Development and Design Perspective of a Model for Analyzing the Social Life Cycle of Public Organizations: Examination of Existing Models

Abstract

This paper establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating the social life cycle of public services through a thorough examination of existing literature published from 2013 to 2022. The central research question is to determine how insights from this literature review can contribute to the advancement of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodologies within the public sector. Methods: To address this question, we conducted a mixed-methods analysis of data sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The quantitative analysis determined the total number of S-LCA and SO-LCA papers published by main journals, and main authors. The qualitative analysis highlighted the different themes and research objectives addressed in the work relating to the S-LCA of products/services and organizations. Our findings indicate that a total of 222 papers on S-LCA were published across 94 journals. However, there is a noticeable gap in research specifically targeting public services, with most studies concentrating on products, services, and organizations. Despite the absence of direct scientific data, our study identified 17 actors, 74 impact subcategories, and 178 indicators that are potentially relevant to the S-LCA of public services. Given the unique characteristics of public services, it is imperative to develop tailored stakeholder categories, subcategories, and performance indicators for each service type. This approach will facilitate more accurate assessments of the social impacts of public services, thereby aiding both the scientific community and S-LCA practitioners in their evaluations.

1. Introduction

With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the United Nations laid the foundations for the organization of public services. Although it does not explicitly define public services, there are nevertheless relevant articles that refer to aspects of the public sector, such as Article 21: “(2) Everyone has the right to participate on equal terms in the public functions of his country” and Article 17: “(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone or in community with others; (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property” [1]. Based on this document, every service should have a social and territorial dimension that guarantees equal access to essential goods at reasonable prices and tariff redistribution for free access throughout the territory [2]. Although there are different points of view and approaches, public service can be defined as an activity of general interest managed by a public body based on common law rules. In other words, it is a public activity that is essential for the satisfaction of basic needs, such as health, social security, education, communication, transportation network, sanitation, access to water and electricity, etc., except the so-called sovereign activities linked to the sovereignty of the State [3].

Given the changing needs of citizens in a changing society, public institutions are challenged to continuously improve the sustainability performance of public services [4,5]. To this end, metrics are needed that can demonstrate the impact of such activities from an economic, environmental, and social perspective [6]. The integration of sustainability into decision-making dates to the Brundtland Report of 1987, which emphasized the three dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. More recently, the European Union’s law on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires all large companies and all listed companies to disclose information on their risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues and on the impact of their activities on people and the environment [7]. One way to measure these consequences can be to use environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment criteria. These ESG criteria are a set of standards relating to the behavior of a company and are used as an analytical tool with which companies can measure their corporate social responsibility (CSR), to comply with the objectives of sustainable development [8].

From a methodological perspective, the life cycle approach, and in particular the life cycle assessment (LCA) method, has proven to be promising for assessing the environmental sustainability of products and the environmental impact of public services [9]. However, the study of the social dimension of public services, also known as social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), is still in its infancy [10,11]. In 2020, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) published a guidance document that sets out the methodological framework for S-LCA. The document guides the stakeholder categories for which the social impacts of a product or organization must be assessed and the subcategories of potential social impacts to be considered [12]. The S-LCA framework described in the guidelines comprises four steps, shown in Figure 1: Define the objective and the context of the study, which can be a product, a service, or an organization. The definition of stakeholder categories is followed by the collection and selection of relevant data (social life cycle inventory). This is followed by the assessment of potential social impacts based on indicators and specific impact subcategories and the interpretation of the results to draw conclusions and recommendations to improve social performance. The S-LCA workflow then consists of the description of all the activities that need to be carried out to perform an analysis.

In this approach (Figure 1), stakeholders are defined as groups or individuals who may be affected by or have an interest in an organization’s activities, including employees, surrounding communities, supply chain partners, customers, children, and society in general. The subcategories of impact are described as socially relevant topics or characteristics that are assessed using impact indicators. These subcategories are linked to stakeholder groups and organized in a way that simplifies implementation and ensures the completeness of the S-LCA framework. Finally, performance indicators are described as tools that can be used to measure the social impact of an organization’s activities over the entire life cycle of its products or services. They are directly related to the product life cycle inventory and may differ depending on the context of the study. The assessment of each subcategory of impact may require the use of multiple indicators, the selection of which will depend on the specific issues and concerns highlighted by the S-LCA analysis.

In 2021, UNEP also published a second document that presents methodological guidance for the definition of inventory indicators that can potentially be used in the assessment of social performances [13]. Despite such documents, the identification of stakeholder categories, the definition of subcategories, and the establishment of performance indicators is still an open field of research. This is confirmed by the remarkable increase in the number of S-LCA papers that concern S-LCIA methodological approaches (hereafter, methodological approaches) and case studies [11,14,15,16], on products, services, and organizations. Also, nine case studies, six related to the S-LCA of products, two to the social organizational life cycle (S-OLCA) of organizations, and one S-LCA of a private service were published in the Pilot Projects [17].

Despite the growing interest, there is currently no work addressing the application of S-LCA to public services, except for a single case study on the social impact of mobility services in Berlin [11]. This case study on mobility services in Berlin highlights the challenges and opportunities associated with assessing the social impact of public services. It examines the impact of mobility policies on social inclusion, access to services for people with reduced mobility, and the impact on local employment. The study then underlines the need to develop specific indicators to highlight the social impact of public services, considering the local context and the needs of communities. This public service case study is probably unique due to its novelty. Although it helps to fill an important gap in the S-LCA literature, it nevertheless remains limited; hence, the urgent need to research this sector.

