Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway

PurposeThe purpose of the social Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method is to predict the social impacts on people caused by the changes in the functioning of one product chain throughout its life cycle. Changes in health status are very important experiences for people. The aim of this paper is to build a pathway between changes in economic activity generated by the functioning of a product chain and the changes in health status of the population in the country where the economic activity takes place.MethodsEmpirical and historical factors suggest that increased economic activity through growth in income leads to improvements in the health of a country’s population. This empirical relationship is well known in economics as the Preston curve. Using this relationship, we design a pathway for social LCA impact assessment. This pathway may be used to explain or predict the potential impact caused by the modification of one product sector upon the health of a population. The Preston relationship usually is calculated for a cross section of countries. We assess whether the Preston relationship is valid when a single country is considered alone. Drawing from scientific literature regarding development, we define the context where the use of the Preston relationship is justified. We describe the general design of the Preston pathway, using a recalculated (panel based) relationship, and specify the conditions for its use. We apply it to the case of company B, a banana industry in Cameroon, for the period between 2010 and 2030.ResultsWe highlight that the panel calculation of the Preston relationship remains significant when a country is considered alone. We suggest that the following conditions are required for the pathway to be used: (1) the activity is set within countries where the GDP per capita in purchasing power parity is less than $10,000 at the start of the period, (2) the assessed activity accounts for a significant part of the annual GDP and/or demonstrates obvious signs that it represents a huge stake in the country’s economy, (3) the duration of the assessed activity is regular and long enough, and (4) the added value created by the activity is shared within the country. We found that the future activity of company B would improve the potential LEX of the entire population of Cameroon by 5 days over 20 years, based on 200,000 t of bananas exported annually (in comparison with no activity).ConclusionsWhen the four conditions for use are met, and provided results are interpreted by comparing them with other situations or countries, the recalculated panel-based relationship may be used to explain or predict a change in potential life expectancy generated by a change in economic activity. The Preston pathway may be useful for impact assessment in social LCA. The assessment is valid only when used for a comparative analysis and must be done within a multi-criteria framework. Complementary pathways therefore need to be designed. We suggest that the conditions for use and other research issues be discussed and fine-tuned further. Moreover, we welcome comments and criticisms.

[1]  A. Deaton.  Policy implications of the gradient of health and wealth. , 2002, Health affairs.

[2]  Rekha Menon,et al.  Child Health and School Enrollment: A Longitudinal Analysis , 2001 .

[3]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative , 2004 .

[4]  J. W. Owens,et al.  Life‐Cycle Assessment in Relation to Risk Assessment: An Evolving Perspective , 1997 .

[5]  W. Easterly,et al.  Life During Growth , 1999 .

[6]  S. Preston,et al.  The changing relation between mortality and level of economic development. , 2003, Population studies.

[7]  A. Case.  Health, Income and Economic Development , 2001 .

[8]  Andreas Jørgensen,et al.  Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[9]  Jonathan Mitchell,et al.  Holiday package tourism and the poor in the Gambia , 2007 .

[10]  R. Fogel.  The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700–2100: References , 2004 .

[11]  Angus Deaton,et al.  Health, Inequality, and Economic Development , 2001 .

[12]  Colin Eden,et al.  Preface: Managerial and Organizational Cognition , 2009 .

[13]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 2006 .

[14]  Lant Pritchett,et al.  Explaining the Cross-National Time Series Variation in Life Expectancy: Income, Women’s Education, Shifts, and What Else? , 2010 .

[15]  P. Auquier,et al.  [QALYS or not QALYS: that is the question?]. , 1995, Revue d'epidemiologie et de sante publique.

[16]  Angus Deaton,et al.  Global Patterns of Income and Health: Facts, Interpretations, and Policies , 2006 .

[17]  José Miguel Martínez Carrión,et al.  The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700–2100. Europe, America and the Third World , 2008 .

[18]  L. Pritchett,et al.  Wealthier is healthier , 1993 .

[19]  Matthias Finkbeiner,et al.  Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment , 2010 .

[20]  Maria Gjølberg,et al.  Measuring the immeasurable?: Constructing an index of CSR practices and CSR performance in 20 countries , 2009 .

[21]  Margot J. Hutchins,et al.  An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions , 2008 .

[22]  G. Norris.  Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles - Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment , 2006 .

[23]  D. Shaw.  Human development report, 1990 : UNDP ix + 189 pages, £9.95, (New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press for UNDP, 1990)☆ , 1991 .

[24]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Uncertainty in Impact and Externality Assessments - Implications for Decision-Making (13 pp) , 2006 .

[25]  D. Canning.  Progress in Health around the World , 2012 .

[26]  L. Pritchett,et al.  The impact of public spending on health: does money matter? , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[27]  A. Parant.  [World population prospects]. , 1990, Futuribles.

[28]  Carmela Cucuzzella,et al.  Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes , 2010 .

[29]  R. Lensink,et al.  Infant and child mortality in developing countries: Analysing the data for Robust determinants , 2003 .

[30]  S. Preston,et al.  The changing relation between mortality and level of economic development. Population Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2, July 1975. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[31]  C. Ashley.  Participation by the poor in Luang Prabang tourism economy: current earnings and opportunities for expansion. , 2006 .

[32]  D. Canning,et al.  Commentary: The Preston Curve 30 years on: still sparking fires. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[33]  P Garner,et al.  Effects of treatment for intestinal helminth infection on growth and cognitive performance in children: systematic review of randomised trials , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  Andreas Jørgensen,et al.  Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment , 2009 .

[35]  Gary Thomas,et al.  The Spirit Level: why equality is better for everyone , 2012 .

[36]  C. Kenny.  There's More to Life Than Money: Exploring the Levels/Growth Paradox in Income and Health , 2009 .

[37]  J. L. Stimpert.  Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Theory, Methods and Research , 1999 .

[38]  David Canning,et al.  The Health and Wealth of Nations , 2000, Science.

[39]  J. Church.  Human Development Report , 2001 .

[40]  Mark Goedkoop,et al.  Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards Best Practice , 2002 .

[41]  D. Wise.  Perspectives on the Economics of Aging , 2004 .