Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment?

  • SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The present paper aims to offer an explanation for the diversity of methodological approaches proposed up to the present for social life cycle assessment (sLCA), tracking down its roots in the cultural and scientific heritage of social sciences and especially management sciences. A second aim is to shift the current debate on methodologies to an epistemological level, presenting the first results of an ongoing critical review about which underlying paradigms have been applied in sLCA literature.

Methods

This paper moves from the hypothesis that the diversity of positions in philosophy of science and the “multiparadigmatic” character of social sciences have had repercussions on sLCA literature since its beginnings, probably in an unconscious manner. Therefore, a discriminating reflection on the scientific and disciplinary inheritance that can represent the roots of sLCA has been conducted. The philosophy of science and the role of different research paradigms in social sciences have been deepened to provide an overview of the main elements of a paradigm (in terms of ontology, epistemology, and methodology). Finally, a brief but critical review of 133 selected scientific contributions on sLCA has been conducted to highlight which paradigms have been applied in sLCA studies.

Results and discussion

Recognizing that boundaries between paradigms are subtle and that researchers are rarely conscious of which paradigm underpins their works, a distinction between the interpretivist and post-positivist approaches used by the studies has been carried out on the basis of a text analysis conducted by identifying the main “literal” criteria. From an initial population of 209 studies, we excluded those concerning reviews of sLCA literature and those with selected criteria that were insufficient to catch the epistemological viewpoint of the authors. Among the remaining papers (133), 73 % has been ascribed to the group of interpretivism-oriented paradigms and only 24 % could be ascribed to the post-positivist one; the remaining 3 % is represented by studies with both characteristics. This data deserves some attention because, since the beginnings of sLCA methodologies, most sLCA publications explicitly suggest having the same underlying perspectives as environmental life cycle assessment (eLCA).

Conclusions

In light of the reflections carried out, we argue that it is important, before going into methodological questioning issues, to be aware of which paradigm is underlying. Indeed, in this phase of sLCA development, scholars should go beyond the simple methodological debate and recognize the “multilayered” nature of social phenomena and the multiparadigmatic characteristics of social and management sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Conceived in the nineteenth century to recognize the original meaning of texts (Schleiermacher 1998; Dilthey 2002), then challenged during the twentieth century (Heidegger 1996; Gadamer 1976), today hermeneutics can be understood as an iterative process for interpreting and understanding questions and meanings of texts (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2014).

References

  • Abercrombie N, Hill S, Turner BS (2006) The penguin dictionary of sociology. Fifth edition. Penguin Books, London, p. 498

    Google Scholar 

  • Allard-Poesi F, Perret V (2014) Fondements épistémologiques de la recherche. In: Thietart R-A et al. (eds) Méthodes de recherche en management, 4th edition. Dunod, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Massa I, Valente C (2016) State of the art in S-LCA: integrating literature review and automatic text analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1082-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson R, Baumann H, Hildenbrand J (2015) On the scientific justification of the use of working hours, child labour and property rights in social life cycle assessment: three topical reviews. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenier MJ, Gavard-Perret M-L (2012) Inscrire son projet de recherche dans un cadre épistémologique. In: Gavard-Perret M-L, Gotteland D, Haon C, Jolibert A (eds) Méthodologie de la recherche en sciences de gestion –Réussir son mémoire ou sa thèse, 2è édit. Pearson Education France, Paris, pp. 11–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey KD (2007) Methods of social research, 4th edition. The Free Press, New York, p. 612

    Google Scholar 

  • Batty M (2008) Generative social science: a challenge. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 35:191–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? J Ind Ecol 17(4):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker HA, Vanclay F (2003) The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment. Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA, pp 328

  • Benoît-Norris C, Aulisio Cavan D, Norris GA (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of Social Hotspot Database. Sustainability 4:1946–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand JW, Fransoo JC (2002) Operations management research methodologies using quantitative modeling. Int J Oper Man 22(2):241–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird A (2013) Thomas Kuhn. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition). Retrieved from: [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/thomas-kuhn] Accessed on 15th December 2014

  • Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret J-P (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2010) Literature reviews and the hermeneutic circle. Aust Acad Res Libr 41(2):129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2014) A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches, communications of the association for information systems: Vol. 34, Article 12

  • Boltanski L, Thévenot L (1991) De la Justification, les Economies de la Grandeur. Gallimard, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudon R (1997) Metodologia della sociologia e delle scienze sociali. Editorial Jaca Book spa, Milan

  • Boudon R, Cipolla C, Cipriani R, Barbano F (1995) Sociologia. In: Enciclopedia Italiana, V Appendice, Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome

  • Bouzid A, Padilla M (2014) Analysis of social performance of the industrial tomatoes food chain in Algeria. NEW MEDIT N. 1/2014, pp 60–65

  • Carter SM, Little M (2007) Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 17(10):1316–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers R (1994) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): analysis of experience. World Dev 22(9):1253–1268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang Y-J, Sproesser G, Neugebauer S, Wolf K, Scheumann R, Pittner A, Finkbeiner M (2015) Environmental and social life cycle assessment of welding technologies. Procedia CIRP 26:293–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhipi-Shrestha G, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) “Socializing” sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17:579–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comte A (1988) Introduction to positive philosophy. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbetta P (2003) Social research. Theory, methods and techniques. SAGE Publications, London, p. 328

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2013) Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE, London, p. 273

    Google Scholar 

  • Cupchik G (2001) Constructivist realism: an ontology that encompasses positivist and constructivist approaches to the social sciences. Forum: Qual Soc Res Vol 2 n.1

  • Darlaston-Jones D (2007) Making connections: the relationship between epistemology and research methods. Aust Community Psychol 19(1):19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • David A, Hatchuel R, Laufer R (eds) (2013) New foundations of management research. Presses des Mines, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, Falcone G, Iofrida N, Stillitano T, Strano A, Gulisano G (2015a) Life cycle methodologies to improve agri-food systems sustainability. Riv Studi Sost 1:135–150

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A, Falcone G, Gulisano G (2015b) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11(3):383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, Molari G, Seddaiu G, Toscano A, Bombino G, Ledda L, Milani M, Vittuari M (2015c) Multidisciplinary and innovative methodologies for sustainable management in agricultural systems. Environ Eng Manag J 14(7):1571–1581

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2005) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilthey W (1883) An introduction to the human sciences. In: W Dilthey (1976). [Translated from Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. I, xv-xiv, 14–21]

  • Dilthey W (2002) Selected works, vol. 4: Hermeneutics and the Study of History, Makkreel R, Rodi F (Eds), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

  • Dumez H (2010) Eléments pour une épistémologie de la recherche qualitative en gestion. Ou que répondre à la question: « quelle est votre posture épistémologique? ». Le Libellio a’ AEGIS 6(4):3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim É (1895) Les Règles de la méthode sociologique. Alcan, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Jackson P (2012) Management research. 4th edition. Sage, London, England

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2001) Green Paper Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM(2001) 366 final, 18.7.2001, Brussels

  • Fan Y, Wu R, Chen J, Apul D (2015) A review of social life cycle assessment methodologies. In: Muthu SS (ed) Social life cycle assessment. An insight. Springer Science + Business Media Singapore, pp 1–23

  • Feschet P (2014) Analyse du Cycle de Vie Sociale. Pour un nouveau cadre conceptuel et théorique. Thèse doctorale. Université Montpellier 1 - Faculté d’Economie

  • Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Rolo Saez A, Benhmad F (2013) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Env Manage 91(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg WR (1986) Social impact assessment. Annu Rev Sociol:451–478

  • Friedman M (2007) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In: Zimmerli WCh, Richter K, Holzinger M (eds) Corporate ethics and corporate governance. Springer, pp 173–178

  • Frostell B (2013) Life cycle thinking for improved resource management: LCA or? In: Kauffman J, Lee K-M (eds) Handbook of sustainable engineering. Springer, Netherlands: Dordrecht, pp. 837–857

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer HG (1976) Philosophical hermeneutics, Linge DE (trans). University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath J (2006) Corporate social responsibility strategy: strategic options, global considerations. CG 6(2):175–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrabé M, Feschet P (2013) A specific case: capacities social LCA. In: Macombe C et al. (eds) Social LCAs. Socio-economic effects in value chains. Fruitrop Thema, Montpellier, pp. 87–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Girod-Séville M, Perret V (1999) Fondements épistémologique de la recherche. In: Thiétart RA et al. (ed) Méthodes de recherche en management, Dunod

  • Goodwin WL, Goodwin LD (1996) Understanding quantitative and qualitative research in early childhood education. Teachers College Press

  • Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J 26:91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG (1990) The alternative paradigm dialog. In: Guba EG (ed) The paradigm dialog. Sage publications, London, pp. 17–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 105–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson E (2000) Qualitative methods in management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 264

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M (1996) Being and time. A translation of Sein und Zeit, Stambaugh J (Trans), State University of New York Press

  • Heiskanen E (2002) The institutional logic of life cycle thinking. J Clean Prod 10:427–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber SN (2010) Mixed methods research. Merging theory with practice. The Guildford Press, New York, p. 242

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy PL (2011) The practice of qualitative research. Second edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, p. 424

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne RE (2009) Life cycle assessment: origins, principles and context. In: Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K, (Eds) Life Cycle Assessment. Principles, Practice and Prospects. CSIRO publishing, pp 1–8

  • Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study (12 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382

  • Iofrida N (2016) Paradigmatic stances and methodological issues in social life cycle assessment. Comparison of two different methodological proposals applied to agricultural products. PhD thesis. Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Strano A, Gulisano G (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment in a constructivist realism perspective: a methodological proposal. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Pre-proceeding of the 4th International Seminar in Social LCA, Social LCA in progress, Fruitrop Thema, Cirad, November 19–21, Montpellier

  • ISO (2006a) 14040:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework

  • ISO (2006b) 14044:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. Environ. Manag. - Life cycle Assess. - Princ. Framework

  • Jansen H (2010) The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. Forum Qual Soc Res 11(2) art.11

  • Johnson RB, Christensen L (2014) Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE, London, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson P, Duberley J (2000) Understanding management research. Sage, London, England

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T (1962) The structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press

  • Kuhn T (1970) The structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edition. The University of Chicago Press

  • Lehmann A, Russi D, Bala A, Finkbeiner M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2011) Integration of social aspects in decision support, based on life cycle thinking. Sustainability 3(12):562–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levers M-J D (2013) Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE Open October–December 2013:1–6

  • Lincoln YS, Lynham SA, Guba EG (2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research – 4th Edition, London, England

  • Macombe C (2014) Searching for social peace: a Theory of Justice to determine the nature of impacts in social LCA. Pre-proceeding of the 4th International Seminar in Social LCA, Social LCA in progress, Fruitrop Thema, Cirad, November 19–21, Montpellier

  • Macombe C, Loeillet D (2013) Social life cycle assessment, for who and why? In: Macombe C (ed) Social LCAs. Socio-economic effects in value chains. CIRAD, pp 35–52

  • Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R (2013) Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod 52:205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(7):1386–1392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martìnez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Assumpció A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J (2014) Application challenges for the social LCA of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathé S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1506–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattioda AR, Mazzi A, Canciglieri Junior O, Scipioni A (2015) Determining the principal references of the social life cycle assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(8):1155–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurand-Valet A (2010) Choix méthodologiques en science de gestion: pourquoi tant de chiffres? Crises et nouvelle problématiques de la Valeur, May, Nice, France. Retrieved from [https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00479481]

  • Max-Neef M (1991) Human-scale development: conception, application and further reflection. Apex, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie N, Knipe S (2006) Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. IIER 16(2):193–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens DM (2007) Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mix Method Res 1(3):212–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK, Coleman JS, Rossi PH (eds) (1979) Qualitative and quantitative social research: Papers in Honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld. The Free Press

  • Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang Y-J, Wolf K, Finkbeiner M (2014) Impact pathways to address social well-being and social justice in SLCA—fair wage and level of education. Sustainability 6(8):4839–4857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer S, Martinez-Blanco J, Scheumann R, Finkbeiner M (2015) Enhancing the practical implementation of life cycle sustainability assessment—proposal of a tiered approach. J Clean Prod 102:165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris G (2006) Social impacts in product life cycles—towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(0):97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA) approach and methodological development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:231–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):164–171

  • Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2016) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Phoenix C, Osborne NJ, Redshaw C, Moran R, Stahl-Timmins W, Depledge MH, Lora EF, Wheeler BW (2013) Review. Paradigmatic approaches to studying environment and human health: (forgotten) implications for interdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Pol 25:218–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1967) Nature et methodes de l’épistèmologie. In: Piaget J (ed) Logique et connaissance scientifique. Gallimard, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1962) Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. Basic Books, New York, XII, p. 412