This article aims to define a research framework through a systematic literature review to support and guide future research on public service S-LCA. The need for this study arises from the fact that public services are sparsely addressed in the literature on S-LCA, despite their importance in providing essential services to society. To achieve this goal, the literature review is divided into three parts to better highlight the aspects that could be useful for the S-LCA of public services.

–

Section 2 describes the methodology used to develop a research framework for S-LCA of public services, explaining the research protocol, the software used, the process of data review, and the analytical technique chosen to identify research gaps and opportunities.

–

Section 3 presents the qualitative and quantitative results, focusing on the stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, and indicators specific to public services (hereafter referred to as components) that emerge from the literature and are essential for a complete S-LCA.

–

Finally, Section 4 discusses the results obtained and the various conclusions drawn about the research objectives as well as the challenges or limitations in operationalizing S-LCA applications for public services.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Questions and Structure

To define the research framework for the S-LCA of public services, four questions are defined and addressed in specific sections of this paper, as shown in

Table 1. Research questions and structure of the research.

Research Questions	Sections	Method of Analysis
Q1: How are research activities in the field of S-LCA in general and S-LCA of public services in particular developing? What is the trend in terms of a number of publications, scientific journals, and main authors?	Section 3.1	Bibliometric analysis of combined data from Web of Science and Scopus and use of Rayyan software
Q2: What are the specific research themes and objectives related to the S-LCA of products/services, organizations, and public services?	Section 3.2	Qualitative data analysis
Q3: What are the different methodologies adopted in S-LCA and S-OLCA studies that can be applied in the case of public services?	Section 3.3	Qualitative analysis of identified articles on S-LCA and S-OLCA
Q4: What are the limitations and shortcomings of the studies in general and what potential does the S-LCA method have for the public sector?	Section 4	Critical analysis of the results, emerging issues, and different perspectives

, indicating the method used to answer these questions.

2.2. Methodology

Bibliometric analysis was chosen to answer Q1 because the corresponding software provides indicators tailored to the analysis of scientific publications in specific fields and periods. The results of this analysis are based on information already described in the published literature. Therefore, it is a systematic method for identifying relevant studies to minimize bias and error [18,19]. It was performed by combining data from two databases, Web of Science and Scopus, which refer to all articles published between 2013 and 2022 [20]. These databases contain many peer-reviewed articles in the field of S-LCA [21]. According to Huer-tas-Valdivia et al., the Web of Science is the database with the most bibliographic data because it contains sufficient data for bibliometric analysis, is accessible, is the most relevant in science, and its datasets are more consistent, detailed, and standardized than others [16]. Others believe that Scopus contains a high-quality database and is becoming increasingly important as the number of publications increases, which is why Morioka et al. believe it is the largest database of peer-reviewed journals [22,23].

The data collection in the various databases took place on 30 December 2022. The search string as presented in

Table 2. Number of documents by data source and final sample.

Keywords	Number of Studies in Web of Science	Number of Studies in Scopus	Total Number of Studies	Number of Duplicates Found	Number of Documents after Extracting Duplicates
S-LCA	159	163	322	266	189
Social-LCA	64	79	143	100	92
S-LCA and stakeholders	64	69	133	104	81
S-LCA and case studies	81	79	160	134	93
S-LCA of products/services	17	19	36	28	22
Indicators of S-LCA	83	78	161	132	95
SO-LCA	10	09	19	14	12
Methodology of S-LCA	80	76	156	124	94
S-LCA and public transport	01	01	02	01	01
S-LCA and waste management/municipal waste	10	16	26	10	16
S-LCA and water supply	00	00	00	00	00
S-LCA and education	01	01	02	01	01
S-LCA and heath	00	00	00	00	00
S-LCA and public service	00	00	00	00	00
TOTAL					600
Final sample after extraction of duplicates and intruded documents					222

was carried out with all the following keywords: “S-LCA”, “social-LCA”, “SO-LCA” as well as “stakeholders”, “case studies”, “product/services”, “indicators”, “methodology”, “public service”, “public transport”, “waste management/municipal waste”, “water supply”, “health”, and “education” in conjunction with the main term «S-LCA». Each keyword was used only once in each database, as documented below.

In the Web of Science database, the keywords listed above were searched in the topics, while in Scopus the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the articles were searched according to the aim of the literature review. A filter was applied to the type of document to obtain only articles published between 2013 and 2022. The entry of all these keywords in the different databases made it possible to obtain a clear idea of the number of articles published in terms of author, year, source, type of document, case study, literature, and review [24]. Rayyan is software designed to facilitate the performance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of scientific research. It is an intuitive and collaborative online platform that helps researchers manage, evaluate, and summarize data from multiple studies. It is tailored to the specific needs of researchers by providing them with efficient tools for sorting articles, extracting data, and analyzing results. It contains various features and functions that facilitate the research process and ensure the objectivity of the analysis. Some of these functions were used in this thesis, such as reference management, which allows bibliographic references to be easily imported from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The definition of the selection criteria was based exclusively on articles written in English between 2013 and 2022. Automatic duplication, which made it possible to automatically identify and delete all duplicate entries, ensured that each article was only evaluated once. The collaborative screen allowed simultaneous work on the selection of articles to improve the reliability of the filtering process. Finally, coding and characterization of the articles according to predetermined criteria facilitated the structuring of the data analysis [25,26,27]. During the analysis, the documents that occurred more than once were recognized and exploded for each batch of documents according to the different keywords, resulting in 11 files. Then, the 11 files were exported as CSV (comma separated values) files into a single folder and transferred back into the Rayyan software to merge all the documents with the different keywords into a single batch of documents. In the end, only English-language articles were identified and selected.

To answer Q2, a qualitative analysis of the final data was conducted by examining the titles and abstracts of the articles to identify the different application themes and the respective aims. They were then classified according to area of application and research objective. Finally, the identification of the different assessment methods was based on highlighting the type of impact assessment applied in the different papers.

To answer Q3, a qualitative analysis of the content of the articles was carried out. This analysis consisted of highlighting the different methodologies used in identifying the stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, and performance indicators, and then verifying that they all address the same components analyzed. Finally, the stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, and indicators that may be useful for the S-LCA of public services were highlighted. Three steps were performed for the stakeholder categories, the impact subcategories, and the performance indicators. In the case of stakeholder categories, the three steps are to identify which categories appear in all articles, understand which are commonly used, and then identify which are not commonly used. Finally, depending on the results and the nature of the different public services provided, the identification of the components likely to be used for the case of S-LCA of public services was carried out based on two criteria: firstly, according to the number of reported complaints related to public services, and secondly, according to the definition and main characteristics of public services [2]. The same three-step process was also applied to the impact subcategories and performance indicators. The selection of specific components for public services therefore considered all related elements that could be relevant for all possible public services, such as water and electricity supply, waste management, public transport, education, health, administrative services, etc. The results of the analysis provide a list of components that apply to public services in general, without considering a specific study area.

To answer Q4, an in-depth critical analysis of the results and highlighting different perspectives is necessary to illustrate the inherent complexity of the data, which is essential for drawing meaningful conclusions and formulating strategies to address the identified challenges.

3. Results

3.1. Evolution of the Scientific Production of S-LCA in Terms of the Publication, Sources, and Main Authors

As for Q1 in terms of publications, the bibliometric analysis identified 600 documents. After cleaning the duplicates and consolidation, 378 articles were excluded, including on the one hand the duplicated documents, the documents that were not directly related to S-LCA but rather dealt with LCA and the dimensions of sustainability in general, as well as the articles written in French and Russian, as the analysis focused exclusively on articles in English. This resulted in a final sample of 222 documents, all of which contained keywords, as shown in Table 2. (All 222 articles representing the final sample include the title, year of publication, journal, and authors for each article, as provided in Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials).

As shown in Figure 2, The analysis then highlighted the publication trends of the 222 articles in the final sample and their evolution over the last ten years.

There was an 8.1% increase in publications related to the defined area between 2013 and 2015, probably due to the following important events. Firstly, in 2013, the methodological sheets for the subcategories of S-LCA effects were published, which were the focus of consideration, and secondly, in 2014, numerous papers were presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Europe in Basel and the 4th International Seminar on S-LCA in Montpellier [28] and subsequently published in scientific journals, which formed the basis for an increase in research, discussions, and thus publications in the first months of 2015 [18].

As a result, a decline in the number of publications from 8.1% to 3.1 was observed in 2016. This period was characterized by reflections on the methodological steps to be taken for a better analysis and interpretation of the results. The most important growth phase in the number of published articles took place in 2018 (18.02%) and in 2021 (19.8%) due to the special issue “Social LCA in Progress” in the International Journal of Life-Cycle Assessment (2018). The publication of the UNEP guidelines and the associated pilot projects has also played an important role in methodological progress. These publications provided an analytical framework for the identification of stakeholder categories, impact categories, and examples of inventory indicators that guided the various papers [12,17]. Subsequently, a slight decrease of 17.57% was observed in 2022, due to the presence of methodological sheets for the impact subcategories published in 2021. The slight decrease is probably due to the digestion time required for the explicit and detailed elaboration of the impact subcategories and their stock indicators.

The 222 papers that comprise the final sample were published in 94 journals between 2013 and 2022. Only 17 journals have at least two publications, and the remaining 77 have only one.

Table 3. Top 10 S-LCA scientific production journals from 2013 to 2022.

Rank	Journal	No. of Documents
1	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT	72
2	SUSTAINABILITY	26
3	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	23
4	RESOURCES—BASEL	7
5	SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION	6
6	JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY	6
7	RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING	3
8	SOCIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT	3
9	CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY	2
10	CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS	2

shows the top 10 journals in terms of number of publications in ascending order. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment published the only case study on S-LCA of public service, probably because it is the first journal to focus entirely on life cycle issues and methodological issues.

The follow-up made it possible to highlight the most important authors in terms of published and cited articles. Therefore, the following section highlights the top 10 most cited authors in the different studies considering the 222 publications, as shown in Figure 3. The most cited author is Traverso, M (21.3%), who explores LCA issues in general in various papers, and is followed by Petti, L (13.1%), whose work considers the issues of social and positive impact assessment. Finkbeiner, M (11.4%) focuses on the life cycle approach in general, followed by Ugaya, CML (9.8%) who focuses on life cycle sustainability issues and more generally on the impact on sustainability development. D’eusanio, M, Ferrari, AM, and Hauschild, M have the same rating in terms of citations (8.2%), whose work generally focuses on S-LCA, and its assessment and impact. Finally, Dreyer, LC; Reveret, JP and Sureau, S complete the classification with 6.5%, focusing on the assessment of approaches of S-LCA, for the most part.

3.2. Content Analysis

Concerning Q2, the results show in Figure 4 that, during the years 2013 to 2022, 169 articles addressed case studies, 67% on S-LCA of products/services, and 7% on organizations (SO-LCA), while 53 articles (26%) researched methodological issues, and the S-LCA articles include the only existing case study on public services.

To facilitate the analysis of this large number of articles, a sample of 10 articles per category (case studies on S-LCA excluding that on public services, case studies on SO-LCA, and research on methodological issues) was first selected based on criteria such as the relevance of the content (especially titles, abstracts, and keywords); the quality of the research (prioritization of articles, (prioritizing articles published in reputable journals that have undergone a rigorous selection process)); publication dates (limited to the years 2013–2022 to keep up with recent developments in the field of S-LCA); number of citations (to prioritize articles with a significant scientific impact); the methodological approach used (to ensure that it is appropriate and rigorous); and the relevance of the results (to determine their usefulness in answering the research question). In addition, the single case study on public services was analyzed, resulting in an initial sample of 31 articles, indicating the year of publication, the titles and aim of each paper, and the different journals in which these papers were published (see Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials). Secondly, from the pre-selection of 31 articles, 10 are selected as the final sample for content analysis to be precise and accurate. According to the objective of this study, the 10 articles were selected based on those that define the stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, and performance indicators in a perceptible, clear, and quick manner.

Research Topics and Objectives

Table 4. Research topics and objectives.

No	Authors	Year	Title	Objective	Journal
1	Gompf K et al. [11]	2022	Applying social life cycle assessment to evaluate the use phase of mobility services: a case study in Berlin	Analyze the social impact of the use phase of mobility services in a holistic way, considering both positive and negative impacts	International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
2	Lu, Y.-T et al. [29]	2017	Inventory analysis and social life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy incineration in Taiwan	Identify or raise key issues that need to be promoted for WtE incineration plants due to existing management systems and complex issues related to GHG, energy, and waste treatment	Sustainability
3	Erauskin-Tolosa, A et al. [30]	2022	Social organizational LCA for the academic activity of the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU	Estimate the social footprint of a higher education institution (HEI) and its potential contribution to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) from a life cycle assessment (LCA) perspective	International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
4	D’Eusanio, M et al. [31]	2022	Social organizational life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment: different twins? Correlations from a case study	Attempt to implement SO-LCA and correlation analysis between social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) and SO-LCA	International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
5	Haryati, Z et al. [32]	2021	Complementing social life cycle assessment to reach sustainable development goals—a case study from the Malaysian oil palm industry	Addressing the social impacts associated with the oil palm industry is done through social life cycle assessment (S-LCA)	Chemical Engineering Transactions
6	Rafiaani, P et al. [33]	2020	A critical view on social performance assessment at company level: social life cycle analysis of an algae case	Social impact assessment of a company working on algae production systems in Belgium through a social life cycle analysis (SLCA)	International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
7	Pelletier, N et al. [34]	2018	Social sustainability in trade and development policy	Assessing the social risks associated with trade-related consumption in EU Member States using a life cycle approach versus a non-life-cycle approach	International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
8	Pillain, B et al. [35]	2019	Social life cycle assessment framework for evaluation of potential job creation with an application in the French carbon fiber aeronautical recycling sector	Bringing in a significant amount of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) products in the coming years at the end of their life cycle	International Journal of Life Cycle
9	Osorio-Tejada, JL et al. [36]	2022	Social organizational life cycle assessment of transport services: case studies in Colombia, Spain, and Malaysia	Analyze the social performance of companies involved in the supply chain of road transport companies in different contexts such as Latin America, Europe, and Asia.	Sustainability
10	Martinez-Blanco, J et al. [37]	2015	Social Organizational LCA (SOLCA) is a new approach to implementing social LCA	Propose a new organizational perspective to revitalize SLCA—the social organizational SLCA (SOLCA)	International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

lists the 10 articles on which the final analysis was based. The table lists the authors, the year of publication, the titles, the research objective, and the different journals in which these papers were published. This identification was made to facilitate the phase of proposing categories, subcategories of impacts, and indicators that are likely to be used for the case of public services; it also facilitates the identification of those that are frequently used or not.

The identification of the 10 articles according to the above criteria made it possible to find four articles on S-LCA (no. 2, 4, 5, 6), four on SO-LCA (no. 3, 8, 9, 10), one on methodological issues (no. 7), and one on public services (no. 1), which is the only case study.

3.3. Methodological Analysis

To better understand the differences in terms of stakeholder categories, the subcategories of impact, indicators, and type of impact assessment are presented for each identified study, as illustrated in

Table 5. Summary of methodological analysis for selected articles.

Title and Authors	Type of Impact Evaluation	Stakeholders’ Categories Identified	Subcategories Identified	Indicators Identified
Applying social life cycle assessment to evaluate the use phase of mobility services: a case study in Berlin [11]	Reference scale approach (type I)	5	28	39
Inventory analysis and social life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy incineration in Taiwan [29]	Risk assessments: methods from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to GHG	8	9	18
Social organizational LCA for the academic activity of the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU [30]	Risk assessments: PSILCA-based Soca add-on for the Ecoinvent v3.3 database	8	21	41
Social organizational life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment: different twins? Correlations from a case study [31]	Reference scale approach (type I)	4	21	32
Complementing social life cycle assessment to reach sustainable development goals—A case study from the Malaysian oil palm industry [32]	Reference scale approach (type I) with performance reference point (PRP) approach.	9	16	17
A critical view on social performance assessment at company level: social life cycle analysis of an algae case [33]	Performance reference points (PRPs) method	3	10	10
Social sustainability in trade and development policy [34]	Risk assessments: Eurostat ComEx import data at the HS06 level, Global Trade Analysis Project, sector codes, Social Hotspots Database (SHDB)	5	10	4
Social life cycle assessment framework for evaluation of potential job creation with an application in the French carbon fiber aeronautical recycling sector [35]	Risk assessments: Social Hotspots Database (SHDB)	8	2	8
Social organizational life cycle assessment of transport services: case studies in Colombia, Spain, and Malaysia [36]	Reference scale approach (type I)	7	26	8
Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing social LCA [37]	Performance reference points (PRPs) method	5	3	17

for the 10 selected articles (the full list with detailed results can be found in the Supplementary Materials Table S3).

In the studies reviewed, the methodological analysis to identify stakeholder categories, subcategories of impacts, and indicators was initially based on identifying the specific context and objective of the research. For example, some studies consider incineration plants, energy, waste management [29,36], and transportation services [11] and address CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions on the one hand and quality of life, employment, and human rights on the other. This explains the inclusion of different stakeholder categories together with the social aspects and indicators specific to different cases, despite the overlap of some articles in the field of transportation [11] and emissions management [29,36].

Second, the articles present different approaches that also influence the selection of stakeholder categories and social aspects to be considered in the development of indicators. These approaches are based on the quality and availability of data, which can be either qualitative, based on in-depth interviews and case studies, quantitative or semi-quantitative in orientation, or integrate both qualitative and quantitative data [11,30,34]. The diversity of stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, and indicators included in the different case studies therefore reflects the complexity of the social issues associated with each case.

Regarding the type of impact assessment, the reference scale approach (type I) and the performance reference points (PRPs) method are the most commonly used in the articles analyzed. The studies also show a high preference for the use of the Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment database (PSILCA) and the Social Hotspots Database (SHDB) for the assessment of social risks.

3.3.1. Approach to Selecting Stakeholder Categories

Three steps were used to identify the stakeholders. They consisted of identifying those that are common to all articles, understanding those that are frequently used, then identifying those that are not used, and finally, based on the results, suggesting those that can be useful for the S-LCA of public services. In the selection of stakeholders, 11 common and 15 distinct stakeholder categories were identified, while 17 stakeholder categories that can be proposed for the case of public services were identified (

Table 6. Identification of stakeholder categories.

Common Stakeholders Categories	Different Stakeholders Categories	Stakeholders’ Categories That Can Be Used for Public Services
Local Communities, Consumers, Workers, Value Chain Actors, Society, Governmental Authorities, Producers, Suppliers, Ngos, Investors, Employees	Environmental Organizations, Waste-To-Energy Incineration Industry, International Organizations, Transport Service Providers, Shareholders, Commuters and Passengers, Private Sector Companies, Regulators, Citizens, Companies, Manufacturers of Transport-Related Goods and Services, Business Partners, Faculty Members Students, Administrative Staff, Researchers, and Academics.	Local Communities, Consumers, Workers, Society, Governmental Authorities, Producers, Suppliers, NGOs, Investors, Employees, International Organizations, Transport Service Providers, Shareholders, Citizens, Companies, Regulators, and Business Partners.

).

3.3.2. Approach to Selecting Impact Subcategories

The impact subcategory selection approach highlighted 28 common impact subcategories, 46 distinct impact subcategories, and 74 impact subcategories that can be proposed for the case of public services. The results show that the process for selecting impact subcategories varies according to the specificities of each case study and the actors involved. Some of these subcategories are listed in

Table 7. Identification of impact subcategories.

Common Impact Subcategories	Different Impact Subcategories	Impact Subcategories that Can Be Used for Public Services
28, such as Local employment, Community engagement, Safety, Feedback mechanism, Fair salary, Discrimination, Child labor, Freedom of association and collective bargaining, Forced labor, Fair competition, etc.	46, such as Public space, Air quality, Noise pollution, Space occupancy, Consumer accessibility, Convenience, Inclusiveness, Affordability, Privacy, Work–life balance, Supplier relationships, Society health, Tax income, Urban development, etc.	74, such as Local employment, Community engagement, Safety, Feedback mechanism, Fair salary, Discrimination, Child labor, Freedom of association and collective bargaining, Forced labor, Fair competition, Intellectual property rights, Promoting social responsibility, Contribution to economic development, Health and safety, Social benefits, Access to immaterial resources, Access to material resources, Safe and healthy living conditions, Migration, Fair competition, Corruption, Equal opportunities/discrimination, Secure living conditions, etc.

, while the full list can be found in Table S3 of the Supplementary Materials.

3.3.3. Indicator Selection Approach

The selection of indicators identified 34 common indicators, 152 different indicators, and 178 indicators that can be used for the case of public services. Some of these indicators are listed in

Table 8. Identification of indicators.

