(Supplement C): p. 625-648.
[7] Veldhuizen, L.J.L., P.B.M. Berentsen, E.A.M. Bokkers, and I.J.M. de Boer, A method to assess
social sustainability of capture fisheries: An application to a Norwegian trawler. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 2015. 53(Supplement C): p. 31-39.
[8] Valente, C., A. Brekke, and I.S. Modahl, Testing environmental and social indicators for
biorefineries: bioethanol and biochemical production. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 2017.
[9] Engebø, A., N. Kjesbu, O. Lædre, and J. Lohne, Perceived Consequences of Counterfeit,
Fraudulent and Sub-standard Construction Materials. Procedia Engineering, 2017.
196(Supplement C): p. 343-350.
[10] Vattenfall, Social impacts from Wind power, Appendix to Vattenfall AB Certified
Environmental Product Declaration EPD® (S-P-00183 EPD) of Electricity from Vattenfall’s Nordic
wind power. 2016.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 235

Thema
 Urs Schenker Session 3D

Integrating SLCA in Product Design at Nestlé

Urs Schenker, Karen Cooper, Sharla Halvorson

Nestlé Research Center, Lausanne (Switzerland)

Introduction
Product design is a key driver for the environmental and social performance of future
products, in particular for fast moving consumer goods. Nestlé sells close to 100’000
different items (SKUs, stock keeping units) across many different business units and
in all major markets across the globe. The resources required to assess and improve
the sustainability performance of those products in one go would be enormous.
Therefore, the product design process is a key window of opportunity to integrate
sustainability into the next generation of products at their design.

Eco-design has been systematically integrated into the product design process
of Nestlé (Espinoza-Orias et al, 2016), and many competitors use similar tools and
processes (see de Bruin et al, 2017 or Piette & Bayart, 2017) to optimize environmental
performance. However, social sustainability is currently not considered in most
companies during product design. At best, social assessments are used as risk-
avoidance tools: if potential social impacts are identified, the sourcing region or
corresponding ingredient type is avoided. While risk avoidance may be useful to
reduce environmental impacts (e.g. avoiding dairy-based ingredients by plant-based
equivalents, avoiding sourcing from water scarce areas), risk avoidance is counter-
productive for social impacts: avoiding to source from communities with poor labor
standards will not improve those standards and may increase unemployment in that
community, further lowering the bargaining power of the working population.

Here we present a three-tiered approach that has been rolled-out at Nestlé R&D.
We have chosen this approach, because it is sufficiently simple to enable product
developers to address social impacts systematically, while focusing on the business
opportunities and the companies’ public commitments towards society, ensuring
that this is perceived as value added rather than a tick-box exercise. The latter also
ensures that social impacts are not seen as potential risks that should be avoided,
but as opportunities to improve and to contribute to the social commitments of the
company. The three-tiered approach starts with a very simple qualitative assessment
(1st tier), followed by a second and third tier assessment that become more complex
but also more insightful. This ensures that the approach (at the first tier) can be rolled-
out globally, and the more complex assessment types are applied only to those
products that are identified as “interesting” by the first-tier assessment.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

236 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Urs Schenker Session 3D

Methods
Social impacts are evaluated using a three-tiered approach where only the first tier is
compulsory and systematically applied. The second tier is recommended if the first
tier suggests that there may be an opportunity or issue in the given product system.
The third tier is applied if the second tier assessment suggest that a comprehensive
evaluation should be performed (e.g. to make comparative assessments with
competitors or the previous product iteration).

At the first tier, product designers, in discussion with a sustainability specialist,

evaluate potential opportunities or issues of the product system in light of the
company commitments and the material issues (as reported in the companies’
materiality assessment). They identify actions to mitigate potential issues or build on
opportunities. This tier assessment is integrated into the Nestlé project management
system and needs to be compiled for any product development project at given stages
in the project life cycle. It is expected that such an assessment can be completed in
approximately one hour (excluding the identification and definition of actions), but
can be subjective because it is influenced by the judgement of the project designer
and sustainability specialist. Basic information on key social risks in supply chains is
built into the tool to trigger discussion, and to help project managers that are not yet
familiar with this topic.

At the second tier, we use simplified social assessment methods based on input/
output or other financial metrics. We have tested and applied two approaches that
have previously been described in more detail (Weidema 2016, Schenker & Weidema
2017, Vionnet & Pollard 2017). These approaches can integrate primary data (e.g.
salary paid) if easily available, but they can also be used with data from economic
input/output tables and are therefore applicable with very limited efforts. Using a
standardized approach, they can identify potential hotspots in a supply chain and
remove much of the subjectivity of the first tier. Also, the quantitative nature allows
identification of trade-offs.

The third tier is used primarily if external communication on a specific issue and
product are expected. At the third tier, we use conventional social LCA based on
the methodology described in the Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment
(Fontes et al, 2016). The currently published version of the Handbook does not
explicitly recognize farmers as a separate stakeholder group – we have therefore
contributed to a project to extend the handbook with a new stakeholder category.
This new version of the handbook is presented in a separate manuscript (Indrane et
al, 2017).

Results
In the short time since the full roll-out of the assessment approach in fall 2017, the
product designers have mostly been working on first tier assessments (as expected
and intended). They have submitted about 100 case studies, and the area that has
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 237

Thema
 Urs Schenker Session 3D

attracted the most attention are nutritional improvements (removal of sugar, salt,
and saturated fats, as well as the addition of (micro-)nutrients). Furthermore, where
“sensitive” ingredients are used (e.g. cocoa, where child labor is known to be a
potential issue), product designers refer to the “Responsible Sourcing Standards” that
are in place for such ingredients.

At the second tier level, we have tested the approach with several case studies, as
described in Schenker & Weidema (2017) and Vionnet & Pollard (2017). In all these
case studies, it became very clear that the smallholder farmers and farm workers
are the key stakeholder group for potential social issues as well as for improvement
opportunities. Given that in many countries, smallholder farmers and farm workers
are amongst the poorest members of society, improvements in the prices paid to
farmers (or salary increases for farm workers) play an important role in improving
the social performance in a supply chain. This did not necessarily come as a surprise,
but it confirms with a quantitative measure that responsible sourcing programs are
the current best lever to improve the social performance in a food company’s supply
chain.

At the third tier, we have performed an assessment in collaboration with the

Roundtable for Product Social Metrics, which has resulted in a new draft version
for the Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment (Fontes et al, 2016). The
assessment focused on coffee supply chains, and has concluded that data collection
is a very important and costly element of a well-planned social assessment: a typical
coffee supply chain in a given coffee sourcing region can be based on several
thousand smallholder farmers. The sample size for such a diverse supply chain must
be large, and requires considerable effort, if a comprehensive set of indicators is to be
evaluated (necessitating a comprehensive set of questions to be discussed). Even if
considerable effort is spent on surveys, it is sometimes challenging to accurately rank
the social performance:

a) the participants of a survey may not be ready to share honest answers (e.g.
regarding child labor, if they fear repercussions),
b) may prefer to pretend not to know the answer (if they expect to perform
poorly),
c) or may not have documented evidence that a situation is under control
in circumstances where issues are unlikely (e.g. child labor in Switzerland:
there may not be a control system in place to insure this is not happening).

Conclusion and Outlook

We currently focus on rolling out the social assessment approach as broadly as possible.
This will likely mean that we focus on the first tier assessments, given that these are
most widely applicable, assisting embedment of the social sustainability concept. We
believe that this approach is most meaningful for the R&D and product design teams,
given that procurement and responsible sourcing teams work in close collaboration

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

238 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Urs Schenker Session 3D

with our supply chain and are in a better position to implement measures “on the
ground” (which will be better covered by the second and third tier assessments).

Admittedly, product designers will initially not have a sufficient understanding to

fully grasp social impacts in all Nestlé supply chains. However, we expect the learning
process to be beneficial in itself, because it will raise the interest and ultimately the
understanding of the employees for these topics. As we have already observed for the
eco-design process, this will then enable product designers to implement products
with improved social performance right from the beginning of the product design
process.

We also expect to find clarification on how the R&D teams can best contribute to
implementing social measures in the supply chain of a multinational company by
evaluating the first tier assessments of a wider sample size over the next 12-18 months.
Furthermore, we would like to test how well the three tiered assessments can be used
in sequence, given that each of them uses a rather different methodology – there is a
risk that methodological differences will result in different results at the different tiers,
which would be confusing to the target audience. A better methodological alignment
of the three tiers could be a promising next step for the assessment framework.

References
De Bruin et al, 2017. Driving sustainable innovation in FMCG by democratising lifecycle
assessments, plenary presentation at LCM Conference, September 2017, Luxembourg.
Espinoza-Orias et al, 2016. Eco-design shapes product innovation and development, Food
Science and Technology (https://fstjournal.org/features/30-2/Eco-design-of-foods)
Fontes et al, 2016. Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment, Version 3.0. Pré
Sustainability 2016 (https://product-social-impact-assessment.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/07/Handbook-for-Product-Social-Impact-Assessment-3.0.pdf ).
Indrane et al, 2017. Small but Complex: Assessing social impacts on smallholders in agri-food
sector. Manuscript submitted to the SLCA Conference, 2018 in Pescara.
Piette & Bayart, 2017. Developing a Packaging Eco-Design Process to Achieve Danone’s
Sustainability Commitments, plenary presentation at LCM Conference, September 2017,
Luxembourg.
Schenker & Weidema, 2017. Social Footprint Whitepaper, available here: https://lca-net.com/
files/White-Paper-Social-Footprint-Final.pdf
Vionnet & Pollard, 2017. Social Impact Valuation Whitepaper, available here: http://www.
nestle.com/asset-library/documents/creating-shared-value/social-impact-valuation-white-
paper-2017.pdf
Weidema, B.P. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1172-z

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 239

Thema
 L. Zanchi Session 3D

Product Social Impact Assessment:

a case study from the automotive sector
L. Zanchi1, A. Zamagni1, R. Riccomagno2, S. Maltese3-4, M. Delogu

1
Ecoinnovazione srl, Spin-off ENEA, Padova (Italy)
2
Magneti Marelli S.p.A. - Powertrain Division, Bologna (Italy)
3
Dept. of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna (Italy)
4
Dept. of Industrial Engineering, University of Florence (Italy)

Abstract
This paper shows and discusses one of the first example of S-LCA application in the
automotive sector by means of the Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) method,
developed by the Roundtable for the Product Social Metrics. The case study concerns
a vehicle component produced by Magneti Marelli. The main companies involved in
the production stage have been engaged in the data collection; therefore this work
gave the opportunity to test the method aplicability and usability as a supporting tool
in the design phase of Magneti Marelli.

The main outcomes from this work concerns: i) product system and system boundaries
definition, two important aspects to support data collection at site level and the
following data elaboration and interpretation in a practical way; ii) data collection
feasibility; iii) allocation procedure to Functional Unit and referencing practicability.
The PSIA quantitative approach proved to be practicable, even if opportunities
for improvements have been identified especially regarding the social indicators
granularity in terms of their capability to reflect the differences among the alternative
design options from a social point of view. This is a decisive aspect to enhance the
assessment of social impacts during the product design phase.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

240 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Silvia Di Cesare Session 3F

A new scheme to evaluate socio-economic impacts

of products: a well-being indicator approach
Silvia Di Cesare1-2, Alfredo Cartone1, Luigia Petti1

1
Department of Economic Studies, University “G. d’Annunzio”, Pescara (Italy)
2
CIRAD, UPR GECO, Montpellier (France)

Abstract
In this paper, the evaluation of socio-economic performance through an approach
based on well-being is proposed. The aim is to build a composite indicator for the
evaluation of socio-economic impacts, through the development of a methodology
based on the literature on well-being indicators. A weight connecting each dimension
of well-being to the actions implemented by the organization is adopted. This was
performed in order to synthetize the behavior of the organizations based on a
statistical approach. Then, the links between the variables and the inventory indicators
are identified by adopting a Delphi expert consensus method on the basis of the
“Wisdom of crowds” theory.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 241

Thema
 Catherine Macombe Session 3F

What social priorities for agro-business now

if the future is realized as planned?
Catherine Macombe

IRSTEA, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier (France)

Introduction
In the near future, some authors (Radanne, 2006) guess that new ways of life are
emerging, induced by the constraints coming from three geophysical factors: rise
of sea level; climatic desasters higher frequency; scarcity of material resources,
and especially of transportation’s energy. The effects of the coming change upon
agriculture are a regular study topic, while the likely evolutions of the food systems
as a whole remain quite overlooked (Servigne, 2013). The life-cycle thinking teaches
us that-when the scarcity of resources is general - the process doesn’t work anymore.
Only frugal agro-food value-chains can expect to last. Accordingly, we describe the
likely future evolutions of the agro-food value-chains in response to the geophysical
constraints. In the few next decades, the main social impacts caused by the companies’
today strategies will be to drive –or not – societies towards a viable future for mankind.

Method
We set three optimistic assumptions. The first one is that the transition can run without
“collapsing” (Bihouix, 2014). The second one is that policies will be reasonable enough
to give priority to food and agriculture issues. The third is that long-term agronomic
performances (productivity by hectare or by cattle) will be widely higher than before
the agro-industrial revolution. It is yet possible, provided we are aware of the necessity
to prepare for such a future. The discussion extends the models set by many authors
for the agricultural step alone (e.g. Altieri et al., 2015 ; Malézieux, 2012). We do not
split between developing and developed countries, because they will experience the
same evolutions, yet at a different pace. From the geophysical constraints and life-
cycle thinking, we infer the different models of value-chains that are frugal enough
to develop in the new context. We deduce the different models of value-chains that
are logically emerging, thus converging with some authors (Servigne, 2013). We
therefore 1) discuss the effects of the three constraints on agriculture, processing and
delivery; 2) present the different business-models generated. We then will discuss
3) the necessary adaptations for the agro-food companies, and the offered business
opportunities.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

242 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Catherine Macombe Session 3F

Results
Effects of the three factors on agro-food value-chains

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change envisions a supplementary sea

level rise ranging in average from 26 to 82 cm during the 21st century (Guéguen
and Renard, 2017). Large costal territories are disappearing. The increased frequency
and gravity of the climatic disasters is the present reality. In the future, disasters
are becoming commonplace. The biofuels will be set aside for priority activities
(Radanne, 2006). Agriculture will be forced to do without oil, nor inorganic pesticides
and fertilizers. The management of the humic fertility of soil (Altieri et al., 2015) will
compel farmers towards diversity of crops. Indeed, the solution is diversity: forest or
grassland systems when tillage is not possible, and systems associating several crops
(e.g. agroforestry), because they are the most resilient (Malézieux, 2012). It will not
be rentable to send harvested crops out to far-away processing plants. Today, in the
European Union, most raw agricultural products and food travel by road (Martinez
Palou & Rohner-Thielen, 2011). In the future, agricultural products will be processed
on site, and consumed within a distance of a few km. Only the farms located nearby
the ports will get the possibility to board the harvest on international trade boats.
International transportation by sea will involve scarce foodstuffs (coffee, salt…) and
will be elicited also to manage emergency situations.

The agro-food value-chains models in the future

The different business-models are summarized in the table 1. During a while, new
models will go together with the ones born from the agro-industrial revolution.
Among the 6 models, the first is dominating at present, while the second tends to
develop. The n°3 and 4 are slowly emerging (Lamine et al., 2012). The 5th becomes a
necessity to escape the “hunger gap”, often experienced by pre-industrial societies. The
6th has always working, from antiquity to our days. Because of the three geophysical
constraints, we need to combine the models from 3 to 6.

At short-term, adapting to the risks and seizing opportunities

Becoming aware of its own vulnerabilities allows preparing emergency plans to run
again. The agro-food company can perform a test by imagining how it would endure
the higher price (for instance, sharply multiplied by three in Servigne, 2013) of fossil
oil. Often it will be relevant to draw a collective action plan with the other actors of
the value-chain. Companies already train their workers because of the evolution of
competencies. Why not to train them for the new tasks generated by the consequences
of oil scarcity? How to reorganize if lasting oil or electricity scarcity? In most of the
case, the company will conclude that supplementary workers are needed. Who the
company can turn to for assistance? Anyway, how to quickly train the new comers?
In a nutshell, the agro-food companies need to design another business-model
decreasing the dependencies to fossil energies and to non-renewable minerals, and
to adapt to climatic disasters.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 243

Thema
 Catherine Macombe Session 3F

Corresponding
Which constraint
N° What? Where? When? agriculture and
associated?
Delivery
1: today everything everywhere At any time Cheap Specialised intensive
agriculture/ large farms/
group purchasing/ mass
distribution
2:Amazon everything Metropoles At any time Expensive, in Many kinds of farms/
densely populated Delivery assisted by TIC
areas only (Amazon model)
3:Chariot Mainly everywhere Seasonal Affordable but low Small farms around
local food products diversity of food, cities, Delivery by chariot
irregular availability
4: Roman villa Local food everywhere Seasonal Affordable, low Direct pick-up at farm,
products diversity of food, multi-products cannery
irregular availability and mills
5: Survival Survival specific In response Stock managed by Routed by trains, ships
food (rice, location to climatic public authorities as humanitarian aid,
sugar...) disasters or to from large industrial
“hunger gap” mills.
6 Export crops Spices, Specific At any time Expensive, at certain Routed by ships
salt, ... location periods only

Table 1: Possible models for value-chains in agro-food

Business opportunities are visible right now. The first need will be the work force, and
accordingly new tools to carry materials, to till soil, to eradicate weed, to harvest, to
process etc. The new agriculture will execute robust equipment, easy to handle, and
using mechanic power instead of oil. We can find ideas from tools of Asian and African
peasants. Agricultural machinery companies have a major role to play to design and
to spread the use of these new tools. Business for creation of plants’ varieties will be
elicited also, to fine-tune a range of species and vegetal crops designed according to
the criteria of easy management. The stake is high for the research about varieties.
Concerning cattle, two trends will shape the picture: i) decrease of the cattle
pool consuming cereals and ii) need for transformation of forages, traction and
transportation (Clark, 2011). Indeed, the largest part of mobile agricultural tasks will
depend on the cattle’s power, while the static tasks (crushing grains…) will make use
of wind and hydraulic power. Many business opportunities are to seize in this domain
too. The Future also claims for universal multi products canneries (dairy, salting tub,
mills…) working thanks to renewable energies, easy to manage and to maintain. They
will remain small, and will be scaled regarding the size of the served farm(s), because
they will supply local markets in priority (Clark, 2011). They require a huge design
effort. Indeed, it runs counter to the specialized current one.The transportation modes
must be designed without drawing from fossil fuels, neither from scarce resources.
To help transportation towards adjacent regions, inland boats seem relevant. For
long-distance transportation, the “new offshore vessel” provides a stimulating project.
About long-run trade, the first companies capable to identify the relevant locations
and to set up there, will handle a substantial competitive advantage.
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

244 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Catherine Macombe Session 3F

Conclusions
We warn companies against fashionable « temptations ». Indeed, certain business-
models can be viewed as advantageous in the short-time, but they will not contribute
to the emergence of a frugal economy, neither to the company’s permanence. High
tech is often a “heavy harmful headlong rush towards a useless spree of our natural
resources” (Bihouix, 2014). About priority impacts, the strategic priorities of all agro-
food companies are the same. They have to prepare and to adapt, in order to last. It
is the top priority, because here is the prerequisite for contributing to the rendered
service to society: meeting food needs. Continuation of the activities, jobs, and finally
own permanence, depend on this strategy. To survive the ongoing change, one can’t
avoid upsetting present business-models. The emergence of the new ways of life is
devaluing the current notion of financial value. What will be the new measure of the
value? We guess that the decision tools signaling the fair way – right now, are based
on the anticipated assessment of the improvement regarding human populations’
and ecosystems’ health. Any change might be assessed regarding progress in
health. Health is the metric of the future, and therefore deserves the full attention of
researchers in social LCA.

References
Altieri, MA, Nicholls, CI, Henao, A, Lana, MA 2015. Agroecology and the design of climate
change-resilient farming systems, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, July 2015, Volume
35, Issue 3, pp 869–890, DOI 10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
Bihouix, P 2014. La high-tech nous envoie dans le mur, entretien recueilli par Laure
Noualhat, Libération, 04/07/2014, Accessed 29 November 2017, http://www.liberation.fr/
terre/2014/07/04/la-high-tech-nous-envoie-dans-le-mur_1057532
Clark, E.A., 2011. The future is organic: but it’s more than organic. http://www.resilience.org/
stories/2011-03-07/future-organic-its-more-organic/ (February 2018)
Guéguen, A, Renard, M, 2017. La faisabilité d’une relocalisation des biens et activités face aux
risques littoraux à Lacanau, Sciences Eaux & Territoires , 2017/2 n° 23, 26- 31
Lamine, C, Renting, H, Rossi, A, Wiskerke, JSC, Brunori, G, 2012. Agri-Food systems and
territorial development: innovations, new dynamics and changing governance mechanisms.
In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu, B (eds) Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The
New Dynamic. Springer
Malézieux, E, 2012. Designing cropping systems from nature, Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2012)
32:15–29
Martinez Palou, A, Rohner-Thielen, E, 2011. From farm to fork-A statistical journey along the EU’s
Food chain. statistics, Eurostat, Statistics in focus, vol 27/201, page 12, European Union.
Radanne, P, 2006. Changement climatique et société(s), Ecologie & Politique, 2006/2 n°33, 95-
115.
Servigne, P, 2013. Nourrir l’Europe en temps de crise : vers des systèmes alimentaires résilients,
Les Verts/Alliance Libre Européenne au Parlement Européen, rapport.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 245

Thema
 Juliana R. V. Tkatch Session 3F

SLCA of events: application of an LCA-based method

in the event impact analysis
Juliana R. V. Tkatch1, Osvaldo Quelhas1, André Teixeira Pontes2,
Cassia Ugaya3

1
UFF – Universidade Federal Fluminense, Faculdade de Engenharia, Niterói (Brazil)
2
UFF – Universidade Federal Fluminense, Faculdade de Farmácia, Niterói (Brazil)
3
UTFPR – Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Curitiba (Brazil)

Introduction
The increased attention on sustainability by stakeholders has led businesses to adopt
several tools for sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. The
development of an evaluation of social impacts is one of the cornerstones of products
and services sustainability. It is in such scenario that the discussions about Social Life
Cycle Assessment-SLCA have been gaining more importance and visibility, both in the
academic sphere and in organizational decision-making processes. SLCA enables an
understanding of the organization's behavior and its relationship with stakeholders. A
maintenance shutdown in the chemical industry has the features of an event because
it is an intentional and programmed gathering of people with a specific goal during a
determined period of time (ALLEN, 2008). Given its delimited time span, isolating the
social impacts of an event from the routine impacts of the industry is both a challenge
for SLCA analysis and an opportunity for application of the methodology.

As pointed by Benoit et al. (2010), the goal of the study is to assess the social
impacts of the event with a view to increasing the company´s knowledge, informing
choices and promoting improvements of social conditions during the life cycle of
an important process for the chemical industry known as “maintenance shutdown".
The event analyzed is a 60-day planned maintenance shutdown of a chemical plant,
during which production units must stop operating so the services can be performed.
The event took place between July and September 2016 in the Southern region of
Brazil. The Local Community is the stakeholder that experiences the most significant
impacts from this event. For this reason, nine subcategories suggested in the UNEP/
SETAC (2013) guidelines for this stakeholder were analyzed. Empirical knowledge
was considered through semi-structured interviews. A questionnaire with 29 open
questions based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines (2006) and Methodological Sheets
(2013) enabled us to identify positive and negative impacts noticed in the community.
Site-Specific Data were collected from three different segments of stakeholders for
triangulation of information sources: community members, local governmental
agencies and company representatives (from its production, maintenance, security
and social responsibility areas) with professional or experiential knowledge of the
impacts of a maintenance shutdown. Data from organization-specific reports, such as
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

246 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Juliana R. V. Tkatch Session 3F

its code of ethics, conduct guidelines, complaint records, reports of visits and meetings
with the community, sponsorships and maintenance worker logs, were also taken
into account. Among the inventory data, it was considered relevant that maintenance
shutdowns cause temporary migration into the city and generate negative impacts to
public health such as increase of STDs and unintended pregnancies. There are reports
of recurrence of diseases previously eradicated in the region. There are indications
that those came from other parts of the country with migrants, as they are common
in their home states.

While people in the company report specific actions on this regard, the community
does not acknowledge the efforts of the company to integrate the migrant workers
with the community. Was possible to recognize the strength of written policies on
community engagement at the organization level. The interviews showed that the
maintenance topic was discussed in routine meetings by the so-called "community
committee". Given the diversity of stakeholders engaged with the organization, formal
community leaders are invited to the meetings and contacted proactively in case of
production events that break plant routine.

It was not possible to identify the strength of local heritage protection policies.
Concerning availability and accessibility of company information to the community,
the commitment to “communicate with clarity, objectivity and transparency” was
identified in company documents, but there were misgivings about the scope of
information shared by the company during meetings with the community and the
efficacy of the adopted means. Education level and restricted access to the Internet
were mentioned as points that could alienate the population from company content.
There are corporate sponsorship guidelines about “equality in issues (…) traditional
communities and indigenous peoples”, but the existence of a tribe near the plant
was only acknowledged recently. Issues related to the percentage of workforce hired
locally and hiring preference policies are relevant in the analyzed context. There are
high expectations from workers seeking jobs during maintenance shutdowns, but the
issue of low qualification among local workers is recognized as a hindrance to local
hiring, particularly for jobs with better salaries.

Positive impacts – boosting of local economy, creation of direct and indirect jobs,
increase of economic activity – are noticed. On the importance of maintenance
shutdown events for the local economy, it is unanimous that such events generate
an increase in hotel, food and transportation services in the region, as well as a
considerable amount of tax income that must be invested in social welfare by the local
government. Other interviewees, while recognizing the benefits to the local economy,
warned about inflationary effects provoked by the event and the overcrowding of
public and private services in the region during this period.

There are reports of community protests related to traffic and mobility issues that
affected the routine of the organization, leading to an infrastructure project that
provided accessibility and benefits for the community. On the presence or the

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 247

Thema
 Juliana R. V. Tkatch Session 3F

strengths of educational initiatives in the community, it is clear that most initiatives

sponsored locally by the company are linked to education.

About the assessment of organizational risks, company representatives showed a

good grasp of the possible focus on future discussions, which would center on material
resources. This view does not seem to be shared by the community, which apparently
ignores possible future impacts from the organization. Company documents show
that it has a robust environmental management system in place, with ongoing
sustainability actions following international parameters. Safety issues are important
to the organization. There were reports of programs such as safety operational alerts
and evacuation training with community. About community health efforts, the
company claims that its monitoring parameters are stricter than those required by
national law. The company also claims to be modernizing its equipment to minimize
the use of dangerous substances. Concerning management policy related to security,
there are reports that the company acts with a focus on the protection of life and
respect of human rights, seeking to prevent and mitigate negative impacts from its
direct activities and from those of its supply chain and fighting discrimination in all
possible ways.

Different methods would provide different types of information regarding social

aspects (Parent, Cucuzzella and Reveret, 2010). To classify the impacts identified in the
inventory phase, an analysis was performed using the SAM method, which defines
the basic requirements (BR) for each subcategory. No basic requirement was defined
in this analysis. Instead, the organization's knowledge of its own impact was assessed.
Adaptations were made in the scale to classify the extent to which the company
recognizes and acts towards identified impacts (Table 1). The context was not
considered in the assessment. In contrast, the company´s knowledge of its impacts
and its proactivity towards minimizing them gained importance in the assessment, as
shown by the criteria. The inventory assessment by subcategory, considering UNEP/
SETAC inventory indicators and including a description of the evidence found in the
documents and in the performed interviews, is shown in Table 2.

Two issues received D on the scale due to negative impacts with no evidence of
mitigating actions. The first is related to the integration of migrant workers into the
local community. Some direct impacts, such as the increase of STDs and unplanned
pregnancy, might be indirectly caused by this shortcoming. The second is related to
the strength of local workforce hiring policies. No efforts to mitigate the impacts of
temporary migration were reported. These are the hotspots were the organization
should focus their effort.

In conclusion, the application of SLCA reached the goal and was adequate for
identifying social impacts from a relevant event in the chemical industry, highlighting
hotspots in company performance. The data shows that UNEP guidelines are able to
surface issues that are relevant to the local community. The SAM methodology was
able to classify the most relevant aspects of company performance in a simple and
direct way and can be used for prioritizing corporate social responsibility investments.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

248 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Juliana R. V. Tkatch Session 3F

As pointed by Jørgensen (2013), SLCA can be a methodology that provides decision

support about social impacts.

The application of the SLCA model in the context of a specific industry, with an event as
a functional unit, achieved the goal of analyzing social impacts in a way that not only
allows one to propose improvements in social responsibility actions by the studied
industry, but also contributes to the advancement of the methodology applied to
events.

References
Allen, J, O'Toole, W, Harris, R, McDonnell, I, 2008, Festival and special event management, 4th
edn, Wiley, Milton, QLD.
BENOÎT, C, Norris, GA, Valdivia, S, Ciroth, A, Moberg, A, Bos, U, Prakash, S, Ugaya, C, Beck, T, 2010.
The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess, 15,
156-163.
Jørgensen, A, 2013. Social LCA: A way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess, 18, 296-299.
Parent, J, Cucuzzella, C, Reveret, JP, 2010. Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods
according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 15, -164–171.
Ramirez, PKS, Petti, L, Brones, F, Ugaya, CML, 2016. Subcategory assessment method for social
life cycle assessment. Part 2: application in Natura’s cocoa soap. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 21, 106-
117.
Ramirez, PKS, Halerland, NT, Petti, L.; Ugaya, CML, 2014. Subcategory assessment method
for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 19,
1515–1523.
UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. 2009 Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products.
Suiça.
UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. 2013 The Methodological Sheets for Sub-categories in Social
Life Cycle Assessment ( S-LCA ).

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 249

Thema
 Juliana R. V. Tkatch Session 3F

Evaluation SAM Method Study scale

A Have a proactive behavior relating Add positive impacts
to the basic requirement Does not cause negative impacts and there
is no improvement opportunities
B Fulfill the basic requirement Does not cause negative impacts, but there
is clear improvement opportunities that can
lead to positive impact
Cause negative impacts, but act to mitigate
the impacts.
C Not fulfill the basic requirement Cause negative impact, but does not know
and operates in a negative context Does not know if is causing negative
impacts
D Not fulfill the basic requirement Cause negative impacts and do not act to
and operates in a positive context mitigate the impacts

Table 1: Comparation between SAM Method and study scale

Sub-categories Inventory Indicator Qualitative Data

Delocalization Number of individuals who resettle No evidence or information about A
and Migration (voluntarily and involuntarily) that delocalization related to event or
can be attributed to organization organization
Strength of organizational policies No evidence or information about A
related to resettlement (e.g. due delocalization related to event or
diligence and procedural safeguards) organization
Strength of organizational No evidence of procedures for integrating D
procedures for integrating migrant migrant workers into the community
workers into the community
Community Strength of written policies on There is written procedures on community A
Engagement community engagement at engagement and there is evidences that is
organization level current practice
Diversity of community stakeholder There is evidence of diversity of community B
groups that engage with the stakeholder groups that engage with the
organization organization, but it can be improved.
Number and quality of meetings The company promotes four meetings per B
with community stakeholder year with community stakeholders, but the
number of participants is not constant.
Organizational support (volunteer- There is evidence that the organization A
hours or financial) for community supports financially many community
initiatives initiatives
Cultural Strength of policies in place to That is no policies in place to protect cultural B
heritage protect cultural heritage heritage, but there is evidence of a single
initiative.
Presence/Strength of organizational There is no organizational program to B
program to include cultural heritage include cultural heritage expression in
expression in product design/ product design/production
production
Is relevant organizational All organizational information are available B
information available to community to community members in their spoken
members in their spoken language. The organization can improve the
language(s)? access of the information.

Table 2: Inventory assessment (continued on next page)

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

250 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Juliana R. V. Tkatch Session 3F

Sub-categories Inventory Indicator Qualitative Data

Respect for Strength of policies in place to There is policies in place to protect the rights A
indigenous protect the rights of indigenous of indigenous but there was no knowledge
rights community member that there is an indigenous tribe near the
industry.
Annual meetings held with There was no meeting with indigenous C
indigenous community members community members ever
Response to charges of There is no charges of discrimination against A
discrimination against indigenous indigenous community members
community members
Local Percentage of workforce hired locally The company declares that more that 90% of C
employment the employees of the event were hired locally.
Community member complain a lot about the
subject, not recognizing this number.
Strength of policies on local hiring There is no policies on local hiring preferences, D
preferences. but the company declares this preference.
Percentage of spending on locally The interviews shows that all stakeholders A
based suppliers believes that the event contributes to the
local economy.
Access to Annual arrests connected to protests There is no evidence or complaint about A
immaterial of organization actions arrests connected to protests of organization
resources actions
Do policies related to intellectual There is no policies about intellectual C
property respect, moral and property respect, moral and economic rights
economic rights of the community
Presence/strength of community There is significant evidence of financial A
education initiatives support to community education initiatives.
Access to Has the organization developed There is evidence of a project related A
material project related infrastructure with infrastructure with mutual community access
resources mutual community access and and benefit
benefit
Strength of organizational risk Substantial organization knowledge about B
assessment with regard to potential risk assessment with regard to potential for
for material resource conflict material resource conflict..
Does the organization have The organization have an environmental B
a certified environmental management system, but it is not certified
management system anymore.
Safe and Management oversight of structural There is evidence of management oversight A
Healthy Living integrity of structural integrity. The event analyzed is a
Conditions periodic check in the integrity of the structure.
Organization efforts to strengthen There is complain about negative impact of C
community health (e.g. through the event on the public health system.
shared community access to
organization health resources)
Management effort to minimize use There is report that the organization invested A
of hazardous substances. in improvements on it hardware to minimize
use of hazardous substances on it products.
Secure Living Management policies related to Solid management policies related to private A
Conditions private security personnel security personnel.
Number of legal complaints per year No evidence of complaints against the A
against the organization with regard organization with regard to security concerns.
to security concerns
Number of casualties and injuries per No locally casualties and injuries ascribed to A
year ascribed to the organization the organization local.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 251

Thema
 Zhizhen Wang Session 3F

The role of social sustainability in aviation biofuel

supply chains
Zhizhen Wang, Farahnaz Pashaei Kamali, Patricia Osseweijer,
John Posada Duque

Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, TU Delft, Delft (The Netherlands)

Introduction
Aviation fuel derived from biomass has been recognized as a promising way to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of aviation industry (IATA 2013, Moraes et
al., 2014, De Jong et al., 2015, Hileman & Stratton 2014). Due to the use of renewable
feedstocks, aviation biofuel is generally perceived sustainable (Agusdinata et al.
2011, Li & Mupondwa et al. 2014). However, sustainability is about the balanced
development of environment, economy and society. The overall impact of biobased
production requires a full investigation from the perspective of sustainability (Parada
et al. 2017). While many studies have evaluated the environmental impacts and the
techno-economic feasibility of aviation biofuel, very few have taken the social aspects
into consideration in a systematic manner. Thus, the goal of this study is to evaluate
social/socioeconomic impacts of aviation biofuel on the supply chain level. Since
sustainability issues, and particularly social, and socioeconomic issues, emerge at
various stages of supply chain, it is important to consider the whole supply chain in
the process of impact assessment.

Socioeconomic effects (i.e., employment, GDP development and trade balance) over
aviation biofuel supply chains are assessed with a scenarios-based input-output
(I/O) analysis. This approach is examplified for the case of Brazilian aviation biofuel.
Despite of the ongoing research and development, large-scale commercialization
of aviation biofuel is still at its infant stage. That is, available knowledge and
data on the deployment of aviation biofuel are limited, resulting in a high level of
uncertainty. Hence, we use scenarios to explore how possible futures of aviation
biofuel development in Brazil may unfold. To do so, the exploratory scenario approach
(Kowalshi et al. 2009, Reilly and Willenbockel 2010) is employed to build plausible but
different future storylines. The timeframe of our scenarios is set till 2050, which is the
reference year that many climate change and renewable energy policies establish
their targets for. The aim of the scenario analysis is to quantify the future demand of
aviation biofuel under different conditions, which will be subsequently used in the I/O
analysis to determine the socioeconomic effects attributed to aviation biofuel. With
I/O analysis, it is possible to evaluate not only direct but also indirect macroeconomic
effects in various economic sectors involved in aviation biofuel supply chains (Wicke et
al. 2009, Silalertruksa et al. 2012). Nevertheless, one of the main weakpoints associated

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

252 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Zhizhen Wang Session 3F

with I/O analysis is the so-called “constant returns to scale”, which is represented by
the fixed technical coefficients in the I/O matrix (Allan 2015). To address this weakness,
we propose a stochastic simulation apporach to examine the uncertainty of the
technical coeffcients. This is achieved by performing a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation
for each technical coefficient in the I/O table, based on the mean value and standard
deviation calculated with historical data. The stochasic simulation provides insights
into the robustness and reliability of the assessment results. To the best of the authors’
knowledge, this is the first attempt to address uncertainty of I/O analysis in the
context of socioeconomic assessment by using stochastic simulation to capture the
uncertainty in technical coefficients based on historical data.

Since the analysis is still ongoing, only preliminary results (of employment) are
shown in this abstract. Four scenarios are developed here, representing diverging
trends of two key driving forces: i) biofuel policy (conservative or proactive) and ii)
technological advancement (gradual or breakthrough). The storyline of each scenario
is further elaborated on the demand of aviation biofuel, conversion technologies,
selection of feedstocks, potential competition for biomass, and feedstocks prices.
Different demands of aviation biofuel are estimated for each scenario, ranging from
3% to 15% of total avitaion fuel demand. The following combinations of technological
pathways and feedstocks for aviation biofuel production in Brazil are considered:
hydro-processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) with macauba, Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
with eucalyptus, and alcohol to jet (ATJ) with sugarcane.

Different scenarios result in different employment effects, with the highest

employment potential in Scenario 3 (where proactive biofuel policy goes hand in hand
with advanced technology), followed by Scenario 4 (where jet biofuel technology sees
a breakthrough despite of less effective biofuel policy). In contrast, the lowest number
of jobs is expected in Scenario 1, in which biofuel policy is conservative and jet biofuel
technology progresses slowly, whereas the expected number of jobs in Scenario 2 (in
which biofuel policy is proactive although technology sees little innovation) is higher
than that in Scenario 1, but less than that in the other two scenarios. In terms of direct
employment, the majority of jobs are allocated in agriculture, forestry, chemicals and
transportation sectors. On the other hand, the key sectors of indirect jobs include
trade and transportation. With a closer look, in each scenario, FT with eucalyptus
tends to creat around 15% more jobs than ATJ with sugarcane, while the number of
jobs attibuted to HEFA with macauba is esitmated to almost double that of ATJ with
sugarcane.

To conclude, the diverging trends of biofuel policy and technological advancement

play a significant role in the development of aviation biofuel, as well as the related
employment effects. It is worth noting that in each scenario, distinct differences of
employment effects are estimated when using different technologies and feedstocks
to produce the same demand of aviation biofuel. HEFA with macauba stands out with
regard to employment effects, as the labor-intensive sectors in this supply chain are
more activated. Overall, under certain conditions, positive socioeconomic impacts
associated with aviation biofuel are expected in every scenario, even when taking

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 253

Thema
 Zhizhen Wang Session 3F

the displacement effects in the fossil sector into account. Enabling policy such as a
biofuel blend mandate, mature HEFA technology and available macauba feedstock
potentially lead to the highest level of employment benefit. This work is one of first
studies to address socioeconomic impacts as well as the uncertainty of assessment
results related to aviation biofuel. The outcomes of this study contribute to an
informed decision-making process from the perspective of social sustainability.

References
Allan, G.J., 2015. The regional economic impacts of biofuels: a review of multisectoral modelling
techniques and evaluation of applications. Regional Studies, 49(4), pp.615-643.
Agusdinata, D.B., Zhao, F., Ileleji, K. and DeLaurentis, D., 2011. Life cycle assessment of potential
biojet fuel production in the United States. Environmental science & technology, 45(21),
pp.9133-9143.
De Jong, S., Hoefnagels, R., Faaij, A., Slade, R., Mawhood, R. and Junginger, M., 2015. The
feasibility of short‐term production strategies for renewable jet fuels–a comprehensive techno‐
economic comparison. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 9(6), pp.778-800.
IATA (International Air Transport Association), 2013. IATA technology roadmap 2013.
Hileman, J.I. and Stratton, R.W., 2014. Alternative jet fuel feasibility. Transport Policy, 34, pp.52-
62.
Lenzen, M., Wood, R. and Wiedmann, T., 2010. Uncertainty analysis for multi-region input–
output models–a case study of the UK's carbon footprint. Economic Systems Research, 22(1),
pp.43-63.
Li, X. and Mupondwa, E., 2014. Life cycle assessment of camelina oil derived biodiesel and jet
fuel in the Canadian Prairies. Science of the Total Environment, 481, pp.17-26.
Moraes, M.A., Nassar, A.M., Moura, P. and Leal, R.L., 2014. Jet biofuels in Brazil: Sustainability
challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, pp.716-726.
Parada, M.P., Osseweijer, P. and Duque, J.A.P., 2017. Sustainable biorefineries, an analysis of
practices for incorporating sustainability in biorefinery design. Industrial Crops and Products.
Silalertruksa, T., Gheewala, S.H., Hünecke, K. and Fritsche, U.R., 2012. Biofuels and employment
effects: Implications for socio-economic development in Thailand. Biomass and bioenergy, 46,
pp.409-418.
Wilting, H.C., 2012. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in mrio modelling; some empirical
results with regard to the dutch carbon footprint. Economic Systems Research, 24(2), pp.141-
171.
Wicke, B., Smeets, E., Tabeau, A., Hilbert, J. and Faaij, A., 2009. Macroeconomic impacts of
bioenergy production on surplus agricultural land—A case study of Argentina. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), pp.2463-2473.
Yamakawa, A. and Peters, G.P., 2009. Using time-series to measure uncertainty in environmental
input–output analysis. Economic Systems Research, 21(4), pp.337-362.

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

254 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
 Marzia Traverso Session 3F

Towards a harmonized communication

of products’ social impacts
Marzia Traverso1, Catherine Benoit-Norris2, Bettina Heller3

1
Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering (INaB), RWTH Aachen (Germany)
2
New Earth, York, Maine (USA)
3
UN Environment, Paris (France)

Introduction
Production which provides or enhances positive social impacts is beneficial for
businesses and consumers. Alongside governments, all have a role to play in
awareness-raising and promoting socially conscious consumption and production.
This has also been recognized internationally through the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 12 which focuses on Sustainable Production and
Consumption. From the consumer’s perspective, purchasing and using products that
do not harm individuals and society is a responsible way to contribute to collective
wellbeing. To do so, consumers require access to reliable information, to decide which
products to buy, how to use them and what to do with them at the end of their life.
To drive progress in the area of social impact communication, the EC’s Joint Research
Centre, New Earth and UN Environment have led a multi-stakeholder working
group under the 10 Year Framework of Programme on Sustainable Consumption
(known as the One Planet Network). This resulted in a white paper, which provides
recommendations to private and public sector actors for developing and improving
the communication of the social impacts of products, to consumers (B2C) and value
chain partners (B2B).

Even though a product life cycle social impact assessment standardized methodology
has not yet been defined, many tools and guidelines have already been developed to
assess and communicate about products’ social impacts. The white paper is thus a first
attempt to assess the state of the art of existing communication tools and to identify
best practices that others can follow. It does so by identifying relevant principles,
criteria and means to communicate such impacts, including recommendations on
integrating social impact communication with more well-established environmental
impact communication tools. The white paper further lists examples of on and off
product communication of social impacts, to identify good practices for further
upscaling and replication.

The white paper concludes with a set of direct recommendations for the communication
of products’ social impacts and recommendations for enabling frameworks needed
to further drive progress in the area. The former focuses on the ‘how and what’ to
communicate, and follows closely the UN Environment and International Trade Centre
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

S-LCA Seminar – Pescara (Italy) – September 2018 255

Thema
 Marzia Traverso Session 3F

Guidelines for Providing Product Sustainability Information. The latter provides a

list of actions that can be taken by governments, NGOs and companies, as well as
multi-stakeholder efforts needed around collaboration and harmonization of existing
schemes.

References
UN Environment, JRC, New Earth. Communicating Products’ Social Impacts. A White Paper
(forthcoming)
UN Environment, International Trade Centre. Guidelines for Providing Product Sustainability
Information. 2017

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

256 S-LCA 2018 – September 2018 – Pescara (Italy)

Thema
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite
 FruiTrop Thema is a collection of FruiTrop

Publisher
CIRAD
TA B-26/PS4
34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France
Tel: 33 (0) 4 67 61 71 41
Email: info@fruitrop.com
www.fruitrop.com

Publishing Director
Eric Imbert

Editor-in-chief
Denis Loeillet

Editor
Catherine Sanchez

Computer graphics
Catherine Sanchez

Printed by
Impact Imprimerie
n°483 ZAC des Vautes
34980 Saint Gély du Fesc, France

ISSN: 2426-9654
ISBN: 978-2-9562141-1-3

© Copyright Cirad, July 2018

Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite
Contenu publié par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite
 You make decisions
.
about the future of industrial sectors.

You would like to understand the social

consequences of these decisions..

You belong to one of the following groups:

entrepreneurs, public decision-makers, public
authorities, consultants, researchers or students.

The SocSem seminars have generated the emergence

of a community of scholars engaged in the social
assessment of the life cycle. The Special Issue of the
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment is part
of this movement of enthusiasm. However, research
is still underdeveloped and very dispersed. LCA
conferences hosting “social LCA” or “sustainability
assessment” sections struggle to bring together
quality papers.

The 6th International Seminar in Social LCA

testimonies for concern for People and Places,
and especially for partnership. It provides
a forum for communicating and discussing
recent progress in social evaluation.

These pre-proceedings bring together all the

contributions received and accepted following
on from the Call. They are in the format either of
extended abstracts or short abstracts.

Thema is a collection of FruiTrop

www.fruitrop.com / info@fruitrop.com
ISSN: 2426-9654
Contenu publiéISBN: 978-2-9562141-1-3
par l’Observatoire des Marchés du CIRAD − Toute reproduction interdite

Price: 20 euros