scholarly journals Sustainability Assessment of Food Redistribution Initiatives in Sweden

Resources ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Bergström ◽  
Christopher Malefors ◽  
Ingrid Strid ◽  
Ole Jørgen Hanssen ◽  
Mattias Eriksson
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Food Industry ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Working Hours ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Financial Losses

Food banks that redistribute surplus food from retailers and the food industry to people in need are not a new concept globally, but their connection to food waste prevention is new. As a result, new types of food redistribution units are emerging and diversifying to find new target groups and distribution methods. The aim of this study was to identify and study surplus food redistribution units in Sweden, and then to assess the impact on several sustainability indicators for selected redistribution units, in order to increase knowledge on the types of values these redistribution concepts generate. The methods used for analyzing the scenarios were Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Costing and Social Life Cycle Assessment. The results showed that providing food bags to socially exposed people generated the largest reduction of greenhouse gas emissions per kg of redistributed food (−1.2 kg CO2 eq./FU). Reprocessing surplus food to a high-quality end-product was attributed a high social value, due to job creation effects in the high number of working hours required per kg of redistributed food. With regard to economic impacts, all but two scenarios studied had monthly financial losses, and therefore needed other sources of financial support.

scholarly journals Are Renewables as Friendly to Humans as to the Environment?: A Social Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Electricity

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shutaro Takeda ◽  
Alexander Keeley ◽  
Shigeki Sakurai ◽  
Shunsuke Managi ◽  
Catherine Norris
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Electricity Production ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Solar Photovoltaic ◽  
Energy Technologies ◽  
Electricity Mix ◽  
The Impact

The adoption of renewable energy technologies in developing nations is recognized to have positive environmental impacts; however, what are their effects on the electricity supply chain workers? This article provides a quantitative analysis on this question through a relatively new framework called social life cycle assessment, taking Malaysia as a case example. Impact assessments by the authors show that electricity from renewables has greater adverse impacts on supply chain workers than the conventional electricity mix: Electricity production with biomass requires 127% longer labor hours per unit-electricity under the risk of human rights violations, while the solar photovoltaic requires 95% longer labor hours per unit-electricity. However, our assessment also indicates that renewables have less impacts per dollar-spent. In fact, the impact of solar photovoltaic would be 60% less than the conventional mix when it attains grid parity. The answer of “are renewables as friendly to humans as to the environment?” is “not-yet, but eventually.”

scholarly journals Sustainability Assessment with Integrated Circular Economy Principles: A Toy Case Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 3856
Author(s):  
Rebeka Kovačič Lukman ◽  
Vasja Omahne ◽  
Damjan Krajnc
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Circular Economy ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Product Life Cycle ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Social Impacts ◽  
Life Cycle Costing ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment

When considering the sustainability of production processes, research studies usually emphasise environmental impacts and do not adequately address economic and social impacts. Toy production is no exception when it comes to assessing sustainability. Previous research on toys has focused solely on assessing environmental aspects and neglected social and economic aspects. This paper presents a sustainability assessment of a toy using environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment. We conducted an inventory analysis and sustainability impact assessment of the toy to identify the hotspots of the system. The main environmental impacts are eutrophication, followed by terrestrial eco-toxicity, acidification, and global warming. The life cycle costing approach examined the economic aspect of the proposed design options for toys, while the social assessment of the alternative designs revealed social impacts along the product life cycle. In addition, different options based on the principles of the circular economy were analysed and proposed in terms of substitution of materials and shortening of transport distances for the toy studied.

scholarly journals Comprehensive Evaluation of the Sustainable Development of Battery Electric Vehicles in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (20) ◽  
pp. 5635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang ◽  
Zhou ◽  
Li ◽  
Wei
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Energy Consumption ◽  
Electric Vehicles ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Battery Electric Vehicles ◽  
The Social

Due to the rapid growth in the total number of vehicles in China, energy consumption and environmental pollution are serious problems. The development of electric vehicles (EVs) has become one of the important measures for solving these problems. As EVs are in a period of rapid development, sustainability research on them is conducive to the timely discovery of—and solution to—problems in the development process, but current research on the sustainability of EVs is still scarce. Based on the strategic development direction of EVs in China, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) were chosen as the research object of this study. The theory and method of the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) were used to study the sustainability of BEVs. Specifically, the indicators of the life cycle assessment (LCA) were constructed, and the GaBi software was used to assess the environmental dimensions. The framework of life cycle costing (LCC) was used to assess the economic dimensions from the perspective of consumers. The indicators of the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) of stakeholders were constructed to assess the social dimension. Then, the method of the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) was selected for multicriteria decision-making in order to integrate the three dimensions. A specific conclusion was drawn from a comparison of BEVs and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). The study found that the life cycle sustainability of ICEVs in China was better than that of BEVs. This result might be unexpected, but there were reasons for it. Through sensitivity analysis, it was concluded that the current power structure and energy consumption in the operation phase of BEVs had a higher environmental impact, and the high cost of batteries and the government subsidy policy had a higher impact on the cost of BEVs. Corresponding suggestions are put forward at the end of the article.

scholarly journals Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rizal Taufiq Fauzi ◽  
Patrick Lavoie ◽  
Luca Sorelli ◽  
Mohammad Davoud Heidari ◽  
Ben Amor
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
Hotspot Analysis ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities

Sustainability decision making is a complex task for policy makers, considering the possible unseen consequences it may entail. With a broader scope covering environmental, economic, and social aspects, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) is a promising holistic method to deal with that complexity. However, to date, this method is limited to the hotspot analysis of a product, service, or system, and hence only assesses direct impacts and overlooks the indirect ones (or consequences). This critical literature review aims to explore the challenges and the research gaps related to the integration of three methods in LCSA representing three pillars of sustainability: (Environmental) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). The challenges and the research gaps that appear when pairing two of these tools with each other are identified and discussed, i.e., the temporal issues, different perspectives, the indirect consequences, etc. Although this study does not aim to remove the shadows in LCSA methods, critical research gaps are identified in order to be addressed in future works. More case studies are also recommended for a deeper understanding of methodological trade-offs that might happen, especially when dealing with the consequential perspective.

scholarly journals Analysis of Worker Category Social Impacts in Different Types of Concrete Plant Operations: A Case Study in South Korea

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 3661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seungjun Roh ◽  
Sungho Tae ◽  
Rakhyun Kim ◽  
Daniela Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Social Impacts ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment

As sustainable development has emerged as a priority on the international agenda, increasing emphasis has been placed on “Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA),” wherein environmental, economic, and social performance are comprehensively integrated. This study, as part of an LCSA approach, uses Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) to analyze the worker category social impact for concrete plants in South Korea. For the analysis, three types of concrete plant with different operating systems were selected and evaluated: Direct operation, operated by dedicated concrete manufacturers, and operated by cement suppliers. Eleven major social topics, which were mentioned in the international standards and international institutes, were selected as the subjects of evaluation; the social impacts were evaluated by applying the evaluative criteria for social topics presented in the Handbook for Product Social Life Cycle Assessment of PRé Sustainability. We determined that the highest social impact was found in concrete plants operated by cement suppliers (0.77), followed by plants operated by dedicated concrete manufacturers (0.50), and finally by plants with direct operations (0.09). These results can be applied by concrete plants to improve worker category areas in which they are lacking and by future researchers to evaluate the sustainable development of a variety of industries.

Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA)

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 1581-1592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annekatrin Lehmann ◽  
Eva Zschieschang ◽  
Marzia Traverso ◽  
Matthias Finkbeiner ◽  
Liselotte Schebek
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Social Aspects

scholarly journals Social Sustainability Assessment in Livestock Production: A Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (16) ◽  
pp. 4419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Rivera-Huerta ◽  
María de la Salud Rubio Lozano ◽  
Alejandro Padilla-Rivera ◽  
Leonor Patricia Güereca
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Social Performance ◽  
Livestock Production ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
The Social ◽  
Significant Difference

This study evaluates the social performance of monoculture (MC), intensive silvopastoral (ISP), and native silvopastoral (NSP) livestock production systems in the tropical region of southeastern Mexico through a social life cycle assessment (SCLA) approach. The methodological framework proposed by the United Nations Environmental Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) (2009) was employed based on a scoring approach with a performance scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to 4 (outstanding). Twelve livestock ranches for calf production were evaluated using 18 impact subcategories associated with the categories “human rights”, “working conditions”, “health and safety”, “socioeconomic repercussions”, and “governance”. The stakeholders evaluated were workers, the local community, society, and value chain actors. The ranches had performance scores between 1.78 (very poor) and 2.17 (poor). The overall average performance of the ranches by production system was 1.98, 1.96, and 1.97 for the MC, ISP, and NSP systems, respectively. The statistical analysis shows that there is no significant difference in the social performance of the livestock production systems. This assessment indicates that the cattle ranches analyzed in Mexico have poor or very poor social performance. The results show that socioeconomic and political contexts exert a greater influence on the social performance of livestock production systems than does their type of technology.

scholarly journals Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1900-1905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Valdivia ◽  
Jana Gerta Backes ◽  
Marzia Traverso ◽  
Guido Sonnemann ◽  
Stefano Cucurachi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Life Cycle Initiative ◽  
Iso 14040 ◽  
Trade Offs

Abstract Purpose and context This 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. Methods The 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. Results For 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 bottle Conclusions In 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.

scholarly journals Critérios para avaliação de modelos de Avaliação de Impacto do Ciclo de Vida Social

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2 esp.) ◽  
pp. 66-81
Author(s):  
Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya ◽  
Alexandre Monteiro Souza ◽  
Sueli Aparecida de Oliveira ◽  
Jaylton Bonacina De Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Spatial Differentiation ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Life Cycle Impact ◽  
The Impact

Modelos de Avaliação de Impacto do Ciclo de Vida Social (AICV-S) podem ser classificados em três tipos, dependendo da forma como o inventário é associado: (I) às partes interessadas; (II) por meio de cadeia de causa-efeito e, (III) com o uso de correlações entre variáveis macroeconômicas. Com o surgimento de modelos, o presente estudo tem como objetivo propor critérios para avaliá-los, baseados na UNEP e SETAC (2009), na JRC (2011) e em Ugaya et al. (2016). Após brainstorming entre os participantes do subgrupo de Avaliação de Impacto do Grupo de Trabalho de Avaliação Social do Ciclo de Vida (GTACV-S), três critérios foram selecionados: a abrangência do escopo (tipo, diferenciação espacial, inclusão de questões temporais, partes interessadas e subcategorias incluídas, robustez científica (reconhecimento pela comunidade internacional, apresentação de cadeia de causa e efeito, transparência e acessibilidade, disponibilidade de fator de caracterização (FC), possibilidade de regionalização e, FC nacional (existência e viabilidade de obtenção). Cada um dos subcritérios foi classificado (melhor, mediano e pior). Por exemplo, para atender o escopo das partes interessadas e subcategorias, o modelo deveria incluir 5 partes interessadas e 31 subcategorias para receber a melhor classificação). Os critérios foram aplicados parcialmente em 6 artigos e os resultados preliminares demonstram que é possível fazer a diferenciação entre os modelos. Como próximos passos, os critérios serão aplicados para outros artigos levantados na revisão sistemática, a partir da qual será recomendado um modelo para AICV-S.  Palavras-chave: Avaliação Social do Ciclo de Vida. Critérios. Avaliação dos Impactos do Ciclo de Vida Social.ResumenLos modelos de análisis de impacto social del ciclo de vida (AICV-S) pueden clasificarse en tres tipos, dependiendo de cómo se asocie el inventario: (I) a las partes interesadas; (II) por medio de cadena de causa-efecto y, (III) con el uso de correlaciones entre variables macroeconómicas. Con el surgimiento de modelos, el presente estudio tiene como objetivo proponer criterios para evaluarlos, basados en UNEP y SETAC (2009), en la JRC (2011) y en Ugaya et al. (2016). Después de brainstorming entre los participantes del subgrupo de Evaluación de Impacto del Grupo de Trabajo de Análisis Social del Ciclo de Vida (GTACV-S), se seleccionaron tres criterios: la cobertura del alcance (tipo de AICV-S, diferenciación espacial, inclusión de cuestiones temporales, partes interesadas y las subcategorías incluidas, robustez científica (reconocimiento por la comunidad internacional, presentación de cadena de causa y efecto, transparencia y accesibilidad, disponibilidad de factor de caracterización (FC), posibilidad de regionalización del FC y, existencia y viabilidad de obtención de FC nacional. Cada uno de los subcriterios fue clasificado (mejor, mediano y peor). Por ejemplo, para atender el alcance de las partes interesadas y subcategorías, el modelo debería incluir 5 partes interesadas y 31 subcategorías para recibir la mejor clasificación). Los criterios se aplicaron parcialmente en 6 artículos y los resultados preliminares demuestran que es posible distinguir entre los modelos. En los próximos pasos, los criterios se aplican a otros modelos.  Palabras clave: Valoración Social del Ciclo de Vida. Criterios. Evaluación del Impacto del Ciclo de Vida Social.AbstractSocial Life Cycle Impact Assessment Models (S-LCIA) may be classified into three types, depending on the linkage of the inventory to impacts: (I) to stakeholders; (II) through cause-effect chains and, (III) through correlations between macroeconomic variables. With the emergence of models, the present study aims to propose criteria to evaluate them, based on UNEP and SETAC (2009), JRC (2011) and Ugaya et al. (2016). A brainstorming was performed involving the participants of the Impact Assessment subgroup of the Working Group on Social Life Cycle Assessment (GTACV-S) which resulted in three criteria: the scope (type of S-LCIA, spatial differentiation, inclusion of temporal aspects, stakeholders and subcategories included, scientific robustness (recognition by the international community, presentation of the cause-effect chain, transparency and accessibility), availability of characterization factor (CF), possibility of regionalization of the CF and the existence and feasibility of obtaining national CF. Each of the subcriteria was classified in three levels (best, medium and worst). For example, to meet the scope of stakeholders and subcategories, the model should include 5 stakeholders and 31 subcategories to receive the best rating. The criteria were applied partially in 6 papers and the preliminary results showed that it is possible to differentiate between the models. As a next step, the criteria will be applied to other.  Keywords: Social Life Cycle Assessment. Criteria. Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document