Common Indicators	Different Indicators	Indicators that Can Be Used for Public Services
34, such as Minimum wage paid, Minimum wage rate, Late wage payment, Paid below, Schedule of wage paid, Working hours, Average weekly working hour, Working hours per week, Weekly hours of work per employee, Child labor female, Child labor male, Child labor total, Frequency of forced labor, Goods produced by forced labor, Presence of social benefits, etc.	152, such as Green and open space per capita, Emission intensity of NOx, Emission intensity of PM10, Emission intensity of PM2.5, Emission intensity of SO2, Percentage of employees hired, Percentage of employees hired locally, Noise pollution greater than 65 dB, Average emissions of noise, Degree of population participation, Infrastructure efficiency, Infrastructure space occupancy, Space occupancy about green and open space, Number of transport points Number of passengers, Fatal and non-fatal traffic accidents, Punctuality of delivery, etc.	178, such as Minimum wage paid, Minimum wage rate, Late wage payment, Paid below, Schedule of wage paid, Working hours, Average weekly working hour, Working hours per week, Weekly hours of work per employee, Child labor female, Child labor male, Child labor total, Frequency of forced labor, Goods produced by forced labor, Presence of social benefits, Formal policy of safety and health, Average number of workdays lost per worker per year, Rate of female to male employees, Health and safety policies and records, Culture and heritage, Human rights, Education and training, Community involvement, Labor rights and equal opportunities, Greenhouse gas emissions, Waste generation, Water consumption, etc.

, while the complete list can be found in Table S3 of the Supplementary Materials.

The analysis of the 10 selected articles made it possible to identify and propose 17 stakeholder categories, 74 subcategories of impacts, and 178 indicators for the S-LCA of public services.

4. Discussion

This work identified 222 articles on S-LCA published in 94 journals in the last ten years (2013–2022). One hundred sixty-nine articles concerned case studies, of which 67% were on S-LCA of products/services (including the only existing case study on public services) and 7% on organizations (SO-LCA), while fifty-three articles (26%) examined methodological issues. The results show that studies have mainly focused on case studies and methodological advancements, highlighting the continued interest in this topic as it remains a growing area of methodological inquiry. This growth is also justified by the collaboration between the authors and various journals that are particularly interested in methodological advances in S-LCA. Although not directly related to public services, the fact that it is an open topic leaves room for interest and further exploration in this area.

In the detailed analysis, only one study related to public services was found that applies S-LCA according to the UNEP guidelines [11]. The identified study concerns the use phase of public transportation in the city of Berlin. Although this is the only actual case to be considered in the context of public services, it nevertheless provided a starting point for the development of a framework for the S-LCA of public services. The information contained in this study was combined with the information from other studies on public services dealing with different aspects of S-LCA. These include the identification of stakeholder categories, subcategories of impacts, and performance indicators for public services by Erauskin-Tolosa et al. [30] and the systematic literature on the social assessment of municipal waste management systems from a life cycle perspective [29]. Other studies analyzing public services without a focus on S-LCA also provide information on the type of direct actors and the type of social aspects involved [35,36,37].

However, the S-LCA literature analyzed also contains strengths, such as the large number of registered studies (222) and the various reviews (94), which indicate a continuing interest in this area, suggesting a solid research base; the number of case studies (169) shows generally a practical orientation of the research, allowing S-LCA methods to be applied and tested in real contexts; methodological advances (53), showing a commitment to improving and refining different approaches to social impact assessment; and finally, the collaboration between researchers and journals indicates a collaborative and dynamic research environment in the field of S-LCA. However, this literature also contains weaknesses, such as the lack of studies on public services, which limits the understanding of social impacts in this sector; the diversity of methods and frameworks used in the different studies may lead to limited comparability of research, making it difficult to generalize the results. Thus, there is a need to promote more focused research on public services by developing more standardized frameworks and promoting a transdisciplinary approach.

First of all, the results of the analysis of the 10 selected articles show that the studies follow the main methodological elements required for the development of an S-LCA and SO-LCA [11,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], including the data recommendations (UNEP (2020), SHDB and PSILCA, but they also follow the LCA approach [30]. However, it is important to make some clarifications about both approaches. The LCA approach is methodologically based on the ISO14040-2006 standard [38], which sets out the principles and framework for conducting a life cycle assessment of a product or service from the extraction of raw materials to the end of its life. It includes phases such as the definition of the object of investigation, the life cycle inventory, the impact assessment, and the interpretation of the results. An environmental perspective is adopted, focusing on indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, resource consumption, etc. The S-LCA approach is based on life cycle thinking and draws on the UNEP Guidelines (2020) to structure its assessment. It draws on the principles of LCA but adapts the methodology to consider social aspects and assess the social impact on all different stakeholders. It adopts a social perspective, focusing on indicators such as working conditions, equal opportunities, workers’ rights, community participation, freedom of association, etc. Both approaches then involve a different process in terms of implementation and enforcement. Therefore, the main framework of LCA including the four phases is considered when using the results obtained in this study [11,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Figure 5 provides a further breakdown and adaptation of the LCA framework to ensure its correct application in the S-LCA of public services.

The results also revealed 17 stakeholder categories, 74 subcategories of impacts, and 178 indicators that could be proposed in the case of public services, excluding those that are not directly related to public services. Although the identified components mostly concern products/services and organizations, there is a high probability that they are linked to one of the many types of public services (health, social security, transport network, education, waste management, etc.) that are essential to meet the basic social needs of citizens [3]. If you specify the aim of each study and the different methods of impact assessment in the literature review, it is easier to select areas to be investigated depending on the aim of the study and to focus on less researched aspects such as health services, education, transportation, sanitation, etc. Secondly, highlighting the impact assessment methods can also help to emphasize the most-used method in S-LCA work, such as the type I approach performance assessment, which can also be used in public services, for example, to measure the performance of a municipality, a health facility, a transport system, etc.

It is important to keep in mind that in the proposed framework for the S-LCA of public services, based on the results obtained, the public service is considered a “product”, where the “product” is represented by the different services provided to the community. Therefore, the proposed stakeholder categories, subcategories of impacts, and performance indicators need to be applied only if they are consistent with the objective and scope of the defined study, with the specific public service under consideration. When applying the methodology, it is important to check whether the proposed components are also consistent with the specifics of the UNEP Guidelines (2020).

The function of a specific public service can help to identify the actors involved, based on those identified in an S-LCA study on a product (not a public service) that fulfills the same function. For example, in the S-LCA studies that analyzed waste management, the actors include formal and informal sector employees (recyclers, collectors, resellers, etc.), who can also apply to waste management as a public service. The same approach applies to the subcategories and indicators.

It is also necessary to consider issues of adaptability of the S-LCA framework for public services in different contexts, such as:

–

Recognizing contextual and cultural diversity, which consists of acknowledging that public services operate in different political, cultural, economic, and social environments. Further, the effective application of the S-LCA framework should take into account each context, which presents unique challenges and specific opportunities depending on the continent, country, and city.

–

Consideration of government systems and public policy, which includes an examination of government structures, decision-making processes, and public policy objectives. Consideration of this review would ensure that the S-LCA framework we wish to introduce is consistent with local priorities and requirements.

–

Integration of local perspectives, i.e., consultations with all local stakeholders such as staff, service users, community representatives, and policymakers. Including these local perspectives will help to understand the values, expectations, and concerns specific to the local context.

–

Flexibility in developing indicators and methodological approaches that needs to be adapted to different contexts. For example, when we define indicators for workers’ rights, these may vary according to local practices and laws. It is therefore necessary to define general indicators and leave room for adaptation to take local specificities into account.

The interactive relationships among the components of public services proposed for the S-LCA with public services are necessary to understand how the different social aspects influence each other. Stakeholders such as local communities, users, and employees can have a direct impact on subcategories such as accessibility of services, environmental preservation and promotion of human rights, social inclusion, and occupational health, which in turn influence performance indicators measuring the effectiveness of public services such as service utilization rates by marginalized groups, the number of occupational accidents or diseases, and the sustainability indicators. This relationship shows how improvements in one area can have a positive impact on other areas, while shortcomings in one area can hurt the overall social performance of the services provided. There can also be a feedback loop between the indicators and stakeholders, in the sense that the indicators can be used to engage stakeholders in discussions about improving public services, for example. In turn, stakeholders can ask for specific indicators to measure the social aspects that are important to them. For example, access to public services can have a positive impact on social inclusion and employment, while unsatisfactory working conditions can lead to deterioration in the quality of services, which in turn can hurt access to services and social inclusion. Finally, public policy could influence these components because it sets the framework within which public services operate, which could have a direct impact on the components. For example, policies aimed at reducing social inequalities and discrimination could have an impact on the way public services are designed, implemented, and evaluated.

At the methodological level, the work of Jannatul et al. could also contribute to the interactions among components in the following ways: first, through the systemic approach, as the integrated methodology discussed in the article promotes a systemic approach that considers the interactions between the different aspects of the life cycle. In the context of the S-LCA of public services, this could mean considering how operational decisions affect local communities, society, employment equity, etc. Secondly, the optimization and simulation of processes consist of assessing the impact of process changes before they are implemented. In the case of public services, this could enable the simulation of the impact of new services or even changes to existing services on social conditions, by optimizing public services for improved efficiency and sustainability, taking into account the social impact on stakeholders [39].

Finally, the indicators proposed for the case of S-LCA of public services have been identified, as mentioned, from a public services perspective. If they need to be refined for the different public services, one must rely on a specific case based on its context and local circumstances. However, in the context of this study, they can be refined in a general way. We based this on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were adopted by the United Nations in 2015. This is because they provide a global framework for collective action to promote sustainable development and solve global challenges. These goals therefore cover a wide range of areas and looking at the classification of indicators identified with this approach would allow these fundamental indicators to be considered by all. As an integral part of the state and its local authorities, public services play an essential role in the implementation of the SDGs. They are directly involved in the provision of essential services such as education, health, clean water and sanitation, energy, transportation, and social services, all of which are key elements in achieving the SDGs. The analysis did not consider the 17 SDGs but identified the first four Sustainable Development Goals, which particularly emphasize the important social aspects related to public services. The analysis therefore identified firstly SDG 1 (Eradicating poverty in all its forms everywhere) because poverty is a real social problem that can prevent access to education, health, adequate housing, and other essential services. Second, SDG 2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture) because inadequate access to safe and nutritious food can lead to real health problems. Third, SDG 3 (Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages) because health is a key element of social well-being, and inequalities can lead to social divisions and limit the opportunities of individuals and communities. Finally, fourth, SDG 4 (Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all), because education is a pillar of social development and inclusive and equitable education is crucial for reducing inequalities and promoting a just and informed society [40].

This analysis allowed us to identify public services such as education, health, transportation, and housing. The proposed indicators for public services can therefore be classified as follows:

–

In education services, indicators such as teaching hours and training, health and safety of teachers, gender pay gap, employee participation, equal opportunities, prevention of discrimination, public expenditure on education, female illiteracy rate, male illiteracy rate, total illiteracy rate, female adolescent illiteracy rate, male adolescent illiteracy rate, total adolescent illiteracy rate, investment in technology, etc., can be considered.

–

In healthcare, indicators such as healthcare expenditure, sanitation, drinking water supply, number of workers affected by natural disasters, employee participation, equal opportunities, prevention of discrimination, birth rate, infant mortality rate, social security expenditure, violations of labor laws and regulations, fatal accidents, non-fatal accidents, gender pay gap, investment in technology, etc., can be considered.

–

Transportation services can consider indicators such as the number of transport points, number of passengers, fatal and non-fatal traffic accidents, fares, number of jobs created, accident rate, employee participation, equal opportunities, prevention of discrimination, investment in technology, pollutant emissions (NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SO2), carbon footprint (GWP100), etc.

–

For housing services, indicators such as green and open spaces per capita, noise exposure above 65 dB, average noise emissions, level of population participation, infrastructure efficiency, occupancy of infrastructure space, urban planning, taxes per capita, net migration rate, international migrants, international migrant workers, employee participation, equal opportunities, prevention of discrimination, pollutant emissions (NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SO2), carbon footprint (GWP100), investment in technology, etc., can be taken into account.

Limitations

As mentioned above, the main limitation of this study is the lack of scientific studies in the case of S-LCA of public services. This might question the reliability of the whole sample and the related technical analysis for the development of the framework for the S-LCA of public services. However, the results of several scientific studies [11,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] combined with those of the only identified study on public services provide sufficient information on methods and developmental steps, and could significantly affect the validity of our approach. It is therefore essential that future studies in the field of S-LCA also focus on specific cases of public services that represent a crucial lever for the well-being of the population at the social level. This is because assessing the potential risks associated with these services could help to improve the living conditions of all those involved.

There is also a limitation in terms of databases, as the available databases have not been developed with public services in mind. Therefore, particular attention should be given to the quality of the specific data collected on the ground as it reflects the reality of the public service provided. Subsequently, these data could be enriched with the help of databases that also document the public sector, such as those of the ILO, the World Bank, UNICEF, etc. The impact of the limitations on practical application may depend on aspects such as the reliability of the data, as the lack of scientific studies specifically addressing the S-LCA of utilities could call into question the reliability and objectivity of the data as well as the technical analyses used to develop the assessment framework. The lack of scientific research could also limit the development of robust and adapted methodologies for public services. And if the results are based on a limited and unrepresentative sample, this could influence the decision-making of policymakers. To remedy this, it is necessary to promote and conduct additional research on specific cases of public services to enrich the knowledge base and improve the reliability of data; promote interdisciplinary collaboration between experts from different fields to develop adapted and contextualized methodologies; use secondary data from other sources or studies to complete the analyses, taking into account their validity and relevance; create platforms for knowledge exchange and sharing to facilitate collaboration and mutual learning among public service S-LCA actors; and, lastly, conduct pilot projects and test the proposed framework.

5. Conclusions

This study provides a systematic overview of the S-LCA literature and its methodological developments over the last ten years (2013–2022). To answer the question of how the results obtained can be linked to the case of public services, a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data was carried out using the Web of Science and Scopus databases. In the quantitative analysis, the temporal evolution of scientific publications was highlighted, showing a significant increase from 2013 to 2022. The analysis also sheds light on the authors and their collaboration on methodological issues, as this is still an open topic. Finally, the major journals are also interested in new scientific trends in terms of topics and methods. The qualitative analysis revealed that different areas of S-LCA have been studied over the last ten years. It appears that most papers have focused on S-LCA of products/services (154), SO-LCA (14), and methodological issues (53), with only one case on public services. This was a limitation in achieving the objective due to the lack of scientific and field data, which are crucial in the development of performance indicators for public services. However, after analyzing the methodological issues, it was found that in the case of public services, 17 actors, 74 impact subcategories, and 178 indicators could be considered.

The analysis highlighted a lack of specific research in this area, underlining the need to close this gap. However, important methodological aspects necessary for the development of a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) for public services were identified, especially the methodological approach, the identification of stakeholder categories and subcategories of impacts, and the development of indicators. In addition, the use of databases such as the ILO, World Bank, UNICEF, or PSILCA could facilitate access to the data needed to assess the social impacts of public services, as well as UNEP guidelines that could serve as methodological references for the development of a comprehensive approach to S-LCA of public services.

Based on these results, future work aims to apply the benefits of S-LCA in a specific case and develop specific performance indicators for this case. In addition, it is important to explore strategies to integrate field research and policy analysis to validate and refine the proposed framework. This could include in-depth case studies, stakeholder interviews, and a review of public policy related to the services under study. In addition, collaboration with practitioners and policymakers could provide practical knowledge and promote the application of research findings in real-world contexts. Finally, building partnerships with international organizations and S-LCA experts could help overcome methodological challenges and improve the rigor of the social impact assessment of public services.