Next Article in Journal
A Tool to Evaluate Different Renovation Alternatives with Regard to Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
A Peaking and Tailing Approach to Education and Curriculum Renewal for Sustainable Development
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessReview
Sustainability 2014, 6(7), 4200-4226; doi:10.3390/su6074200

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Centre for Global Change & Earth Observations, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
British Standard Institute, Great China Region, Room 2008, East Ocean Center, No. 24A, Jianguomenwai Street, Beijing 100004, China
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 1 March 2014 / Revised: 17 June 2014 / Accepted: 18 June 2014 / Published: 2 July 2014
(This article belongs to the Section Social Ecology and Sustainability)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [412 KB, 24 February 2015; original version 24 February 2015]   |  


To promote the development of Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA), we conducted a comprehensive review of recently developed frameworks, methods, and characterization models for impact assessment for future method developers and SLCA practitioners. Two previous reviews served as our foundations for this review. We updated the review by including a comprehensive list of recently-developed SLCA frameworks, methods and characterization models. While a brief discussion from goal, data, and indicator perspectives is provided in Sections 2 to 4 for different frameworks/methods, the focus of this review is Section 5 where discussion on characterization models for impact assessment of different methods is provided. The characterization models are categorized into two types following the UNEP/SETAC guidelines: type I models without impact pathways and type II models with impact pathways. Different from methods incorporating type I/II characterization models, another LCA modeling approach, Life Cycle Attribute Assessment (LCAA), is also discussed in this review. We concluded that methods incorporating either type I or type II models have limitations. For type I models, the challenge lies in the systematic identification of relevant stakeholders and materiality issues; while for type II models, identification of impact pathways that most closely and accurately represent the real-world causal relationships is the key. LCAA may avoid these problems, but the ultimate questions differ from those asked by the methods using type I and II models.
Keywords: SLCA; review; social life cycle impact assessment; UNEP/SETAC guidelines SLCA; review; social life cycle impact assessment; UNEP/SETAC guidelines
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Wu, R.; Yang, D.; Chen, J. Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4200-4226.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top