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
Review

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

by 1,*, 2 and 1
1
Centre for Global Change & Earth Observations, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
2
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.
Sustainability 2014, 6(7), 4200-4226; https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200
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)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: SLCA; review; social life cycle impact assessment; UNEP/SETAC guidelines SLCA; review; social life cycle impact assessment; UNEP/SETAC guidelines
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Wu, R.; Yang, D.; Chen, J. Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4200-4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200

AMA Style

Wu R, Yang D, Chen J. Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited. Sustainability. 2014; 6(7):4200-4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Ruqun, Dan Yang, and Jiquan Chen. 2014. "Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited" Sustainability 6, no. 7: 4200-4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200

Find Other Styles

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop