Page 101 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

5.1 Introduction 97
assessment. Upham (2000) applied sustainable principles to impact analysis of an LCA, pro-
moting the development of a more general theory. Hunkeler and Rebitzer (2005) pointed out
in The Future of Life Cycle Assessment, published in The International Journal of Life Cycle Assess-
ment, that the perspective of an LCA should be extended to economy and society. Kl€ opffer
et al. (2008) (Weidema, 2006) put forward the technical framework of the LCSA, including
environmental, economic, and social aspects, stating that the framework of the LCSA should
contain the life cycle assessment (LCA), the life cycle cost (LCC) and the social life cycle as-
sessment (S-LCA), which can be expressed as:

LCSA ¼ LCA + LCC + SLCA
The technical framework above makes LCA theory grow from focusing only on energy and
environment analysis to more comprehensive sustainable assessment, including not only
economy, but also social impact aspects. At present, environmental LCA, LCC, and S-LCA
constitute the basis of LCSA (Ciroth and Franze, 2011), but they have different maturity.
The environmental LCA, traditional ISO LCA, has improved gradually, becoming almost ma-
ture. The ecologically based LCA, Eco-LCA, mainly considers the impact of ecosystem prod-
ucts and services (such as water, mineral substance, carbon sequestration, etc.) on economic
activity. The analyses on material flow and energy flow are common methods for LCA to an-
alyze matter, materials, and energy (Zhang et al., 2010). The economic LCA was introduced
by the concept of the life cycle cost theory and was self-fulfilling. For example, Desmond
(2002) analyzed the life cycle cost of cars by using LCC method. The LCC method takes cur-
rency flows, like matter and energy flows, into consideration and structures cost according to
life cycle stages and stakeholder, providing key economic indicators of evaluation system
(Swarr et al., 2011).
Compared to LCC, S-LCA is still in its infancy. van Schooten et al. (2003) (Becker and
Vanclay, 2003) proposed that evaluation would be impacted by society. The United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) suggested integrating the social criterion into traditional LCA
method. Labuschagne et al. (Brent and Labuschagne, 2006) showed a sustainability method to
evaluate projects and technologies used in processing industry, called social impact indica-
tors. Grießhammer et al. (2006) first issued feasibility analysis of S-LCA. Geibler et al. (2006)
(Brent and Labuschagne, 2006) advised that S-LCA should consist of eight indicators: health
and safety, work conditions and quality, employment impact, education and training, knowl-
edge management, innovation potential, customer acceptance and social benefits, and social
dialogue. Norris (2006) showed life cycle attributes assessment (LCAA), the main idea of
which involves putting a social responsibility certification system into an environmental life
cycle assessment inventory and using an environmental inventory structure to evaluate social
factor. Andrews et al. (2009) made social life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of products of
Canadian greenhouse tomato, using LCAA method, which showed that the social life cycle
impact assessment can help greenhouse tomato production enterprises to fulfil their social
responsibility. Benoıˆt et al. (2010) issued an S-LCA guide and pointed out that social impact
assessment should make analysis from five major stakeholders: workers/employees, com-
munity, society (at the national and global levels), consumers, and value chain actors. The
S-LCA guide posed questions in life cycle social impact assessment and gave solutions of
these questions at the same time, becoming the main reference for evaluation of social im-
pacts. However, additional studies are still needed in methodological and practical aspects.