1 Introduction
1.1 Social life cycle assessment, a methodological description
UNEP/SETAC Guidelines | Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) |
---|---|
Local community | Local community |
Delocalisation and migration | |
Community engagement | Community engagement |
Cultural heritage | |
Respect of indigenous rights | |
Local employment | Employment and skill development |
Access to immaterial resources | |
Access to material resources | Access to tangible resources |
Safe and healthy living conditions | Health and safety |
Secure living conditions | |
Consumer | User |
Health and safety | Health |
Safety | |
Feedback mechanism | |
Privacy | Privacy |
Transparency | Responsible communication |
End-of-life responsibility | |
Inclusiveness | |
Effectiveness and comfort | |
Worker | Worker |
Freedom of association and collective bargaining | Freedom of association and collective bargaining |
Child labour | Child labour |
Fair salary | Remuneration |
Hours of work | Work-life balance |
Forced labour | Forced labour |
Equal opportunities/discrimination | Discrimination |
Health and safety | Health and safety |
Social benefit/social security | |
Value chain actors | Small-scale entrepreneurs |
Fair competition | Fair trading relationships |
Respect of intellectual property rights | Land rights |
Supplier relationships | |
Promoting social responsibility | |
Women’s empowerment | |
Child labour | |
Health and safety | |
Access to services and inputs | |
Meeting basic needs | |
Society | |
Public commitment to sustainability issues | |
Prevention and mitigation of conflicts | |
Contribution to economic development | |
Corruption | |
Technology development |
UNEP/SETAC Guidelines | Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) |
---|---|
Consumer | User |
Health and Safety | Health |
Quality of or number of information/signs on product health and safety (quantitative, semi-quantitative) | There is solid science-based evidence that normal use of the product enables and significantly contributes to an improved health condition for user in comparison to alternative solutions (scale-based) |
Presence of consumer complaints (at national, sectorial or organisational level) (quantitative, semi-quantitative) | The company has a dossier or other evidence that shows how the product or service has been designed to create a maximum contribution to health of the user and, if applicable, encourage a healthy lifestyle (scale-based) |
Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes concerning health and safety impacts of products and services and type of outcomes (quantitative, semi-quantitative, qualitative) | The product or service conforms to all national requirements in the markets where the product is offered (scale-based) |
Number of consumer complaints (quantitative/semi-quantitative) | The normal use of the product has negative health impacts on the long run (scale-based) |
Presence of management measures to assess consumer health and safety (qualitative) | Any use of the product has direct negative health impacts on short and long terms (scale-based) |
Quality of labels of health and safety requirements (qualitative/semi-quantitative) | The company or facility has continuous user-facing education in place to raise awareness and educate users on health-related issues associated with the product (scale-based) |
Safety | |
There is solid science-based evidence that normal use of the product is safer for active or passive users than alternative solutions and that the product or service eliminates a risk in common products and services used for the same purpose (scale-based) | |
The company has a dossier or other evidence that shows how the product or service has been designed to create maximum safety for active and passive users (scale-based) | |
The product conforms to all national requirements regarding product safety (scale-based) | |
The normal use of the product or services can cause higher risks compared to alternative solutions (scale-based) | |
Any use of the product can be regarded as unsafe (scale-based) | |
The company has user-facing programmes in place to raise awareness and educate users on safety risks associated with the product (scale-based) | |
Feedback mechanism | |
Presence of feedback mechanisms (e.g. after sale services) (by organisation or sector/country) (quantitative, qualitative and semi-quantitative) | |
Number of consumer complaints at the sector level (quantitative, qualitative and semi-quantitative) | |
Presence of a mechanism for customers to provide feedback (quantitative, qualitative and semi-quantitative) | |
Management measures to improve feedback mechanisms (quantitative, qualitative and semi-quantitative) | |
Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction (quantitative, qualitative and semi-quantitative) | |
Privacy | Privacy |
Country ranking related to regulations on data-sharing (semi-quantitative) | The company has a policy to protect user data privacy (scale-based) |
Country ranking related to strength of laws protecting privacy against organisations and government (semi-quantitative) | The company shares or sells one or more types of sensitive private data without user consent and without transparency that it does so (scale-based) |
Country ranking related to the strength of regulatory powers to investigate privacy-related complaints (semi-quantitative) | The company uses and processes one or more types of sensitive private data without user consent and without giving users access to the content of that data and the purposes for which it is used (scale-based) |
Strength of internal management system to protect consumer privacy, in general (qualitative or semi-quantitative) | The way private data are used complies with the local law in the jurisdiction where the product or service is offered (scale-based) |
Number of consumer complaints related to breach of privacy or loss of data within the last year (quantitative) | If no regulation exists, the company or facility does not collect, process and share sensitive data, or the company does not store, (re)sell or use any privacy-related data (scale-based) |
Number of complaints by regulatory bodies related to breach of consumer privacy or loss of data within the last year (quantitative) | The company has a PDCA process in place to exceed the minimum legal standard and to actively rise above the requirements (scale-based) |
The company has established a grievance mechanism (scale-based) | |
The company does not get any revenue from (re)selling personal data to other entities (scale-based) | |
The company’s commitments are publicly available (scale-based) | |
Transparency | Responsible communication |
Presence of a law or norm regarding transparency (by country and/or sector) (semi-quantitative/qualitative) | The product is labelled according to the regulations in the country of sale (scale-based) |
Sector transparency rating; number of organisations by sector which published a sustainability report (quantitative/semi-quantitative/qualitative) | The company has a responsible communication policy (scale-based) |
Non-compliance with regulations regarding transparency (semi-quantitative/qualitative) | A grievance mechanism is in place to enable feedback from users (scale-based) |
Consumer complaints regarding transparency (semi-quantitative/qualitative) | No incidents of misleading communication have been found in the last year (scale-based) |
Publication of a sustainability report (semi-quantitative/qualitative) | The company adheres to commonly accepted principles (scale-based) |
Quality and comprehensiveness of the information available in the sustainability report or other documents regarding the social and environmental performance of the organisation (qualitative) | The communication by the company and its resellers is deliberately designed to avoid misleading claims (scale-based) |
Communication of the results of social and environmental life cycle impact assessment (semi-quantitative/qualitative) | Claims made in marketing and product documentation that the product or its use supports a more sustainable lifestyle are all backed up with science-based evidence, 3rd-party market research or research following international and national standards. The evidence is publicly available and easy to access for all users and potential users (scale-based) |
Certification/label the organisation obtained for the product/site (semi-quantitative/qualitative) | A mechanism in place to engage in dialogues with users and consumers (scale-based) |
Company rating in sustainability indices (Dow Jones Sustainability Index, FTSE4Good, ESI, HSBC, Corporate Sustainability Index, etc.) (semi-quantitative/qualitative) | |
End-of-life responsibility | |
Strength of national legislation covering product disposal and recycling (semi-quantitative) | |
Do internal management systems ensure that clear information is provided to consumers on end-of-life options (if applicable)? (Semi-quantitative) | |
Annual incidents of non-compliance with regulatory labelling requirements (quantitative) | |
Inclusiveness | |
The company has a policy to design and market a product or service with an objective to improve affordability and accessibility (scale-based) | |
The solution offered by the company is designed in such a way that it does not hinder or improve the access and use of an essential product or service by vulnerable groups (scale-based) | |
The solution offered by the company is designed and marketed to give access to essential products and services to all users/to the most vulnerable groups/an income class that would not otherwise be able to afford it (scale-based) | |
The company offers products and services at lower cost than the traditional solutions (scale-based) | |
The solution offered by the company is not accessible or useable by vulnerable people, even though these groups could really benefit from having access (scale-based) | |
Effectiveness and comfort | |
The product is best in class in terms of effectiveness, efficiency or comfort (scale-based) | |
The product or service solution performs average in terms of effectiveness or comfort or does not affect it compared to standard solutions (scale-based) | |
The product or service solution makes users less effective or comfortable compared to standard solutions (scale-based) | |
The product or service solution contributes to ineffectiveness or discomfort (scale-based) | |
The company has a dossier or other evidence that shows how the product or service has been designed to maximise effectiveness, efficiency or comfort (scale-based) | |
There is science-based evidence or 3rd-party market research that the offered product and service solution makes the user or use much more effective or comfortable compared to standard solutions (scale-based) |
1.2 Mobility services in the context of S-LCA and use phase assessment
2 Methods
-
(LCA OR ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ OR ‘Life-cycle assessment’ OR ‘Life-cycle-assessment’) AND ‘Mobility’ AND ‘Mobility Service*’
-
(LCA OR ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ OR ‘Life-cycle assessment’ OR ‘Life-cycle-assessment’) AND ‘Sustainable City’
-
(LCA OR ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ OR ‘Life-cycle assessment’ OR ‘Life-cycle-assessment’) AND ‘City’ AND ‘Indicator*’
-
(‘Social life cycle assessment’ OR ‘Social LCA’ OR ‘S-LCA’) AND ‘Mobility’ AND ‘Mobility Service*’
-
(‘Social life cycle assessment’ OR ‘Social LCA’ OR ‘S-LCA’) AND ‘Sustainable City’
-
(‘Social life cycle assessment’ OR ‘Social LCA’ OR ‘S-LCA’) AND ‘City’ AND ‘Indicator*’
-
(‘Sustainable urban mobility’) AND (‘Social indicator*’)
-
(‘Social sustainability’) AND (‘transportation systems’)
-
(‘Sustainable urban transportation’) AND (‘social indicator*’)
Author | Year | Focus area | Title |
---|---|---|---|
Ameen and Mourshed | Cities | Urban sustainability assessment framework development: the ranking and weighting of Iraqi indicators using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) | |
Anisurrahman and Alshuwaikhat | Cities | Determining sustainability assessment indicators for the Holy City of Makkah, Saudi Arabia | |
Aparcana and Salhofer | Others | Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries | |
Azami et al. | Cities | Recognition of urban unsustainability in Iran | |
Bandeira et al. | Transportation systems | A fuzzy multi-criteria model for evaluating sustainable urban freight transportation operations | |
Bui et al. | Others | Proposal of an indicator-based sustainability assessment framework for the mining sector of APEC economies | |
de Oliveira Cavalcanti et al. | Cities | Sustainability of urban mobility projects in the Curitiba metropolitan region | |
Choon et al. | Cities | A sustainable city index for Malaysia | |
Ding et al. | Cities | An inclusive model for assessing the sustainability of cities in developing countries | |
Dizdaroglu and Yigitcanlar | Neighbourhoods | A parcel-scale assessment tool to measure sustainability through urban ecosystem components: the MUSIX model | |
Dur et al. | Neighbourhoods | A spatial-indexing model for measuring neighbourhood-level land-use and transport integration | |
Feleki et al. | Cities | Characterisation of sustainability in urban areas: an analysis of assessment tools with emphasis on European cities | |
Fouda and Elkhazendar | Cities | A criterion for modelling the ‘live-and-work’ city index using sustainable development indicators | |
Gonzalez-Garcia et al. | Cities | Assessing the sustainability of Spanish cities considering environmental and socio-economic indicators | |
Haghshenas and Vaziri | Cities | Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison | |
Harijani et al. | Others | A multi-objective model for sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste | |
Hély and Antoni | Cities | Combining indicators for decision making in planning issues: a theoretical approach to perform sustainability assessment | |
Jasti and Ram | Transportation systems | Integrated performance assessment and service level benchmarking of urban bus system using fuzzy logic | |
Kawakubo et al. | Cities | Sustainability assessment of cities: SDGs and GHG emissions | |
Laprise et al. | Neighbourhoods | An operational monitoring tool facilitating the transformation of urban brownfields into sustainable neighbourhoods | |
Li and Li | Cities | Assessing urban sustainability using a multi-scale, theme-based indicator framework: a case study of the Yangtze River Delta region, China | |
Lu et al. | Neighbourhoods | Measuring sustainability at the community level: an overview of China’s indicator system on National Demonstration Sustainable Communities | |
Lu et al. | Cities | Sustainability investigation of resource-based cities in north-eastern China | |
Mansourianfar and Haghshenas | Infrastructure or building projects | Micro-scale sustainability assessment of infrastructure projects on urban transportation systems: case study of Azadi district, Isfahan, Iran | |
Mapar et al. | Cities | Sustainability indicators for municipalities of megacities: integrating health, safety and environmental performance | |
Miller et al. | Transportation systems | Analysing the sustainability performance of public transit | |
Onat et al. | Transportation systems | Towards life cycle sustainability assessment of alternative passenger vehicles | |
Opher et al. | Others | Comparative life cycle sustainability assessment of urban water reuse at various centralization scales | |
Oregi et al. | Neighbourhoods | Sustainability assessment of three districts in the city of Donostia through the NEST simulation tool | |
Oses et al. | Transportation systems | A multidisciplinary sustainability index to assess transport in urban areas: a case study of Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain | |
Oswald Beiler and Mohammed | Transportation systems | Exploring transportation equity: development and application of a transportation justice framework | |
Papoutsis et al. | Transportation systems | Sustainability assessment of retail logistics solutions using external costs analysis: a case-study for the city of Antwerp | |
Phillis et al. | Cities | Urban sustainability assessment and ranking of cities | |
Rajak et al. | Transportation systems | Sustainable transportation systems performance evaluation using fuzzy logic | |
Rajaonson and Tanguay | Cities | A sensitivity analysis to methodological variation in indicator-based urban sustainability assessment: a Quebec case study | |
Reisi et al. | Cities | Transport sustainability index: Melbourne case study | |
Robati et al. | Cities | Urban environment quality assessment by using composite index model | |
Saleem et al. | Infrastructure or building projects | Life cycle thinking–based selection of building facades | |
Shi et al. | Cities | Temporal changes in sustainable development level for Lijiang City | |
Shmelev and Shmeleva | Cities | Global urban sustainability assessment: a multidimensional approach | |
Stender and Walter | Infrastructure or building projects | The role of social sustainability in building assessment | |
Tan et al. | Cities | A system dynamics model for simulating urban sustainability performance: a China case study | |
Ustaoglu et al. | Infrastructure or building projects | Scenario analysis of alternative land development patterns for the Leipzig-Halle region: implications for transport-land-use sustainability | |
Verseckiene et al. | Transportation systems | Evaluation of alternatives to integrate special transportation services for people with movement disorders | |
Wey and Huang | Transportation systems | Urban sustainable transportation planning strategies for liveable city’s quality of life | |
Wu et al. | Cities | Examining component-based city health by implementing a fuzzy evaluation approach | |
Xu and Coors | Neighbourhoods | Combining system dynamics model, GIS and 3D visualization in sustainability assessment of urban residential development | |
Yi et al. | Cities | Assessment of city sustainability using MCDM with interdependent criteria weight | |
Yigitcanlar et al. | Neighbourhoods | Towards prosperous sustainable cities: a multiscalar urban sustainability assessment approach | |
Zheng et al. | Neighbourhoods | Neighborhood sustainability in urban renewal: an assessment framework | |
Zope et al. | Transportation systems | Benchmarking: a tool for evaluation and monitoring sustainability of urban transport system in metropolitan cities of India |
3 Results and discussion
Author | Year | Focus area | Local community | Consumers | Worker | Value chain actors | Society |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ameen and Mourshed | Cities | 12 d | 11 d | 2 d | 11 d | ||
Anisurrahman and Alshuwaikhat | Cities | 3 s | 3 s | 8 s | |||
Aparcana and Salhofer | Others | 26 s | |||||
Azami et al. | Cities | 2 q | 1 q | 4 q | |||
Bandeira et al. | Transportation systems | 3 q | 1 q | 1 q | |||
Bui et al. | Others | 5 q | 3 q | ||||
de Oliveira Cavalcanti et al. | Cities | 4 q | 8 q | 1 q | |||
Choon et al. | Cities | 3 q | 2 q | 6 q | |||
Ding et al. | Cities | 2 n.i. | 2 n.i. | 1 n.i. | |||
Dizdaroglu and Yigitcanlar | Neighborhoods | 3 q | 1 q | ||||
Dur et al. | Neighborhoods | 9 q | 9 q | 1 q | |||
Feleki et al. | Cities | 8 q | 2 q | 1 q | |||
Fouda and Elkhazendar | Cities | 9 q | 4q | 11 q | |||
Gonzalez-Garcia et al. | Cities | 2 q | 2 q | 4 q | |||
Haghshenas and Vaziri | Cities | 2 q | 4 q | ||||
Harijani et al. | Others | 4 d | 1 d | 1 d | 1 d | ||
Hély and Antoni | Cities | 5 d | 3 d | ||||
Jasti and Ram | Transportation systems | 1 q, 1 n.i. | 8 q, 1 n.i. | ||||
Kawakubo et al. | Cities | 7 q | 1 q | 14 q | |||
Laprise et al. | Neighborhoods | 19 s | 5 s | 5 s | |||
Li and Li et al. | Cities | 6 q | 2 q | 2 q | |||
Lu et al. | Neighborhoods | 4 q | 7 q | ||||
Lu et al. | Cities | 6 q | 3 q | ||||
Mansourianfar and Haghshenas | Infrastructure or building projects | 5 q | 2 q | ||||
Mapar et al. | Cities | 9 n.i. | 7 n.i. | 3 n.i. | 3 n.i. | 15 n.i. | |
Miller et al. | Transportation systems | 5 q | 9 q | ||||
Onat et al. | Transportation systems | 3 q | 2 q | 1 q | |||
Opher et al. | Others | 1 q, 2 d | 2 q, 4 d | 1 q, 1 d | |||
Oregi et al. | Neighborhoods | 3 s | 2 s | 3 s | |||
Oses et al. | Transportation systems | 4 q | 3 q | 1 q | |||
Oswald Beiler and Mohammed | Transportation systems | 1 q | 3 q | 2 q | |||
Papoutsis et al. | Transportation systems | 5 q | 3 q | ||||
Phillis et al. | Cities | 6 q | 1 q | 16 q | |||
Rajak et al. | Transportation systems | 1 q, 7 n.i. | 3 q, 8 n.i. | 2 q, 2 n.i. | |||
Rajaonson and Tanguay | Cities | 5 q | 1 q | 7 q | |||
Reisi et al. | Cities | 2 q | 3 q | 1 q | |||
Robati et al. | Cities | 2 q | 1 q | 2 q | |||
Saleem et al. | Infrastructure or building projects | 1 q | |||||
Shi et al. | Cities | 3 q | 3 q | ||||
Shmelev and Shmeleva | Cities | 3 q | |||||
Stender and Walter | Infrastructure or building projects | 3 d | |||||
Tan et al. | Cities | 4 q | 1 q | 4 q | |||
Ustaoglu et al. | Infrastructure or building projects | 3 n.i. | 9 n.i. | ||||
Verseckiene et al. | Transportation systems | 2 q | 1 q, 6 n.i. | 1 q | |||
Wey and Huang | Transportation systems | 2 q | 3 q | 1 q | |||
Wu et al. | Cities | 8 q | 2 q | 5 q | |||
Xu and Coors | Neighborhoods | 2 q | 1 q | 5 q | |||
Yi et al. | Cities | 4 q | 4 q | ||||
Yigitcanlar et al. | Neighborhoods | 4 q | 7 q | ||||
Zheng et al. | Neighborhoods | 7 q | 2 q | 8 q | |||
Zope et al. | Transportation systems | 2 q | 4 q | 2 q |
Category | Frequency in % | Indicator | Type of indicator | Data availability |
---|---|---|---|---|
Local community | ||||
Public space | 29 | Public access to open space | Quantitative | 2 |
Green space area in m2/total number of population | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Green areas availability | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Ratio green coverage of built-up areas | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Per capita park green area | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Harmony with the surroundings | Qualitative | 1 | ||
Proximity to green spaces | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Coverage of public green space in built area | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Averaged green space per resident (m2 per capita) | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Land use change | n.i. | 1 | ||
Land use mix | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Air quality | 23 | Concentration of air pollutant gases and particulates in microgram/m3 | Quantitative | 3 |
Particulate matter formation potential (PMFP) based on ReCiPe | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Number of days with exceeded thresholds for monitored concentrations of SO2, NO2, CO, O3, PM10 and PM2.5 | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Average annual emissions of NO2 | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Total health/medical costs, crop losses, building damages, etc., caused by the impacts of air pollution | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Emission intensity of air pollutants (SO2, CO, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5)/km | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Emissions of particles per year (%) | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Air quality index | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Mortality effects of air pollutants | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Actions to reduce air pollutant emissions | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Local employment | 16 | Creating job opportunities | Qualitative | 1 |
Maintenance work hours | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Number of employees | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Proportion of work carried out by local companies | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Jobs availability | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Disposable income of urban residents | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Unemployment rate | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Noise pollution | 12 | % area inhabited exposed to traffic noise pollution greater than 65 dB | Quantitative | 1 |
Exposure to noise level above 65 dB in m2 | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Percent of noise pollution exceeding national standard (%) | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Average emissions of noise | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Noise complaint cases | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Community engagement | 8 | Reclamation system | Qualitative | 2 |
Participatory process | Qualitative | 2 | ||
Social cohesion | Qualitative | 1 | ||
Local residents participation in planning process | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Stakeholder consultation | Qualitative | 2 | ||
Degree of population participation | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Degree of information access | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Degree of integration of an evaluation process | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Existence of a direct participation structure | Qualitative | 2 | ||
Existence of quick response system | Qualitative | 2 | ||
Space occupancy | 7 | Space occupancy in m2 | Quantitative | 2 |
Land consumption in m2 | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Green space destruction | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Land area consumed by transit facilities | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Per capita area of paved roads | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Portion of land paved for transport facilities | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Surface for transportation infrastructure | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Citizens satisfaction | 2 | Social acceptance | Qualitative | 1 |
Total number of complaints | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Total number of citizens satisfied with their local area | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Other | 3 | Light pollution | Semi-quantitative | 1 |
Degree of prevention of light emissions | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Impact on non-motorised transport | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Consumers | ||||
Accessibility | 41 | Number of transport points within the study area | Quantitative | 1 |
Number of passengers | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Transport diversity/integration | n.i. | 1 | ||
Public transport to work (%) | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Length of mass transport network | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Public transport service availability | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Bicycle path availability | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Improvement in the connectivity | Qualitative | 1 | ||
Diversity of transport modes | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Road density | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Kilometres of total rail lines | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Public transit ridership (% of transit commuters) | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Passenger vehicle kilometres | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Safety | 25 | Quality of products | Qualitative | 1 |
Security by design | Qualitative | 1 | ||
Protection from high temperatures and sunlight | Qualitative | 1 | ||
Fatal and non-fatal traffic accidents | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Average crash frequency | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Degree of security | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Mortality rate | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Accidents rate | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Safe pedestrian pathways | n.i. | 1 | ||
Safe urban road networks | n.i. | 1 | ||
Safety for elderly and disabled people | n.i. | 1 | ||
Convenience | 11 | Supply reliability | Qualitative | 1 |
Ventilation potential | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Daylight availability | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Thermal comfort | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Smart and appropriate location | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Transport performance | Qualitative | 1 | ||
Quality of service | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Punctuality of deliveries | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Traffic congestion | n.i. | 1 | ||
Inclusiveness | 7 | Inclusive design (ageing and disabled) | Qualitative | 1 |
Adaptation for social inclusion | Qualitative | 1 | ||
Potential of social diversity | Semi-qualitative | 1 | ||
Degree of universal access | Semi-qualitative | 1 | ||
Affordability | 7 | Household expenses on transportation | Quantitative | 2 |
Travel costs | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Costs for public transport services | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Other | 9 | Average duration of travel to work | Quantitative | 1 |
Intermodal terminals | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Commuting distance | Quantitative | 1 | ||
Worker | ||||
Health and safety | 53 | Human health-DALY-the number of years lost due to disability, illness or early death | Quantitative | 2 |
Number of fatal and non-fatal injuries | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Damage to worker | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Work environment | Semi-quantitative | 1 | ||
Occupational accidents | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Occupational diseases | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Number of fatalities at work per year | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Compensated occupational problems | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Appropriate working equipment | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Vaccination for workers | Quantitative | 2 | ||
Fair salary | 13 | The compensation of employees, wages and salaries | Quantitative | 3 |
Minimum income according to legal framework | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Regular payment for the workers | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Training and education | 9 | Existence of educational programmes for self-development | Semi-quantitative | 2 |
No school absence of children | Semi-quantitative | 3 | ||
Discrimination | 6 | Formal policy against discrimination | Semi-quantitative | 2 |
Equality and diversity | n.i. | 1 | ||
Child labour | 3 | No child labour | Semi-quantitative | 2 |
Freedom of association and collective bargaining | 3 | Presence of collective bargaining | Semi-quantitative | 2 |
Work-life balance | 3 | Fulfilment of overtime agreed in working contracts | Semi-quantitative | 2 |
Other | 9 | Willingness to continue working in the same company or sector | Semi-quantitative | 2 |
Work satisfaction | Semi-quantitative | 3 | ||
Willingness to be trained regarding the work activities | Semi-quantitative | 4 | ||
Value chain actors | ||||
Supplier relationships | 100 | Supplier relationships | Semi-quantitative | 2 |
Society | ||||
Health | 63 | CO2 emissions | Quantitative | 3 |
CO2-eq emissions | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Greenhouse gases | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Acidification potential | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Eutrophication | Quantitative | 3 | ||
Urban development | 25 | Existence of urban development plans | Qualitative | 1 |
Compatibility with local urban mobility policies | Semi-quantitative | 2 | ||
Tax income | 13 | Taxes per km | Quantitative | 1 |
Category | Indicator | Description | Calculation formula and performance indicators | Reference scale | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Local community | |||||
Public space | Green and open space per capita | Measures park green area and open space in relation to the total number of inhabitants | \( \mathrm{Green}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{open}\ \mathrm{space}=\frac{\mathrm{Park}\ \mathrm{green}\ \mathrm{area}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{open}\ \mathrm{space}\ \left({\mathrm{m}}^2\right)}{\mathrm{Number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{inhabitants}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Robati et al. (2015) Lu et al. (2017) Fouda and Elkhazendar (2019) |
Air quality | Emission intensity of NOx | Measures the emission intensity of NOx per passenger kilometre | \( \mathrm{Emission}\ \mathrm{intensity}\ {\mathrm{NO}}_x=\frac{{\mathrm{NO}}_x\ \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Miller et al. (2016) Bandeira et al. (2018) |
Emission intensity of PM10 | Measures the emission intensity of PM10 per passenger kilometre | \( \mathrm{Emission}\ \mathrm{intensity}\ {\mathrm{PM}}_{10}=\frac{{\mathrm{PM}}_{10}\ \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Xu and Coors (2012) Zope et al. (2019) | |
Emission intensity of PM2,5 | Measures the emission intensity of PM2,5 per passenger kilometre | \( \mathrm{Emission}\ \mathrm{intensity}\ {\mathrm{PM}}_{2.5}=\frac{{\mathrm{PM}}_{2.5}\ \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Kawakubo et al. (2018) | |
Emission intensity of SO2 | Measures the emission intensity of SO2 per passenger kilometre | \( \mathrm{Emission}\ \mathrm{intensity}\ {\mathrm{SO}}_2=\frac{{\mathrm{SO}}_2\ \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Xu and Coors (2012) Bandeira et al. (2018) | |
Employment | Percentage of employees hired | Measures the percentage of employees that are hired during the study period | \( \mathrm{Job}\ \mathrm{creation}=\frac{\mathrm{Number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{employees}\ \mathrm{hired}}{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{employees}}\times 100 \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Bui et al. (2017) |
Percentage of employees hired locally | Measures the percentage of employees that are hired locally during the study period | \( \mathrm{Local}\ \mathrm{job}\ \mathrm{creation}=\frac{\mathrm{Number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{employees}\ \mathrm{hired}\ \mathrm{locally}}{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{employees}\ \mathrm{hired}}\times 100 \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Fouda and Elkhazendar (2019) | |
Noise pollution | Noise pollution greater than 65 dB | Measures the percentage of inhabited area that is exposed to traffic noise pollution greater than 65 dB | \( \mathrm{Noise}\ \mathrm{pollution}=\frac{\mathrm{Inhabited}\ \mathrm{area}\ \mathrm{with}\ \mathrm{noise}\ \mathrm{pollution}>65\ \mathrm{dB}\ \mathrm{in}\ {\mathrm{m}}^2}{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{study}\ \mathrm{area}\ \mathrm{in}\ {\mathrm{m}}^2}\times 100 \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Mansourianfar and Haghshenas (2018) Fouda and Elkhazendar (2019) |
Average emissions of noise | Measures the hindrance of population by traffic noise pollution greater than 65 dB per passenger kilometre based on a weighting factor for population density | \( \mathrm{Noise}\ \mathrm{index}=\frac{\mathrm{Area}>65\ \mathrm{dB}\ \mathrm{in}\ {\mathrm{cm}}^2\times \mathrm{MWF}}{\mathrm{MWF}\ \left[\mathrm{study}\ \mathrm{area}\right]\times \mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) MWF is the measurement weight factor (depending on population density of the area, considering 12 density classes) MWF [study area] = MWF according to inhabitants/ha in study area | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Oses et al. (2017) | |
Community engagement | Degree of population participation | The extent to which the company or facility engages with community stakeholders through ongoing open dialogue and responds to their concerns and inquiries fairly and promptly, to continuously foster greater trust and relationship with the local community | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 58. | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 58 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Space occupancy | Infrastructure efficiency | Measures the amount of direct and indirect space occupied by mobility mode i in relation to passenger kilometre Direct: fast transit roads, other roads, cycle lanes, railways Indirect: open parking, private parking, stations, service area and petrol stations | \( \mathrm{Infrastructure}\ \mathrm{efficiency}=\frac{\mathrm{Direct}+\mathrm{Indirect}\ \mathrm{space}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{mobility}\ \mathrm{mode}\ \mathrm{i}\ \left[{\mathrm{m}}^2\right]}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Miller et al. (2016) |
Infrastructure space occupancy | Measures the amount of direct and indirect space occupied by mobility mode i in relation to the total study area Direct: fast transit roads, other roads, cycle lanes, railways Indirect: open parking, private parking, stations, service area and petrol stations | \( \mathrm{Infrastructure}\ \mathrm{space}\ \mathrm{occupancy}=\frac{\mathrm{Direct}+\mathrm{Indirect}\ \mathrm{space}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{mobility}\ \mathrm{mode}\ \mathrm{i}\ \left[{\mathrm{m}}^2\right]}{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{study}\ \mathrm{area}\ \left[{\mathrm{m}}^2\right]} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Wey and Huang (2018) | |
Space occupancy in relation to green and open space | Measures the space that is occupied by mobility mode i (excluding infrastructure) in relation to green and open space in the respective city | \( \mathrm{Space}\ \mathrm{occupancy}=\frac{\mathrm{Space}\ \mathrm{occupancy}\ \left({\mathrm{m}}^2\right)}{\mathrm{Park}\ \mathrm{green}\ \mathrm{area}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{open}\ \mathrm{space}\ \left({\mathrm{m}}^2\right)} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Mansourianfar and Haghshenas (2018) | |
