Arne Wangel

Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments

PurposeIn the recently published ‘Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products’, it is stated that the ultimate objective of developing the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is to promote improvements of social conditions for the stakeholders in the life cycle. This article addresses how the SLCA should be developed so that its use promotes these improvements.MethodsHypotheses of how the use of SLCA can promote improvement of social conditions in the life cycle are formulated, after which theories and empirical findings from relevant fields of research are used to address the validity of these hypotheses.ResultsThree in some cases potentially overlapping SLCA approaches are presented, assumed to create a beneficial effect in the life cycle in different ways. However, empirical and theoretical findings show that the beneficial effects proposed to arise from the use of each of these three approaches may all be problematic. Some of these problems may be mitigated through methodological modifications.ConclusionsGiven the significant problems in relation to creating an effect through the use of the SLCAs, and given the significant practical problems in applying the SLCAs, it is questioned whether the development of SLCA is a fruitful approach for improving social conditions in the product life cycle.

Work in the virtual enterprise—creating identities, building trust, and sharing knowledge

The emergence of the virtual network enterprise represents a dynamic response to the crisis of the vertical bureaucracy type of business organisation. However, its key performance criteria—interconnectedness and consistency—pose tremendous challenges as the completion of the distributed tasks of the network must be integrated across the barriers of missing face-to-face clues and cultural differences. The social integration of the virtual network involves the creation of identities of the participating nodes, the building of trust between them, and the sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge among them. The conventional organisation already doing well in these areas seems to have an edge when going virtual. The paper argues that the whole question of management and control must be reconsidered due to the particular circumstances in the ‘Network Society’. The paper outlines a suggestion for an exploratory, socio-technical research approach combining the dimensions of context, subject and action with the twin objectives of contributing to the enhancement of collaborative capabilities in virtual teams as well as improving the insights into the nature of virtual work.

Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA

The chapter describes how a globalised economy exacerbates the need of a mainstreaming of LCA, in particular the emergence of long, complex and geographically highly dispersed global value chains (GVCs). In documenting the three phases of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, a conventional roadmap for global mainstreaming of LCA is drawn. However, the questioning by some South governments of the rationale and a North methodological bias of LCA draws attention to the significance of national and local contexts in developing countries. The chapter argues a more elaborate concept for building capacity for LCA in developing countries and suggests how to strategize national LCA agendas.

Social Life Cycle Assessment: An Introduction

An expansion of the LCA framework has been going on through the development of ‘social life cycle assessment’—S-LCA. The methodology, still in its infancy, has the goal of assessing social impacts related to a product’s life cycle. This chapter introduces S-LCA framework area and the related challenges. It outlines the main conceptual differences between LCA and S-LCA and discusses the barriers in terms of methodological development and potential application. Three case studies are presented applying S-LCA in different contexts and using varying methods. In the light of the outlined differences, perspectives for the future development of S-LCA are discussed.

Back to basics—the school lunch

PurposeThe effort to develop social life cycle assessment (Social LCA) along the same principles and procedural steps as LCA has met serious challenges when characterizing social impacts as originating from product life cycles and attributing them to unit processes. This article puts the resulting life cycle CSR and its focus on the production phase on hold. It suggests a research design to support consumers in choosing between, e.g. alternative school lunch scenarios, according to their subjective social and cultural values.MethodsInspired by Reverse LCA, the focus of life cycle CSR on the production phase is shifted to the consumer need. Reverse LCA claims that starting with the need will point to alternative innovative systems of products and services to fulfil that need. The assessment to identify the system with the minimal environmental impact can then be established in reverse. The concept of foodscape captures the school lunch as a specific configuration of food products, social practices and values. The concept of human well-being defined by Amartya Sen and elaborated by Martha C. Nussbaum helps to characterize the needs involved in the school lunch. The assessment is performed as action research by the community of stakeholders involved and using an interactive scenario analysis.Results and discussionAs a first step, the outline research design acknowledges that schools embody a distinct and articulate stakeholder community advocating multidimensional needs, the fulfilment of which is continuously evaluated for prioritization and optimization. Second, three preliminary school lunch scenarios are identified. The concept of foodscape is introduced to clarify and characterize dimensions, assumptions and fundamental choices for each scenario. As a third step, stakeholders evaluate and profile each scenario in terms of valuable functionings for human well-being. Furthermore, stakeholders review documentation on environmental and social impacts throughout the earlier stages of the product life cycles involved. The targeted outcome of stakeholders’ negotiation is a decision on a particular configuration, for which an action plan detailing the pathway to the desired school lunch scenario is adopted.ConclusionsThe introduction of the concepts of foodscape and human well-being supports the argument that social LCA needs a strong foundation in social theory for the specific domain to be assessed and for the overall conceptualization of social impacts. Dialogues with social scientists are needed, especially with those who apply a life cycle perspective.