Strengths or bias in social LCA

作者: Alessandra Zamagni , Oscar Amerighi , Patrizia Buttol

DOI: 10.1007/S11367-011-0309-3

关键词:

摘要: Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) emerged in the last years as a methodological approach aimed at evaluating social and socioeconomic aspects of products their potential positive negative impacts along cycle. According to Guidelines for (Benoit Mazijn 2009), developed within UNEPS/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, are those that may affect stakeholders product be linked company behaviour, processes on capital. This definition includes two strengths S-LCA together distinguish it from other methods: (1) focus (2) broad impacts, which encompasses both behaviour perspective. From perspective, one main added values is possibility spend results evaluation market. could achieved, example by means label, way similar what done carbon footprint. Based powerful S-LCA, authors would like point out methodology might also represent source bias risks, if not dealt with properly responsibly. We briefly work this concept out, giving hints further reflection. Starting product, functional unit (FU) comes into discussion. core LCA, but shows critical when applied context evaluations. Let us consider case producing x supplier theirs, component well products/components. The make use child labour manufacturing several x, because different production lines involved (this issue has already been discussed Jorgensen et al. 2009). If we apply focusing system itself, deplorable caught, carry responsibility only part included x. step back respect corporate responsibility, pushes companies mature high sense whole. However, framework strongly based i.e. perspective links company. importance connecting mainly conduct function delivered given emphasised literature (see e.g. Dreyer 2006). confirmed many boycott campaigns initiated consumer groups or performance was deemed inadequate poor under aspects. cite, instance, Nike launched 1990s against inhuman A. Zamagni (*) : P. Buttol LCA & Ecodesign Laboratory, Italian National Agency New Technologies, Energy Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), via Martiri di Monte Sole 4, 40129 Bologna, Italy e-mail: alessandra.zamagni@enea.it

参考文章(12)
Louise Camilla Dreyer, Michael Z. Hauschild, Jens Schierbeck, Characterisation of social impacts in LCA International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 15, pp. 247- 259 ,(2010) , 10.1007/S11367-009-0148-7
Walter Kloepffer, Life cycle sustainability assessment of products International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 13, pp. 89- 95 ,(2008) , 10.1065/LCA2008.02.376
Alan Brent, Carin Labuschagne, Social Indicators for Sustainable Project and Technology Life Cycle Management in the Process Industry (13 pp + 4) The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 11, pp. 3- 15 ,(2006) , 10.1065/LCA2006.01.233
Andreas Jørgensen, Michael Z. Hauschild, Michael S. Jørgensen, Arne Wangel, Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 14, pp. 204- 214 ,(2009) , 10.1007/S11367-009-0073-9
M.Z. Hauschild, L.C. Dreyer, A. Jørgensen, Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective-Lessons learned CIRP Annals. ,vol. 57, pp. 21- 24 ,(2008) , 10.1016/J.CIRP.2008.03.002
Louise Dreyer, Michael Hauschild, Jens Schierbeck, A Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (10 pp) The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 11, pp. 88- 97 ,(2006) , 10.1065/LCA2005.08.223
Andreas Jørgensen, Matthias Finkbeiner, Michael S. Jørgensen, Michael Z. Hauschild, Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 15, pp. 376- 384 ,(2010) , 10.1007/S11367-010-0176-3