Social life-cycle assessment frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts

In addition to the Guidelines for the social life-cycle assessment of products (S-LCA) (Benoît and Mazijn 2009), there are several other methodological frameworks in this field. In recent S-LCA literature reviews, much attention has been paid to how performances or impacts should be or are measured (i.e., life-cycle impact assessment) in existing S-LCA studies. In this review, we focus on what is measured (i.e., assessment criteria and indicators [C&I]) and on the definition and selection of these C&I.

We conduct a review of existing S-LCA frameworks in order to understand (i) the origin, selection, and applicability of C&I; (ii) the purpose of the assessment and the assessed phenomena as reflected in the indicators; and (iii) the scope of C&I of the topics, life-cycle stages, and stakeholders.

Based on our review, we identify 14 distinct S-LCA frameworks, for which we propose a classification according to the rationale behind the definition and selection of C&I: value-based, context-oriented, theory-structured, impact-based, and applicability-oriented. While authors of the frameworks agree with the purpose of supporting decision-making, the assessed phenomena are quite diverse among the frameworks. However, given the mixed character of the indicators, we cannot draw a clear line between frameworks assessing practices or performances and frameworks assessing effects or impacts. Lastly, our review highlights the uneven coverage of the stakeholder, life-cycle stages and topics in the S-LCA frameworks and confirms that the use stage and the relations between value chain actors receive less attention than the production stage.

Our comparative review not only confirms the diverse nature of S-LCA frameworks but also highlights their specificities, common features, and potential areas for improvement. We encourage the use of assessment criteria that are legitimate and meaningful for stakeholders. In addition, given the S-LCA promise to provide a holistic assessment, the variables included should be envisaged as elements of a product system and that must be branded according to their position in relation to other elements. In addition, we recommend for LCIA the combination of type I and type II assessment, including further research on impact pathways, that could link these meaningful and legitimate criteria with further impacts and related stressors in order to strengthen the capacity of S-LCA to contribute to sustainability management.