Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past, present, and future

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

Abstract

Purpose

This paper takes a critical review of the UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of products. This paper, therefore, poses the question: how can the future version(s) of the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines address the challenges associated with implementing case studies in the S-LCA?

Methods

A systematic mapping review to investigate case studies in the S-LCA has been carried out in which the S-LCA was applied in order to analyse the application of the stages of the methodology. We appraise 58 case studies published between 2009 and 2019 in peer-reviewed international journals and analysed the trends and contributions in relation to the practice of the S-LCA. More published papers were collected between July 2018 and June 2019 (because of the publication of a Special Issue on the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment in March 2018), and critically reviewed to identify key patterns and insights from the case studies.

Results and discussion

It was found that only 47% of the subcategories specified by the current UNEP/SETAC Guidelines are implemented in the case studies examined. Our review suggests four main initiatives that future S-LCA Guidelines should consider. Firstly, there is a need to encourage case studies that focus on the social impacts of “consumers” and “value chain actors” to understand better the opportunities for enhancing social sustainability considerations of marginalised stakeholder groups. Secondly, indicators cannot be homogenised across all sectors and disciplines, and the relevance of each indicator needs to be localised and justified in respective studies. Thirdly, there is a need for a robust theoretical orientation in the S-LCA—one that is more inclusive and flexible—to improve on contextual relevance in future case studies. Lastly, the revised Guidelines should aspire to provide more clarity on justifying the context and choice of functional units in S-LCA studies.

Conclusion

The insights developed in this study are useful for practitioners and scholars involved in the S-LCA. The revision of the Guidelines can ensure that the S-LCA in future case studies can better create opportunities for improving the well-being of all stakeholders. It is instructive that both local contextualisation of indicators and establishing stakeholder concerns through participatory approaches will facilitate an improved understanding of the social impact assessment of products and their potentially positive and negative impacts along their life cycle. Addressing the challenges with the current Guidelines will ultimately strengthen the S-LCA by improving an understanding of relevant indicators, thus allowing for an improvement in social conditions for all stakeholders.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Group of Twenty (G20) is the premier international forum for global economic cooperation, accounting for 85% of the world economy, 75% of global trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population.

References

  • Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013) Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling systems in low income countries: three Peruvian case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1116–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Merli R (2013) Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability 5:3275–3287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzoumanidis I, Manuela D, Andrea R, Luigia P (2020) Functional unit definition criteria in life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment: a discussion. In: Traverso M, Petti L, Zamgani A (eds) Perspectives on social LCA. Springer, Cham, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschehoug SH, Schulte KØ, Bjørnbet MM (2016) Management of social and ethical impacts from the product life cycle of high end wrought aluminium products. Proc CIRP 57:734–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barthel, M, Fava, J, Harnanan, , Strothmann, Khan, S, Miller, S (2015) Hotspots analysis: providing the focus for action. In: Life cycle management, pp. 149-167. Springer, Dordrecht

    Chapter  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? Opting for an empirically based approach to social life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 17:517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:682–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît-Norris C, Norris G, Aulisio D (2013) The social hotspots database V2 New Earth

  • Blundo DS, Ferrari AM, del Hoyo AF, Riccardi MP, Muiña FEG (2018) Improving sustainable cultural heritage restoration work through life cycle assessment based model. J Cult Herit 32:221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D (2016) Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Sage

  • Carrera DG, Mack A (2010) Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: results of a survey among European energy experts. Energy Policy 38:1030–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Holden NM (2017) Social life cycle assessment of average Irish dairy farm. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1459–1472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A, Eisfeldt F (2016) PSILCA–a product social impact life cycle assessment database Database version 1:1-99

  • d’Andrea L, Declich A, Feudo F (2014) Hidden societal implications of materials. Updating the awareness on what is at stake. Mater Technol 102

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, Falcone G, Stillitano T, Iofrida N, Strano A, Gulisano G (2018) Evaluation of sustainable innovations in olive growing systems: a life cycle sustainability assessment case study in southern Italy. J Clean Prod 171:1187–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. The Sage handbook of organizational research methods 671-689

  • Dong YH, Ng ST (2016) A modeling framework to evaluate sustainability of building construction based on LCSA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:555–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:247–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Du C, Ugaya C, Freire F, Dias LC, Clift R (2019) Enriching the results of screening social life cycle assessment using content analysis: a case study of sugarcane in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:781–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekener-Petersen E, Moberg Å (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 2: reflections on a study of a complex product. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsevier-SCOPUS (2016) Scopus content coverage guide. Elsevier BV, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Fava J, Consoli F, Denison R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vignon B (eds) (1993) Conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. SETAC

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:366–379

    Article  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 

  • Gasparatos A, El-Haram M, Horner M (2008) A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28:286–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 1999) Guidelines on corporate sustainability reporting “. CERES

  • Goedkoop M, Indrane D, de Beer I (2018) Handbook for product social impact assessment. Roundtable for Product Social Metrics. Ed. Version 4.0. 2018. Available online: https://product-social-impact-assessment. com/handbook (accessed on 28 July 2020)

  • Grant M, 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 

  • Hagemann F, Diallo Y, Etienne A, Mehran F (2006) Global child labour trends 2000 to 2005; International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), Statistical Information and Monitoring Programme on Child Labour (SIMPOC). Geneva, Switzerland

  • Hardadi G, Pizzol M (2017) Extending the multiregional input-output framework to labor-related impacts: a proof of concept. J Ind Ecol 21:1536–1546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain MU, Poon CS, Dong YH et al (2018) Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1654–1674

  • Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:620–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huarachi DAR, Piekarski CM, Puglieri FN, Carlos de Francisco A (2020) Past and future of social life cycle assessment: historical evolution and research trends. J Clean Prod 264:121506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment (1994) Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess 12(2):107–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Silveri F, Falcone G, Stillitano T, Gulisano G, Strano A (2019) Psychosocial risk factors’ impact pathway for social life cycle assessment: an application to citrus life cycles in South Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:767–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management: life cycle assessment; Principles and Framework. vol 2006. ISO

  • ISO 21929-1 (2011) Sustainability in building construction-sustainability indicators-part 1: framework for the development of indicators and a core set of indicators for buildings. ISO

  • Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Lai LC, 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 

  • Jørgensen A, Dreyer LC, Wangel A (2012) Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:828–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khabsa M, Giles CL (2014) The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PloS One 9:e93949

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W (2012) The critical review of life cycle assessment studies according to ISO 14040 and 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(9):1087–1093

  • Kruse SA, Flysjö A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz AJ (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühnen M, Hahn R (2017) Indicators in social life cycle assessment: a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience. J Ind Ecol 21:1547–1565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühnen M, Hahn R (2019) From S-LCA to positive sustainability performance measurement: a two-tier Delphi study. J Ind Ecol 23(2):615–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai LC, Cummins RA, Lau AL (2018) Development of personal wellbeing index–the validation of spirituality-religion satisfaction as a life domain. Int J Happiness Dev 4:93–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 3:562–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Schebek L (2013) Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1581–1592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Qian S (2019) Evaluation of the social life-cycle performance of buildings: theoretical framework and impact assessment approach. J Clean Prod 213:792–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mair S, Druckman A, Jackson T (2017) Investigating fairness in global supply chains: applying an extension of the living wage to the Western European clothing supply chain. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1–12

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang Y-J, Finkbeiner M (2015) Social, Organisational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1586–1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moltesen A, Bonou A, Wangel A, Bozhilova-Kisheva K (2018) Life cycle assessment. In: Hauschild M, Rosenbaum R, S O (eds) Social life cycle assessment: an introduction

  • NACE (2019) Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/index/nace_all.html. Accessed 22 November 2019

  • National Environmental Policy Act (1969) Public Law 91 - 90, as Amended (P.L. 94-52 and P.L. 94-83) 42 U.S.C. 43321-4347

  • 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 

  • Neugebauer S, Emara Y, Hellerström C, Finkbeiner M (2017) Calculation of fair wage potentials along products’ life cycle–introduction of a new midpoint impact category for social life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 143:1221–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris CB, Norris GA, Aulisio D (2014) Efficient assessment of social hotspots in the supply chains of 100 product categories using the social hotspots database. Sustainability 6:6973–6984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opher T, Shapira A, Friedler E (2018) A comparative social life cycle assessment of urban domestic water reuse alternatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1315–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peruzzini M, Gregori F, Luzi A, Mengarelli M, Germani M (2017) A social life cycle assessment methodology for smart manufacturing: the case of study of a kitchen sink. J Ind Info 7:24–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2018) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:422–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillain B, Viana LR, Lefeuvre A, Jacquemin L, Sonnemann G (2019) Social life cycle assessment framework for evaluation of potential job creation with an application in the French carbon fiber aeronautical recycling sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1–14

  • Pozo BF, López AD, López CL, Pastor MC (2009) Economical and social assessments approach on paper recycling. Env Eng Mgt (EEMJ) 8

  • Ramirez PKS, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML (2014a) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1515–1523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez PKS, Petti L, Ugaya CML (2014b) Subcategory assessment method for social LCA: a first application on the wine sector. In: Pathways to environmental sustainability. Springer, pp 107-116

  • Reuter B (2016) Assessment of sustainability issues for the selection of materials and technologies during product design: a case study of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles. Int J Interact Des Manuf 10:217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugani B, Benetto E, Igos E, Quinti G, Declich A, Feudo F (2014) Towards prospective life cycle sustainability analysis: exploring complementarities between social and environmental life cycle assessments for the case of Luxembourg’s energy system. Mater Technol 102(6 -7):605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulie L, Revéret J (2018) A literature review of type I S-LCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:432–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013a) 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 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013b) 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 

  • Shin KLF, Colwill J (2017) An integrated tool to support sustainable toy design and manufacture. Prod Manuf Res 5:191–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Soltanpour Y, Peri I, Temri L (2019) Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1–15

  • Subramanian K, Chau C, Yung WK (2018) Relevance and feasibility of the existing social LCA methods and case studies from a decision-making perspective. J Clean Prod 171:690–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sureau S, Mazijn B, Russo Garrido S, Achten WMJ (2018) Social life-cycle assessment frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:904–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sureau S, Neugebauer S, Achten W (2019) Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:382–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01693-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallentire CW, Edwards SA, Van Limbergen T, Kyriazakis I (2019) The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1093–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies C, Kieckhäfer K, Spengler TS, Sodhi MS (2019) Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: a review. Eur J Oper Res 274:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomyn AJ, Tyszkiewicz MDF, Cummins RA (2013) The personal wellbeing index: psychometric equivalence for adults and school children. Soc Indic Res 110:913–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 10 Dec. 1948, G,a. Res.217A (III) U.N. GAOR, 3rd Session (Resolutions, Part 1), United Nations. Doc. A/810 (1948)

  • UN (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002, United Nations, New York, USA

  • UNEP (2017) Hotspots analysis—an overarching methodological framework and guidance for product and sector level application. Life Cycle Initiative

  • UNEP (2020) Arcese G, Benoit-Norris C, Berger M, Ekener E, Finkbeiner M, Russo Garrido S, Lehmann A, Neugebauer S, Schaubroeck T, Traverso M, Valdiva S, (Eds) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment, V3 Draft, United Nations Environment Life Cycle Initiative

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009) Benoit C, Mazijn B (eds) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. http://bit.ly/1L54IpB. Accessed 18 July 2018

  • UNEP/SETAC (2013) The Methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative: Ghent, Belgium, 2013; pp 1–152

  • Valdivia S, Ugaya CM, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+ 20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1673–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Velden NM, Vogtländer JG (2017) Monetisation of external socio-economic costs of industrial production: a social-LCA-based case of clothing production. J Clean Prod 153:320–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Haaster B, Ciroth A, Fontes J, Wood R, Ramirez A (2017) Development of a methodological framework for social life-cycle assessment of novel technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:423–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay F (2002) Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev 22(3):183–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD (2016) Social Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products. Working Group on Life Cycle Metrics. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Available online: https://www. wbcsd.org/Projects/Chemicals/Resources/Social-Life-Cycle-Metrics-for-Chemical-Products. Accessed on 28th July 2020

  • WCED (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee BV, Banister D (2016) How to write a literature review paper? Trans. Rev 36(2):278–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu M, Halog A (2015) Solar photovoltaic development in Australia—a life cycle sustainability assessment study. Sustainability 7:1213–1247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T (2013) Life cycle sustainability assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1637–1641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Traverso M, Macombe C (eds) (2018) Social LCA in progress. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(3):387–628

  • Zuo J, Pullen S, Rameezdeen R, Bennetts H, Wang Y, Mao G, Duan H (2017) Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in Australia: A critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 70:358–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to appreciate the contribution of the Editor—Dr Sonia Valdivia—and anonymous reviewers in improving the quality of the paper. Special thanks also go to Mrs Oluwakemi Tokede, Professor Giovanni Turchini and Professor Peter Love for their support with the research collaboration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, 1–11 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

    Olubukola Tokede

  2. Institute of Sustainability and Civil Engineering (INAB), Mies-van-der-Rohe-Straße 1, 52074, Aachen, RWTH, Aachen, Germany

    Marzia Traverso

Authors
  1. Olubukola Tokede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marzia Traverso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olubukola Tokede.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Sonia Valdivia

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 509 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 109 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tokede, O., Traverso, M. Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 1910–1929 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01814-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01814-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation