PurposeCorruption is one of the key social aspects, heavily impacting all three Planet-, People- and Prosperity sustainability pillars and is therefore essential to be included in S-LCA. The objective of this article is to consider the available options to quantify corruption in preventative cost-based S-LCA, and to make a first proposal for quantification.MethodsLiterature was investigated on potential S-LCA assessment methods of corruption. To date, such literature is hardly available, so more generally, S-LCA methods were assessed on described concepts and ideas, and assessed on five criteria. Following this, using the obtained conclusions and ideas, a proposal for the quantification of corruption for the preventative cost-based Oiconomy system was developed, following the five-step Oiconomy method (Croes and Vermeulen in J Clean Prod 102:178–187, 2015).Results and discussionBased on some examples, Dreyer et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259, 2010) argue that various social aspects, including corruption, are better assessed by companies’ preventative efforts than by their impact. Therefore, modifying a method developed by Dreyer et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259, 2010), an indicator is proposed provided by the product of the marginal preventative costs and the quality of a companies’ preventative governance. For the aspect of corruption, the internationally accepted target is “zero tolerance.” Literature shows that the ultimate business choice under pressure of corruption is “not doing the business.” Because profitability is the main driver for companies, refraining from the business is proposed as the marginal preventative measure, and the related profit as the maximum quantitative indicator for S-LCA. For the risk factor, a technique is proposed based on scoring a company’s governance quality by checking the four Plan-Do-Check-Act effort classes of common risk-based certification standards’ criteria.ConclusionsOur assessment shows a definite need for the inclusion of the aspect of corruption in S-LCA, but no options for a reasonably certain assessment are available for the aspect of corruption in impact-based S-LCA, also suitable for the preventative cost-based Oiconomy system. However, based on literature-derived ideas and principles, for the Oiconomy system, we could propose both a performance reference point and marginal preventative costs as a quantitative measure for corruption. The proposed measure is not paying the bribe, but the proposed indicator is a governance quality-dependent fraction of the consequentially lost profit margin. Consequences, limitations and possible objections to our proposed methods are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

基于预防成本的 S-LCA 中的腐败量化：对 Oiconomy 项目的贡献

目的腐败是关键的社会方面之一，严重影响地球、人类和繁荣的所有三个可持续发展支柱，因此必须包含在 S-LCA 中。本文的目的是考虑在基于预防成本的 S-LCA 中量化腐败的可用选项，并提出第一个量化建议。方法文献研究了潜在的 S-LCA 腐败评估方法。迄今为止，此类文献几乎不可用，因此更一般地说，S-LCA 方法是根据所描述的概念和想法进行评估的，并根据五个标准进行评估。在此之后，使用所获得的结论和想法，按照五步 Oiconomy 方法（J Clean Prod 102 中的 Croes 和 Vermeulen：178–187, 2015)。结果和讨论基于一些例子，Dreyer 等人。(Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259, 2010) 认为，包括腐败在内的各种社会方面，通过公司的预防工作比通过其影响来评估更好。因此，修改了 Dreyer 等人开发的方法。(Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259, 2010)，提出了一个由边际预防成本和公司预防性治理质量的乘积提供的指标。在腐败方面，国际公认的目标是“零容忍”。文献表明，在腐败压力下，最终的商业选择是“不做生意”。由于盈利能力是公司的主要驱动力，因此建议避免业务作为边际预防措施，以及相关利润作为 S-LCA 的最大量化指标。对于风险因素，提出了一种基于对公司治理质量进行评分的技术，方法是检查常见的基于风险的认证标准的四个计划-实施-检查-行动努力等级。结论我们的评估表明，明确需要纳入S-LCA 中的腐败方面，但对于基于影响的 S-LCA 中的腐败方面，没有可用于合理确定评估的选项，也适用于基于预防性成本的 Oiconomy 系统。然而，基于文献衍生的思想和原则，对于 Oiconomy 系统，我们可以提出绩效参考点和边际预防成本作为腐败的量化衡量标准。提议的措施是不行贿，但提议的指标是由此导致的利润率损失中依赖于治理质量的部分。讨论了我们提出的方法的后果、局限性和可能的​​反对意见。