Abstract
Purpose
Standardized and generalized impact subcategories may not be representative of the social issues associated with the product analyzed in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) studies. The analyst’s knowledge about the product studied is currently considered to define the impact subcategories included in the study, characterizing a limitation to be overcome. This research proposes a method able to model the subjectivity associated with the selection of impact subcategories for S-LCA through a stakeholders’ participatory approach.
Methods
This framework is composed of three stages and was applied for the stakeholder “Local Community” of the fruit pulp produced in northeastern Brazil. The first phase identifies the representatives of local communities around the product’s life cycle and the potential subcategories that can be considered. In the second phase, the preference elicitation process of these representatives is carried out. In the third phase, the information obtained is aggregated to classify the impact subcategories into relevant and non-relevant through the PROMSORT method.
Results and discussion
The methodological steps were applied into two contexts: (i) individual perception and (ii) consensus perception. In the first case, the representatives considered the following relevant subcategories: access to material resources, cultural heritage, access to immaterial resources, and safe and healthy living conditions. However, the subcategories of community engagement and displacement and migration were not classified as strongly relevant. Only the subcategory respecting the rights of native peoples was considered non-pertinent. For the second case, the pertinent subcategories were access to material resources, cultural heritage, access to immaterial resources, displacement and migration, safe and healthy living conditions, and community engagement. The non-relevant subcategory also refers to respect for the rights of native peoples.
Conclusions
The use of a participatory approach considering the stakeholders’ perceptions for identifying the pertinent impact subcategories can better identify the social issues of a given product life cycle. This framework can be applied to different products and can be adapted for other categories of stakeholders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Araz C, Ozkarahan I (2007) Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. Int J Production Economics 106:585–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.008
Azimi AN, Dente SMR, Hashimoto S (2020) Social life-cycle assessment of household waste management system in Kabul City. Sustainability 12(8):3217–3243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083217
Balasbaneh AT, Marsono AKB (2020) Applying multi-criteria decision-making on alternatives for earth-retaining walls: LCA, LCC, and S-LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:2140–2153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01825-6
Benoît-Norris et al (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):682–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0301-y
Benoit-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4(9):1946–1965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4091946
Brans JP, Mareschal B. (2005) Prometheé methods. In: Mareschal et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer. 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5
Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) Socializing sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Techn Environ 17(3):579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0841-5
De Luca AI, 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 Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11:383–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1611
Do Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste P (2017) Addressing uncertain scoring and weighting factors in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(10):1609–1617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1275-1
Do Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste P (2020) Ranking product systems based on uncertain life cycle susutainability assessment: a stochastic multiple criteria decision analysis approach. Rev Adm UFSM 13(4):850–874. https://doi.org/10.5902/1983465955294
Du C, Dias LC, Freire F (2019) Robust multi-criteria weighting in comparative LCA and S-LCA: a case study of sugarcane production in Brazil. J Clean Prod 218(201):708–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.035
Gompf K, Traverso M; Hetterich J. 2021. Using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to Introduce weights to social life cycle assessment of mobility services Sustainability 13, no. 3: 1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031258
Jørgensen A (2013) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):296–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0517-5
Krohling RA, Souza TTM (2011) Two examples of the application of the TOPSIS technique for decision making. Inf Syst 1(8):31–35
Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1386–1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0581-5
Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1506–1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0758-6
Opher T, Shapira A, Friedler E (2018) A comparative social life cycle assessment of urban domestic water reuse alternatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1315–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1356-1
Ramirez et al. (2014). Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 1515–15234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0761-y
Sajid Z, Lynch N (2018) Financial modelling strategies for social life cycle assessment: a project appraisal of biodiesel production and sustainability in Newfoundland and Labrador. Canada Sustainability 10(9):3289–3308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093289
Sawaengsak et al (2019) Development of a social impact assessment method and application to a case study of sugarcane, sugar, and ethanol in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:2054–2072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01624-8
SHÄRLIG A (1985) Décider sur plusieurs critères: panorama de l’aide à la décision multicritère. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne, Suisse
Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Zabeo A et al (2018) Assessing the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle: the case of nano-enabled biocidal paint. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:348–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1324-9
Sureau et al (2018) Social life-cycle assessment frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(4):904–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1336-5
Sureau et al (2019) Participation in S-LCA: a methodological proposal applied to Belgian alternative food chains (Part 1). Resources 8(4):160–184. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8040160
Tokede O, Traverso M (2020) Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25(10):1910–1929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01814-9
UNEP (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
UNEP (2020) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020. Benoît Norris C, Traverso M, Neugebauer S, Ekener E, Schaubroeck, T, Russo Garrido S. Berger M Valdivia, S., Lehmann A, Finkbeiner M, Arcese G. (eds.). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Marzia Traverso.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
do Carmo, B.B.T., de Oliveira Castro, G., Gonçalo, T.E.E. et al. Participatory approach for pertinent impact subcategory identification: Local community. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 950–962 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01892-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01892-3