Consumers | |||||
Accessibility | Number of transport points | Measures the number of transport points (e.g. bus stations or car-sharing cars) within the study area | \( \mathrm{Accessibility}\ \left[1\right]=\frac{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{transport}\ \mathrm{points}}{\mathrm{study}\ \mathrm{area}\ \left[\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{m}}^2\right]} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Zheng et al. (2017) |
Number of passengers | Measures the total number of passengers per mobility mode i | Accessibility [2] = total number of passengers per mobility mode | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Yigitcanlar et al. (2015) | |
Safety | Fatal and non-fatal traffic accidents | Measures the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents per mobility mode i in relation to passenger kilometre | \( \mathrm{Safety}=\frac{\mathrm{Number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{fatal}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{fatal}\ \mathrm{accidents}}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Choon et al. (2011) Xu and Coors (2012) Oswald Beiler and Mohammed (2016) |
Convenience | Punctuality of deliveries | Measures the punctuality of the different mobility modes with a 3-min tolerance | \( \mathrm{Punctuality}=\frac{\mathrm{Number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{punctual}\ \mathrm{trips}\ \mathrm{within}\ \mathrm{a}\ 3\hbox{-} \min\ \mathrm{tolerance}}{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{trips}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Jasti and Ram (2018) Miller et al. (2016) |
Inclusiveness | Inclusive design (ageing and disabled) | Measures the extent to which a product design, marketing and company business models affect the affordability and accessibility of products or services to different groups of people, e.g. disabled persons, the elderly and persons with low income | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 53 | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 53 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Affordability | Trip fare | Measures the trip fare for a distance of 5 km within the study area in relation to the average income | \( \mathrm{Affordability}=\frac{\mathrm{Fare}\ \mathrm{of}\ 5\hbox{-} \mathrm{km}\ \mathrm{trip}\ \mathrm{within}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{study}\ \mathrm{area}}{\mathrm{Average}\ \mathrm{income}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Miller et al. (2016) Verseckiene et al. (2017) |
Privacy | Data privacy | Measures the extent to which a company respects and protects users` data privacy | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 51 | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 52 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Feedback mechanism | Consumer complaints | Measures the number of consumer complaints in relation to passenger kilometres | \( \mathrm{Consumers}\ \mathrm{satisfaction}=\frac{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{complaints}}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | UNEP/SETAC (2013) |
Worker | |||||
Safety | Fatal and non-fatal injuries | Measures the number of fatal and non-fatal injuries of workers in relation to the total number of employees during the study period | \( \mathrm{Safety}=\frac{\mathrm{Number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{fatal}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{fatal}\ \mathrm{injuries}}{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{employees}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Onat et al. (2014) Bui et al. (2017) |
Fair salary | Remuneration | The extent to which management compensates workers. This indicator measures a combination of wages and social benefits received by workers | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 42 | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 42 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Minimum wage paid | Measures the percentage of workers whose wages meet at least legal or industry minimum standards | \( \mathrm{Minimum}\ \mathrm{wage}\ \mathrm{paid}=\frac{\mathrm{Number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{workers}\ \mathrm{with}\ \mathrm{at}\ \mathrm{least}\ \mathrm{minimum}\ \mathrm{wage}}{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{employees}}\times 100 \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Aparcana and Salhofer (2013) | |
Discrimination | Prevention of discrimination | Measures the extent to which a company is engaged in preventing discrimination and pro-actively promoting non-discrimination at the workplace. Discrimination refers to any distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 45 | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 45 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Child labour | Prevention of child labour | Measures the extent to which a company works towards eradicating child labour and pro-actively raising awareness of issues associated with child labour | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 43 | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 43 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Freedom of association and collective bargaining | Freedom of association and collective bargaining | Measures the extent to which workers have the right to establish and to join organisations of their choice without prior authorisation, to promote and defend their interests and to negotiate collectively with other parties | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 46 | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 46 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Work-life balance | Healthy work-life balance | Measures the extent to which a company enables workers to have choices over when, where and how they work and encourages healthy work-life balance | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 47 | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 47 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Forced labour | Prevention of forced labour | Measures the extent to which forced labour is occurring and the mechanisms to prevent this | See performance indicators defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 44 | See 5-point scale defined by Goedkoop et al. (2018), page 44 | Goedkoop et al. (2018) |
Value Chain Actors | |||||
Fair competition | Fair competitive activities | Measures the extent to which the organisation’s competitive activities are conducted in a fair way and in compliance with legislations preventing anti-competitive behaviour, anti-trust or monopoly practices | See performance indicators defined in Table 8 | See 5-point scale in Table 8 | UNEP/SETAC (2013) |
Intellectual property rights | Respect of intellectual property rights | Measures the extent to which the organisation’s actions safeguard and value intellectual property rights | See performance indicators defined in Table 8 | See 5-point scale in Table 8 | UNEP/SETAC (2013) |
Supplier relationships | Purchasing behaviour | Measures the extent to which a company is minimising negative impacts of procurement and purchasing decisions on other organisations | See performance indicators defined in Table 8 | See 5-point scale in Table 8 | UNEP/SETAC (2013) |
Promoting social responsibility | Social responsibility support | Measures the extent to which a company supports suppliers in terms of consciousness-raising and counselling concerning social responsibility issues | See performance indicators defined in Table 8 | See 5-point scale in Table 8 | UNEP/SETAC (2013) |
Percentage of audited suppliers | Measures the percentage of suppliers the enterprise has audited with regard to social responsibility during the study period | \( \mathrm{Promoting}\ \mathrm{Social}\ \mathrm{Responsibility}=\frac{\mathrm{Number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{audited}\ \mathrm{suppliers}}{\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{suppliers}}\times 100 \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | UNEP/SETAC (2013) | |
Society | |||||
Health | GWP100 (CO2 equiv.) | Measures global warming potential (GWP) per passenger kilometre | \( {\mathrm{GWP}}_{100}=\frac{{\mathrm{CO}}_2\ \mathrm{equiv}.\kern0.5em \left(\mathrm{g}\right)}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Reisi et al. (2014) Oses et al. (2017) |
Acidification potential (SO2 equiv.) | Measures acidification potential (AP) per passenger kilometre | \( \mathrm{AP}=\frac{{\mathrm{SO}}_2\ \mathrm{equiv}.\left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Rajak et al. (2016) Verseckiene et al. (2017) | |
Eutrophication potential (PO4 equiv.) | Measures eutrophication potential (EP) per passenger kilometre | \( \mathrm{EP}=\frac{{\mathrm{PO}}_4\ \mathrm{equiv}.\left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Rajak et al. (2016) Verseckiene et al. (2017) | |
Urban development | Urban development plans | Measures the extent to which a company is engaging with city authorities to actively contribute to urban development | See performance indicators defined in Table 8 | See 5-point scale in Table 8 | de Oliveira Cavalcanti et al. (2017) Kawakubo et al. (2018) |
Tax income | Taxes per pkm | Measures taxes that are paid by the company per passenger kilometre | \( \mathrm{Tax}\ \mathrm{income}=\frac{\mathrm{Paid}\ \mathrm{taxes}\ \left[\text{\EUR} \right]}{\mathrm{Passenger}\ \mathrm{kilometre}} \) | See 5-point scale in Table 7 | Rajak et al. (2016) Bandeira et al. 2018 |
Category | Indicator | Unit | Reference scale and performance reference pointsa | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
− 2 | − 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||
Local community | |||||||
Public space | Green and open space per capita | \( \frac{\left({\mathrm{m}}^2\right)}{\mathrm{Inhabitants}} \) | 0–5 | 5–10 | 10–25 | 25–50 | > 50 |
Air quality | Emission intensity of NOx | \( \frac{{\mathrm{NO}}_x\ \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Pkm}} \) | > 1000 | 475–1000 | 50–475 | 1–50 | 0–1 |
Emission intensity of PM10 | \( \frac{{\mathrm{PM}}_{10}\ \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Pkm}} \) | > 20 | 15–20 | 10–15 | 5–10 | 0–5 | |
Emission intensity of PM2,5 | \( \frac{{\mathrm{PM}}_{2.5}\ \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Pkm}} \) | > 20 | 15–20 | 10–15 | 5–10 | 0–5 | |
Emission intensity of SO2 | \( \frac{{\mathrm{SO}}_2\ \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Pkm}} \) | > 1 | 0.75–1 | 0.5–0.75 | 0.25–0.5 | 0–0.25 | |
Employment | Percentage of employees hired | Ratio | > − 10 | − 10 to − 5 | − 5 to + 5 | 5–10 | < 10 |
Percentage of employees hired locally | Ratio | 0–20 | 20–40 | 40–60 | 60–80 | 80–100 | |
Noise pollution | Noise pollution greater than 65 dB | Ratio | > 20 | 10–20 | 1–10 | 0.1–1 | 0 |
Average emissions of noise | Ratio | > 20 | 10–20 | 1–10 | 0.1–1 | 0 | |
Space occupancy | Infrastructure efficiency | \( \frac{\ \left({\mathrm{m}}^2\right)\ }{\mathrm{Pkm}} \) * | > 1 | 0.75–1 | 0.5–0.75 | 0.25–0.5 | 0–0.25 |
Infrastructure space occupancy | Ratio | > 50 | 10–50 | 1–10 | 0.1–1 | 0–0.1 | |
Space occupancy in relation to green and open space | Ratio | > 50 | 10–50 | 1–10 | 0.1–1 | 0–0.1 | |
Consumers | |||||||
Accessibility | Number of transport points | Ratio | < 50 | 50–100 | 100–500 | 500–1000 | > 1000 |
Number of passengers | count (in millions) | < 10 | 10–100 | 100–250 | 250–500 | > 500 | |
Safety | Fatal and non-fatal traffic accidents | Ratio ** | > 2.0 | 1.0–2.0 | 0.5–1.0 | 0.1–0.5 | 0–0.1 |
Convenience | Punctuality of deliveries | Ratio | < 80 | 80–90 | 90–95 | 95–99 | 100 |
Affordability | Trip fare | € | > 4.5 | 3.5–4.5 | 2.5–3.5 | 1.5–2.5 | 0–1.5 |
Feedback mechanism | Consumer complaints | Ratio * | > 0.04 | 0.03–0.04 | 0.02–0.03 | 0.01–0.02 | 0–0.01 |
Worker | |||||||
Safety | Fatal and non-fatal injuries | Ratio *** | > 60 | 45–60 | 30–45 | 15–30 | 0–15 |
Fair salary | Minimum wage paid | Ratio | < 80 | 80–90 | 90–95 | 95–99 | 100 |
Value chain actors | |||||||
Promoting social responsibility | Percentage of audited suppliers | Ratio | 0–20 | 20–40 | 40–60 | 60–80 | 80–100 |
Society | |||||||
Health | GWP100 (CO2 equiv.) | \( \frac{{\mathrm{CO}}_2\ \mathrm{equiv}.\kern0.5em \left(\mathrm{g}\right)}{\mathrm{Pkm}} \) | > 160 | 120–160 | 80–120 | 40–80 | 0–40 |
Acidification potential (SO2 equiv.) | \( \frac{{\mathrm{SO}}_2\ \mathrm{equiv}.\kern0.5em \left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Pkm}} \) | > 400 | 300–400 | 200–300 | 100–200 | 0–100 | |
Eutrophication potential (PO4 equiv.) | \( \frac{{\mathrm{PO}}_4\ \mathrm{equiv}.\left(\mathrm{mg}\right)}{\mathrm{Pkm}} \) | > 100 | 75–100 | 50–75 | 25–50 | 0–25 | |
Tax income | Taxes per pkm | € | 0–0.02 | 0.02–0.04 | 0.04–0.06 | 0.06–0.08 | > 0.08 |
Value Chain Actors | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fair Competition | Intellectual Property Rights | |||||
2 | The company or facility has a system in place to enforce fair competition, which the employees are regularly trained on. Suppliers also need to behave in a competitive way. | 1–3 AND 5–6 | 2 | The company or facility has a PDCA process in place to raise awareness of intellectual property rights and compliant behavior. The commitments, performance, progress and effectiveness of programs are reported publicly. | 1–3 AND 5–6 | |
1 | The company or facility has a system in place to enforce fair competition, which the employees are regularly trained on. | 1–3 AND 5 | 1 | The company or facility has a PDCA process in place to raise awareness of intellectual property rights and compliant behavior. | 1–3 AND 5 | |
0 | The company or facility has a system in place to enforce the policy that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and violations of anti-trust and monopoly legislation | 1–3 | 0 | The company or facility has a system in place to enforce the policy safeguarding and valuing intellectual property rights | 1–3 | |
AND | AND | |||||
There is evidence that there is no violation of fair competition. | No incidents have been discovered that the company or facility has been neglecting intellectual property rights. | |||||
−1 | Incidents of anti-competitive behavior or violation of anti-trust and monopoly legislation were discovered and a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion has been developed | 1 OR 4 | −1 | Incidents of misuse of intellectual property rights have been discovered within the company or facility and a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion has been developed | 1 OR 4 | |
OR | OR | |||||
The company or facility has a policy that prohibits anti-competitive behavior, but does not have a system in place to enforce it. | The company or facility has a policy safeguarding intellectual property rights but does not have a system in place to enforce it. | |||||
−2 | Anti-competitive behavior or violations of anti-trust and monopoly legislation have been discovered within the company or facility, however, a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion has not been developed. | – | −2 | Incidents of misuse of intellectual property rights have been discovered within the company or facility, however, a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion has not been developed. | – | |
1. The company or facility has a policy that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and violations of anti-trust and monopoly legislation. | 1. The company or facility has a policy that safeguards and values intellectual property rights. | |||||
2. The company or facility has a system in place to enforce the policy that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and violations of anti-trust and monopoly legislation. | 2. The company or facility has a system in place to enforce the policy that safeguards and values intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights and trademarks). | |||||
3. There is no evidence that the company or facility has acted in an anti-competitive way and no violations of anti-trust or monopoly legislation are registered. | 3. There is no evidence that the company or facility has neglected intellectual property rights. | |||||
4. If incidents have been discovered that the company or facility is/has been in violation of anti-trust and monopoly legislation, the company has developed a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion. | 4. If incidents have been discovered that the company or facility is/has been neglecting intellectual property rights, the company has developed a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion. | |||||
5. Employees are trained regularly on the importance of compliance and fair competition. | 5. The company or facility has a PDCA process in place to raise awareness of intellectual property rights and compliant behavior. | |||||
6. Suppliers are only chosen by the company or facility if they also act in a competitive way without violation of anti-trust and monopoly legislation and suppliers are requested to foster fair competition themselves. | 6. Company commitments and progress on PDCA model are reported publicly. | |||||
Supplier Relationships | Promoting Social Responsibility | |||||
2 | The company or facility has a system in place to not only enforce the policy safeguarding fair trading conditions but to actively raise awareness for it. The commitments and progress of programmes are reported publicly. | 1–3 AND 5–6 | 2 | The company or facility has a system in place to not only enforce but actively raise awareness for social responsibility. Suppliers also need to demand for social responsibility in their supply chain. | 1–4 AND 5–6 | |
1 | The company or facility has a system in place to not only enforce the policy safeguarding fair trading conditions but to actively raise awareness for it. | 1–3 AND 5 | 1 | The company or facility has a system in place to not only enforce but actively raise awareness for social responsibility. | 1 + 2 AND 4 + 5 | |
0 | The company or facility has a system in place to enforce the policy safeguarding fair trading conditions | 1–3 | 0 | The company or facility has a system to enforce the principles of the code of conduct that protects human rights of workers among suppliers | 1 + 2 + 4 | |
AND | AND | |||||
There is evidence that there is no misuse of power over suppliers. | Contracts with suppliers include defined standards regarding ethical, social, environmental and gender equality criterions. | |||||
−1 | Incidents of misusing the power over suppliers have been discovered and a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion has been developed | 1 OR 4 | −1 | The company or facility has a code of conduct that protects human rights of workers among suppliers, but does not have a system to enforce the code of conduct. | 1 | |
OR | ||||||
The company or facility has a policy safeguarding fair trading conditions but does not have a system in place to enforce it. | ||||||
−2 | Incidents of misusing the power over suppliers have been discovered, however, a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion has not been developed. | – | −2 | There is no code of conduct that protects human rights of workers among suppliers. | – | |
1. The company or facility has a policy that safeguards fair trading conditions, including sufficient lead time, reasonable volume fluctuations and on time payments to suppliers. | 1. The company or facility has a code of conduct that protects human rights of workers among suppliers. | |||||
2. The company or facility has a system in place to enforce the policy that safeguards fair trading conditions. | 2. The company or facility has a system in place to enforce the principles of the code of conduct that protects human rights of workers among suppliers. | |||||
3. There is no evidence that the company or facility has misused their power over sup-pliers and no incidents regarding unfair trading conditions were reported. | 3. The company or facility is a member in an initiative that promotes social responsibility along the supply chain. | |||||
4. If incidents have been discovered that the company or facility is/has been misusing their power over suppliers, the company has developed a corrective action plan with a clear timeline for completion. | 4. In a purchasing policy or contracts with suppliers, criteria regarding ethical, social, environmental and gender equality standards are defined and must be fulfilled. | |||||
5. The company or facility is actively raising awareness for fair trading conditions (e.g. by trainings for employees). | 5. The company or facility is actively raising awareness for social responsibility issues (e.g. by trainings for suppliers). | |||||
6. Company commitments and progress regarding fair trading conditions are reported publicly. | 6. The suppliers of the company or facility themselves are requested to demand for so-cial responsibility in their supply chain. | |||||
Society | ||||||
Urban development | ||||||
2 | The company or facility is a member in a joint initiative of city authorities and mobility service providers to jointly develop sustainable urban mobility concepts and its mobility solutions contribute to city’s development plans. | 1–3 | ||||
1 | The company or facility has a system in place to ensure that decisions regarding mobility solutions are in line with city development plans AND The company or facility is in regular exchange with city authorities to positively contribute to city development. | 1 + 2 | ||||
0 | The company or facility has a system in place to ensure that decisions regarding mobility solutions are in line with city development plan. | 1 | ||||
−1 | The company or facility is only in exchange with city authorities to inform about their plans or clarify legal frameworks. | 4 | ||||
−2 | The company or facility is not in exchange with city authorities to inform about their plans or contribute to city development. | – | ||||
1. The company or facility has a system in place to ensure that decisions regarding mobility solutions are agreed by city authorities and decisions are in line with city development plans. 2. The company or facility is regularly in exchange with city authorities to positively contribute to city development. 3. The company or facility is a member in a joint initiative of city authorities and mobility service providers to develop sustainable urban mobility concepts together with city representatives. 4. The company or facility is only in exchange with city authorities to inform about their plans or clarify legal frameworks. |