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard. Bus Rev 84(12):78–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Raut UR, Veer NB (2014) Management research: to understand the role of epistemology in management research. JMS 4(1):64–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand RA (2011) Conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:380–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revéret J-P, Couture J-M, Parent J (2015) Socioeconomic LCA of milk production in Canada. In: Muthu SS (Ed) Social life cycle assessment. An Insight. Springer, pp 25–69

  • Ritzer G (1975) Sociology: a multiple paradigm science. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer G (2010) Sociological theory, 8th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, p. 664

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013a) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013b) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1686–1697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schleiermacher F (1998) Hermeneutics and criticism and other writings. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt TA (2001) Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. 2nd edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Seadon J (2010) Life cycle management—science meets society. WasteMINZ Conference, Auckland, 12–15 October 2010

  • Sen A (2000) Development as freedom. Anchor, New York, p 384

  • Sen AK (2005) Human rights and capabilities. J Hum Dev 6(2):151–166

  • Shepherd C, Challenger R (2013) Revisiting paradigm(s) in management research: a rhetorical analysis of the paradigm wars. Int J Manag Rev 15:225–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sułkowski L (2010) Two paradigms in management epistemology. JOIM 2(1):109–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Swarr T (2009) Societal life cycle assessment—could you repeat the question? Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(4):285–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tacconi L (1998) Scientific methodology for ecological economics. Ecol Econ 27:91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) (2010) The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. SAGE Publications, Inc., California

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie C, Tashakkori A (2010) Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage, California, pp. 1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiétart RA, Allard-Poesi F, Angot J, Baumard P, Blanc A, Cartier M, et al. (2014) Méthodes de recherche en management. 4th edition. Dunod, Paris

  • Tinker T, Lowe T (1982) The management science of the management sciences. Human Relations 35(4):331–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012) Life cycle sustainability dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16(5):680–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro

  • UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme

  • UNEP-SETAC (2013) The methodological sheets of sub-categories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (sLCA). Available at: http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org.www.estis.net/sites/lcinit/

  • United Nations (1972) Report of United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 5–16 June 1972. Available at: www.un-documents.net/aconf48-14r1.pdf

  • Velmuradova M (2003) Epistémologie et Méthodologie de Recherche en Science de Gestion. Note de Synthèse, Université de Toulon-Var

  • Wagner W, Hansen K, Kronberger N (2014) Quantitative and qualitative research cross cultures and languages: cultural metrics and their application. Integr Psych Behav 48:418–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WCED (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Vol. 154, pp 374

  • Weber M (1922) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Trans. G. Roth and G. Wittlich. New York

  • Weber M (1947) The fundamental concepts of sociology in the theory of social and economic organization (trans: Henderson AM, Parsons T). The Free Press of Glencoe, London

  • Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(0):89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldegiorgis FS, Franks DM (2014) Social dimensions of energy supply alternatives in steelmaking: comparison of biomass and coal production scenarios in Australia. J Clean Prod 84:281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley R (1984) The fragmented state of management studies: reasons and consequences. J Manage Stud 21(3):331–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6:4200–4226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeganeh H, Su Z (2005) Positivism and constructivism: two opposite but reconcilable paradigms in cross-cultural management research. Proceedings of Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (ASAC) Conference, Toronto, Canada, pp 137–148

  • Zamagni A, Feschet P, De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Buttol P (2016) Social life cycle assessment. In: Dewulf J, De Meester S, Alvarenga R (eds) Sustainability assessment of renewables-based products: methods and case studies. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to improving the paper. They would also like to thank the Editors for their generous comments and support during the review process. This paper is cofounded by the European Commission, European Social Fund, and by the Region of Calabria. This paper is the sole responsibility of the authors; the European Commission and the Region of Calabria cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. Moreover, the contents of this paper are coherent with the research activities of the national project “Multidisciplinary and innovative methodologies for sustainable management in agricultural systems” carried out by the AGRARIA (Agricultural Studies) Department of the Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria and supported by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), within the framework of FIRB Program 2012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agriculture (AGRARIA), Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Feo di Vito, 89122, Reggio Calabria, Italy

    Nathalie Iofrida, Anna Irene De Luca, Alfio Strano & Giovanni Gulisano

Authors
  1. Nathalie Iofrida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Irene De Luca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alfio Strano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giovanni Gulisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathalie Iofrida.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Catherine Macombe

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(XLSX 30 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iofrida, N., De Luca, A.I., Strano, A. et al. Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment?. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 464–480 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1206-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1206-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation