Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4/2011

01.05.2011 | SOCIETAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA

verfasst von: Claudia Reitinger, Matthias Dumke, Mario Barosevcic, Rafaela Hillerbrand

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 4/2011

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims at spelling out the area of protection (AoP), namely the general concept of human well-being and the impact categories in social life cycle assessment (SLCA). The applicability of the so-called capabilities approach—a concept frequently used for evaluating human lives—is explored. It is shown how the principles of the capabilities approach can be transferred to the impact assessment within SLCA.

Methods

The literature concerning the AoP and the impact assessment has been critically reviewed from an applied philosophy perspective. The capabilities approach has been adopted for defining both the AoP and the impact categories.

Results

The main results are the following: (1) The AoP is defined as autonomy, well-being freedom and fairness; (2) using the dimensions which constitute well-being together with the concept of fairness eight impact categories are proposed: life, knowledge and aesthetic experience, work and play, friendship, self-integration, self-expression, transcendence and fairness itself and (3) by examining the ‘Guide to Social LCA: Methodological Sheets’, it is demonstrated that our proposed framework can be used for structuring the previous work on impact assessment.

Conclusions

The capability approach is one possibility for addressing the question ‘what is of importance in a human life?’ When applied in a practical field, like SLCA, this framework is not only useful for structuring data but also for disclosing our own normative assumptions about what counts as valuable in a human life. Thus, the normative evaluation is more coherent.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
Our framework is not designed for resolving the questions about the appropriate level of analysis for SLCA.
 
2
In other areas of political decision making, this recently has led to a discussion about more sophisticated measures for human well-being. A notable indicator used by the United Nations is the Human Development Index (HDI). This indicator builds upon Sen’s capability approach as it is used in this paper. More sophisticated measurements, however, face the problem, they rely on a huge amount of data, which are often not available or updated.
 
3
This criticism led to the development of other measurement tools, like the HDI or the Gross Happiness Index.
 
4
What a person is actually able to do and to be is of course not only a question of her resources, but hinges on a number of conditions including societal factors, the environment, her biological predispositions, etc.
 
5
For the purpose of evaluating justice, two roles of freedom have to be distinguished: a process aspect and an opportunity aspect. Since we cannot deal with this in detail now, see Sen 2009, 228–232; Sen 1992, 18f.
 
6
Many people value things or actions that have adverse effects on their well-being, e.g., they choose to smoke and risk their health. Therefore, the relation between the full range of action and the actions conducive to a person’s well-being is a topic Sen has repeatedly returned to, contrasting “agency-freedom” with “well-being-freedom” (Sen 2009). The capabilities approach is not from the outset limited to assessing well-being, but takes into account all the functionings a person may have reason to value.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Alkire S (2002a) Dimensions of human development. World Dev 30(2):181–205CrossRef Alkire S (2002a) Dimensions of human development. World Dev 30(2):181–205CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Alkire S (2002b) Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford University Press, New York Alkire S (2002b) Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford University Press, New York
Zurück zum Zitat Benoît C et al (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):156–163CrossRef Benoît C et al (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):156–163CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Comim F, Tsutsumi R, Varea A (2007) Choosing a sustainable consumption: a capability perspective on indicators. J Int Dev 19:493–509CrossRef Comim F, Tsutsumi R, Varea A (2007) Choosing a sustainable consumption: a capability perspective on indicators. J Int Dev 19:493–509CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat De Vries B, Peterson A (2009) Conceptualizing sustainable development: an assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, world views and scenarios. Ecol Econ 68(4):1006–1019CrossRef De Vries B, Peterson A (2009) Conceptualizing sustainable development: an assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, world views and scenarios. Ecol Econ 68(4):1006–1019CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRef Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Finis J, Grisez G, Boyle J (1987) Practical principles, moral truth & ultimate ends. Am J Jurisprud 32:99–151 Finis J, Grisez G, Boyle J (1987) Practical principles, moral truth & ultimate ends. Am J Jurisprud 32:99–151
Zurück zum Zitat Holland B (2008) Justice and the environment in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. Polit Res Q 61(2):319–332CrossRef Holland B (2008) Justice and the environment in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. Polit Res Q 61(2):319–332CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(11):96–103CrossRef Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(11):96–103CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jørgensen A, Lai L, Hauschild M (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):5–16CrossRef Jørgensen A, Lai L, Hauschild M (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):5–16CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159CrossRef Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRef Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Omann I, Rauschmayer F, Frühmann J (2010) Sustainable development: capabilities. Needs and well-being. Taylor & Francis, London Omann I, Rauschmayer F, Frühmann J (2010) Sustainable development: capabilities. Needs and well-being. Taylor & Francis, London
Zurück zum Zitat Ott K, Döring R (2008) Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Metropolis, Marburg Ott K, Döring R (2008) Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Metropolis, Marburg
Zurück zum Zitat Schultz J, Brand F, Kopfmüller J, Ott K (2008) Building a ‚theory of sustainable development’: to salient conceptions within the German discourse. Int J Environ Sust Dev 7(4):465–482CrossRef Schultz J, Brand F, Kopfmüller J, Ott K (2008) Building a ‚theory of sustainable development’: to salient conceptions within the German discourse. Int J Environ Sust Dev 7(4):465–482CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sen A (1992) Development as freedom. Anchor, New York Sen A (1992) Development as freedom. Anchor, New York
Zurück zum Zitat Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Harvard University Press, Harvard Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Harvard University Press, Harvard
Zurück zum Zitat Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Background document for the second working group (WIA-2) on life cycle impact assessment of SETAC-Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74CrossRef Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Background document for the second working group (WIA-2) on life cycle impact assessment of SETAC-Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96CrossRef Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA
verfasst von
Claudia Reitinger
Matthias Dumke
Mario Barosevcic
Rafaela Hillerbrand
Publikationsdatum
01.05.2011
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 4/2011
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0265-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2011

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4/2011 Zur Ausgabe