Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer

PurposeA generic hotspot assessment of social impacts from a product was conducted, using a laptop computer as a case. The aims of the case study were to identify social hotspots of the laptop and to test and evaluate the methodology.MethodsThe case study was based on the social LCA methodology described in the Guidelines for social LCA and included the product system from ‘cradle to grave’ as well as the impacts on all relevant stakeholders. We focused on a simplified list of materials and used mainly country-specific data.Results and discussionA new method for impact assessment of hotspots was developed. The total activity in each phase was distributed among countries. The countries were divided into groups related to the extent of activity in the product system, as well as to their performance on a subcategory. High values in both groups were highlighted and hotspots were identified.The results revealed some hotspots, some hot countries and some hot issues, all indicating a risk of negative social impacts in the product system of a laptop. It also identified workers and the local community as the stakeholders most at risk of negative social impacts. Among the hotspots identified, the following subcategories were of importance: safe and healthy living conditions, social benefit/social security, access to material resources, involvement in areas with armed conflicts, community engagement (lack of), corruption, and access to immaterial resources.ConclusionsThe study showed it is possible to conduct a social LCA on a generic complex product using the Guidelines, even though data collection was impaired by lack of data and low data quality. It identified methodological issues that need further attention, for example the indicator impact pathways. Still, it is clear that new insights can be gained by social LCA, where the life cycle perspective and the systematic approach help users identify potentially important aspects that could otherwise have been neglected.

[1]  S. Valdivia,et al.  Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA , 2011 .

[2]  Andreas Ciroth,et al.  The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! , 2010 .

[3]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Part I: A General Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Life Cycle Assessment , 1998 .

[4]  B. Turner.  International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) , 2007 .

[5]  Anna Björklund,et al.  Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca , 2002 .

[6]  Pauline Feschet,et al.  2nd International Seminar in Social Life Cycle Assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles , 2011 .

[7]  Åsa Moberg,et al.  Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 2: Reflections on a study of a complex product , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[8]  Andreas Ciroth,et al.  A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands , 2011 .

[9]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general , 2000 .

[10]  Patrick Hofstetter,et al.  Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment , 1998 .

[11]  R. Heijungs.  Towards eco-efficiency with LCA’s prevention principle: an epistemological foundation of LCA using axioms , 1998 .

[12]  Arnold Tukker,et al.  Frames in the Toxicity Controversy , 1999 .

[13]  Rafaela Hillerbrand,et al.  A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA , 2011 .

[14]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Ecovalue08–A new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools , 2011 .

[15]  David Pennington,et al.  Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.