Cascade Biorefinery of Furcellaria lumbricalis Macroalgae: Social Impacts and Integration into a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

PurposeWe evaluate methodological approaches of different methods that can offer social assessments of product value chains. By analyzing both product-oriented social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methods and qualitative, organization-, and project-oriented methods, we provide recommendations towards a clearer, harmonized method to better integrate the social dimension into sustainability assessments of products. This could help make S-LCA more analogous to environmental LCA (E-LCA) and more suitable for implementation in frameworks as life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA).MethodsWe apply two quantitative S-LCA methods side-by-side with three qualitative social assessment methods on the same case-study of a textile’s value chain. The two quantitative S-LCA methods adopt a quantitative functional unit (FU) approach, use similar data structures and calculation principles as E-LCA and are based on the product social impact life cycle assessment (PSILCA) database. The three qualitative methods applied include two social due diligence approaches — one based on the OECD Due Diligence and UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the other on the IFC Performance Standards — and the Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM), a semi-quantitative performance evaluation assessment method based on the UNEP S-LCA Guidelines.ResultsNone of the approaches to S-LCA described in the UNEP S-LCA Guidelines can, at present, fully achieve the equivalent goals and scope of E-LCA, specifically in the social domain. Our evaluation of five social assessment methods, including two S-LCA methods, highlights their significant differences in basic structure and logic. Consequently, results differ considerably in nature, depth, and social aspects covered. Current product-oriented S-LCA approaches encounter important limitations as they require quantifiable aspects, whereas many social impacts are often qualitative in nature. Qualitative, organization-focused methods, conversely, make it difficult to link organizational social performance to specific products. Instead, these methods are typically used for social due diligence on suppliers in the company’s supply chain and cover only a small part of the product’s life cycle.ConclusionFor the purpose of computational integration, LCSA frameworks need an S-LCA method with a quantitative FU approach. However, only some S-LCA approaches are able to comply with this requirement, and these will only be able to cover a limited set of scalable quantitative impact indicators. We conclude by emphasizing the equal importance of product-oriented S-LCA and organization-oriented social assessment methods, while appreciating their fundamentally different goals and scopes.

What are the challenges in assessing circular economy for the built environment? A literature review on integrating LCA, LCC and S-LCA in life cycle sustainability assessment, LCSA

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has developed fast over the last three decades. Today, LCA is widely applied and used as a tool for supporting policies and performance-based regulation, notably concerning bioenergy. Over the past decade, LCA has broadened to also include life cycle costing (LCC) and social LCA (SLCA), drawing on the three-pillar or ‘triple bottom line’ model of sustainability. With these developments, LCA has broadened from merely environmental assessment to a more comprehensive life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). LCSA has received increasing attention over the past years, while at the same time, its meaning and contents are not always sufficiently clear. In this chapter, we therefore addressed the question: what are LCSA practitioners actually doing in practice? We distinguished two sub-questions: which definition(s) do they adopt and what challenges do they face? To answer these questions, LCSA research published over the past half decade has been analysed, supplemented by a brief questionnaire to researchers and practitioners. This analysis revealed two main definitions of LCSA. Based on these two definitions, we distinguished three dimensions along which LCSA is expanding when compared to environmental LCA: (1) broadening of impacts, LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA; (2) broadening level of analysis, product-, sector- and economy-wide questions and analyses; and (3) deepening, including other than just technological relations, such as physical, economic and behavioural relations. From this analysis, it is clear that the vast majority of LCSA research so far has focused on the ‘broadening of impacts’ dimension. The challenges most frequently cited concern the need for more practical examples of LCSA, efficient ways of communicating LCSA results and the need for more data and methods particularly for SLCA indicators and comprehensive uncertainty assessment. We conclude that the three most crucial challenges to be addressed first are developing quantitative and practical indicators for SLCA, life cycle-based approaches to evaluate scenarios for sustainable futures and practical ways to deal with uncertainties and rebound effects.

Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is developing rapidly and represents a valuable complement to other life cycle methods. As methodological development continues, a growing number of case studies have noted the need for more scientific rigor in areas like data collection, allocation methods, and incorporation of values and cultural context. This work aims to identify opportunities, especially in the social sciences, to improve rigor in SLCA. A review of existing literature and tools is based on both hand coding of the SLCA literature as represented in Web of Science’s “All Collections” database and on computer-aided review of the SLCA and other related literatures (including social impact assessment (SIA), life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), and corporate social responsibility (CSR)) using a text mining technique known as topic modeling. Rapid diagnosing of potentially valuable contributions from literatures outside of SLCA through computer-aided review led to more detailed, manual investigation of those literatures for further insight. Data collection can benefit from increased standardization and integration with social science methods, especially frameworks for surveys and interviews. Sharing examples of questionnaires and ethics committee protocols will likely improve SLCA’s accessibility. SIA and CSR also represent empirical data sources for SLCA. Impact allocation techniques can benefit from reintegration with those in ELCA, in particular by allocating (when necessary) at facility—rather than product—level. The focus on values and subjectivity in SLCA is valuable not only for SLCA but also for other methods, most notably ELCA. Further grounding in social science is likely to improve rigor in SLCA. SLCA is increasingly robust and contributing to interdisciplinary discussions of how best to consider social impacts. This work makes three major recommendations for continued growth: first, that SLCA standardize human subject research used for data gathering; second, that SLCA adopt allocation techniques from ELCA; and third, that SLCA continue to draw on social science and other literatures to rigorously include value systems.

Chapter 8 - Framework of life cycle sustainability assessment

Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology.

Purpose Input–output tables describe monetary relationships between producers and consumers within an economy and have been used to assess the effects on job creation and gross domestic product (GDP). The objective of this study was to apply the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) to assess direct social risks in national economies and explore whether S-LCA can replace or support beyond-GDP metrics. Methods S-LCA was applied in three ways. First, a hotspot assessment was conducted using the Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database to assess the direct social risks of monetary outputs of the Dutch and Greek economies in 2018. Classification 1 regarded the comparison of the Dutch and Greek economies based on direct social risks classified as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Classification 2 grouped the calculated social risks into sub-sub-topics of the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Standards (CSRS) directive. In each classification, the calculated risks were normalized by the total monetary output of the national economy. Results and discussion This study showed that the Dutch economy results in lower normalized risk values for all S-LCA stakeholders and impact subcategories, except for “Respect of indigenous rights” and “Health and safety (Workers).” The main contributing parameters were sectorial monetary output and the risk levels of the indicators. Classification 1 showed that using input–output tables and PSILCA to simplify the calculation of SDGs was partially successful, because the SDGs also consider environmental aspects and PSILCA is limited to social aspects. Classification 2 showed that the Greek economy resulted in higher normalized risk values than the Dutch economy for almost all sub-sub-topics of the CSRS. Conclusions The results indicate that input–output tables can be extended to incorporate social dimensions with S-LCA and PSILCA. However, the nature of the SDGs means that S-LCA is not capable of simplifying the evaluation of countries’ societal progress, but S-LCA combined with PSILCA can assist national governments in taking targeted actions to reach SDG targets and enforce European CSRS directive compliance in the most impactful economic sectors for social performance monitoring and reporting.

The global move towards a circular economy, as well as that of achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), has necessitated the search for several sustainable solutions in various sectors. Given this, the provision of sustainable waste management and electricity systems constitute a significant part of the SDGs, and the waste-to-energy (WtE) concept has recently become a key topic given that it can potentially help reduce the dependence on fossil fuels for energy generation, as well as minimizing the need to dispose of waste in landfill. However, to date, the sustainability assessments of WtE generation technologies have been limited in scope concerning the three-dimensional sustainability framework (economic, environmental, and social). Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) has been proposed as a potential approach that could comprehensively address these three pillars of sustainability simultaneously based on life cycle thinking. LCSA, as a holistic method, could also potentially deal with the complexity associated with decision-making by allowing for the consideration of a full range of possible sustainability consequences. LCSA is an analytical tool that integrates the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (sLCA) methodologies, which already exist and continue to be developed. Individually, these life-cycle approaches tend to be used to point out particular ‘hotspots’ in product or service systems, and hence focus on direct impacts in a given sustainability domain, neglecting the indirect ones. LCSA aims for a more holistic sustainability perspective and seeks to address the associated challenge of integrating these three pillars of sustainability into an overall and more comprehensive sustainability assessment. This need for harmonization within the LCSA methodology is a major challenge in its operationalization. In recent years there has been steady progress towards developing and applying LCSA, including for WtE. The aim of this paper is to review the most recent trends and perspectives in developing countries, especially regarding how LCSA could help inform decision-making. The paper also analyses the LCSA literature to set out the theoretical and practical challenges behind integrating the three methods (LCA, LCC, and sLCA). The review was conducted via a search of keywords such as LCSA, waste, and energy in the Web of Science databases, resulting in the selection of 187 publications written in English. Of those, 13 articles operationalized LCSA in specific waste and WtE related case studies. The review provides a review of the application of LCSA for researchers, technological experts, and policymakers through published findings and identifies perspectives on new research. These include uncertainty, subjectivity in weighting, double-counting, the low maturity of sLCA, and the integration of the interconnection between the three dimensions (environmental, economic, and social dimensions) of LCSA results in decision-making. In addition, gaps (such as the integration of the interconnection between the three dimensions) that need to be addressed via further research are highlighted to allow for a better understanding of methodological trade-offs that come from using the LCSA analytical approach to assess the sustainability of WtE generation technologies, especially in developing countries. It is hoped that this study will be a positive contribution to environmental and energy policy decisions in developing countries faced with the dual problems of waste management and electricity supply along with their sustainable development goals.

It has been claimed that in order to assess the sustainability of products, a combination of the results from a life cycle assessment (LCA), social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) is needed. Despite the frequent reference to this claim in the literature, very little explicit analysis of the claim has been made. The purpose of this article is to analyse this claim. An interpretation of the goals of sustainability, as outlined in the report Our Common Future (WCED 1987), which is the basis for most literature on sustainability assessment in the LCA community, is presented and detailed to a level enabling an analysis of the relation to the impact categories at midpoint level considered in life cycle (LC) methodologies. The interpretation of the definition of sustainability as outlined in Our Common Future (WCED 1987) suggests that the assessment of a product's sustainability is about addressing the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty levels among the current generation, as well as changes in the level of natural, human and produced and social capital available for the future population. It is shown that the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty to some extent is covered by impact categories included in existing SLCA approaches. It is also found that the extent to which product life cycles affect natural capital is well covered by LCA, and human capital is covered by both LCA and SLCA but in different ways. Produced capital is not to any large extent considered in any of the LC methodologies. Furthermore, because of the present level of knowledge about what creates and destroys social capital, it is difficult to assess how it relates to the LC methodologies. It is also found that the LCC is only relevant in the context of a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) if focusing on the monetary gains or losses for the poor. Yet, this is an aspect which is already considered in several SLCA approaches. The current consensus that LCSA can be performed through combining the results from an SLCA, LCA and LCC is only partially supported in this article: The LCSA should include both an LCA and an SLCA, which should be expanded to better cover how product life cycles affect poverty and produced capital. The LCC may be included if it has as a focus to asses income gains for the poor.

Sustainability assessments considering the three dimensions environment, economy, and society are needed to evaluate manufacturing processes and products with regard to their sustainability performance. This chapter focuses on Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), which considers all three sustainability dimensions by combining the three methods Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). Existing LCSA approaches as well as selected ongoing work are introduced, both regarding the individual approaches as well as the combined LCSA approach. This includes, for instance, the Tiered Approach. This approach facilitates the implementation of LCSA, for instance, within the manufacturing sector, by providing a category hierarchy and guiding practitioners through the various impact and cost categories proposed for the three methods. Furthermore, ongoing developments in LCC and SLCA are presented, such as the definition of first economic and social impact pathways (linking fair wage and level of education to social damage levels) for addressing the current challenges of missing impact pathways for economic and social aspects. In addition, the Sustainability Safeguard Star suggests a new scheme for addressing the inter-linkages between the three sustainability dimensions. These approaches foster the application and implementation of LCSA and thus contribute to developing sustainable processes and products.

Purpose and contextThis paper aims to establish principles for the increased application and use of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). Sustainable development (SD) encompassing resilient economies and social stability of the global system is growingly important for decision-makers from business and governments. The “17 SDGs” emerge as a high-level shared blueprint for peace, abundance, and prosperity for people and the planet, and “sustainability” for supporting improvements of products and organizations. A “sustainability” interpretation—successful in aligning stakeholders’ understanding—subdivides the impacts according to a triple bottom line or three pillars: economic, social, and environmental impacts. These context and urgent needs inspired the LCSA framework. This entails a sustainability assessment of products and organizations in accordance with the three pillars, while adopting a life cycle perspective.MethodsThe Life Cycle Initiative promotes since 2011 a pragmatic LCSA framework based on the three techniques: LCSA = environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) + life cycle costing (LCC) + social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This is the focus of the paper, while acknowledging previous developments. Identified and reviewed literature shows challenges of addressing the three pillars in the LCSA framework implementation like considering only two pillars; not being fully aligned with ISO 14040; lacking interconnectedness among the three pillars; not having clear criteria for results’ weighting nor clear results’ interpretation; and not following cause-effect chains and mechanisms leading to an endpoint. Agreement building among LCSA experts and reviewing processes strengthened the consensus on this paper. Broad support and outreach are ensured by publishing this as position paper.ResultsFor harmonizing practical LCSA applications, easing interpretation, and increasing usefulness, consensed ten LCSA principles (10P) are established: understanding the areas of protection, alignment with ISO 14040, completeness, stakeholders’ and product utility considerations, materiality of system boundaries, transparency, consistency, explicit trade-offs’ communication, and caution when compensating impacts. Examples were provided based on a fictional plastic water bottleConclusionsIn spite of increasing needs for and interest in SD and sustainability supporting tools, LCSA is at an early application stage of application. The 10P aim to promote more and better LCSA applications by ensuring alignment with ISO 14040, completeness and clear interpretation of integrated results, among others. For consolidating its use, however, more consensus-building is needed (e.g., on value-laden ethical aspects of LCSA, interdependencies and interconnectedness among the three dimensions, and harmonization and integration of the three techniques) and technical and policy recommendations for application.

Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment

The social aspect of sustainable and ‘clean’ production/manufacturing technologies is researched and understood by means of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) tool, which is still in its infancy. In this paper, a search for all peer-reviewed publications on applied Social LCA, which have appeared in scientific journals, between O’Brien et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):231–237, 1996) and the latest one at the time of writing (April 2018), was carried out, using Scopus as the repository and using ‘S-LCA’ or ‘SLCA’ or ‘Social LCA’ or ‘social life cycle assessment’ as search phrases in title, abstract and keywords of publications, separately. Overall, 213 publications were unearthed, and the trend shows that there has been a near-exponential increase over time. A little over 55% of these publications—121 to be precise—were applications of S-LCA—often in combination with environmental LCA and life cycle costing analysis, in an LCSA. This paper discusses the contributions of a selected subset of these 121 publications to the body of S-LCA knowledge, with the focus being restricted to applications in developing and transition economies of the world, on the premise that there is a more urgent need to understand social aspects of production and manufacturing in these parts of the world. A SWOT analysis of S-LCA has been carried out towards the end. There is a consensus among many researchers that while LCC and E-LCA have matured a lot over time, S-LCA, the newest of the trio, is evolving slowly to become a harmonised tool which can serve as an effective complement to the aforesaid two, in LCSAs of products and processes in industry.Graphical abstract

Recently, Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) has been developed under the methodological framework of Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) to evaluate the social impacts that emerge during the overall life cycle of a product or service. There is not yet a standardized methodology for S-LCA as there is for environmental LCA (eLCA), due to the nature of social impacts that do not depend only on the processes themselves, but also on the behavior and context of actors (manufactures, consumers, local community members, etc.). One of the most critical steps in the application of S-LCA concerns the choice of criteria for selecting affected actors, impact categories, subcategories, and the taxonomic relation among them. Moreover, the importance (in terms of weight) of these impacts may be felt differently by affected actors, confirming the importance of the context within which impacts arise. In this sense, the integration of participatory tools can be useful in making the S-LCA more locally relevant. The aim of the present study is twofold. First, we will outline a methodology that combines S-LCA with two research tools. The first is the focus group, adopted from qualitative research. The second is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), adopted from operational research, which belongs to the framework of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). These have been used to make the S-LCA more locally relevant and to legitimate the criteria used. Second, we will test this methodology by applying it to a specific field, i.e., 3 production areas and 3 different crop systems of citrus growing in the Calabria region in Southern Italy. Citrus growing is one of the most important agricultural sectors at regional level, and it is also well known for issues of social concern, particularly in relation to immigrant workers. The results show a number of differences between cases and could offer useful insights to both local decision makers, such as agricultural entrepreneurs, and to those public decision makers that design and implement territorial planning strategies. Results have allowed the authors to rank the social performance of each case and to reflect on the most critical steps in conducting an S-LCA. The integration of qualitative techniques and a multicriteria in sLCA allows catching local specificities by involving local experts and stakeholders Results highlighted that impact categories mostly contributed to performance differences Public deciders can be supported in deciding which farming practices should be encouraged, which social domains must be paid more attention, and where social problems mostly occur The methodological application allowed the authors also to foresee the feasibility of the integration of LCA and LCC results as inputs in sLCA to conduct a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA).

Purpose Cultures are increasingly recognised for their inherent value, yet, despite political and societal concern, culture is widely unrecognised in assessment techniques. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), a technique encompassing environmental, social and economic aspects, is growing in popularity. However, cultural values are rarely considered in LCSA. This paper reviews the meaning of culture; current efforts to include culture in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), social LCA (S-LCA) and LCSA; and aspects to address when investigating integration of culture in LCA, S-LCA and LCSA.