social’life’cycle’analysis’(slca)’ · 2018. 8. 10. ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainability: Triple Bo:om Line
Profit
Planet People
Environmental vs. Social PracAces
business.nmsu.edu
Environmental vs. Social PracAces
"Ongkat" system for illegal logging on wet areas in Riau, Photo: Roman Pirard (CIFOR)
Picture: Aurajava furniture
Picture: Jepara teak furniture
What is SLCA?
Impact assessment technique that aims to assess the social and socio-‐economic aspects of
products and their potenAal posiAve and negaAve impacts along their life cycle
(United NaAons Environmental Program and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2009)
Overall Goal: Human and Societal Well Being
Why Social LCA?
• Contribute to improvement of social performances of products at different stages in the life cycle
• InformaAon towards decision makers from business and from governmental organizaAons and NGOs for choosing between products
• Choice of relevant performance indicators • MarkeAng
I. Scope and Boundary
• FuncAonal unit and product uAlity: StarAng point to determine the product system
• Geographic locaAon of unit process is o]en important, if not necessary
• Stakeholder involvement • Baseline
Who are the Stakeholders?
General Stakeholder Groups Considered
• Worker • Local community • Society • Consumer • Members along the value chain
Picture: tahan.com
II. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
• Data is collected from stakeholders and from the company and its partners
• Data is both qualitaAve and quanAtaAve – The subjecAve data is someAmes in S-‐LCA the most appropriate informaAon to use.
• The data sources will differ (coming from stakeholders)
• The data collecAon steps and methods vary (e.g., social hot spots idenAficaAon)
III. LCIA: What are the Impact Categories?
• Social Impact-‐ Consequence of posiAve and negaAve pressure on social end points (well being of stakeholders)
• Impact subcategories: – Human rights – Access to resources – Employment and community engagement – Working condiAons – Health and safety – Cultural heritage (e.g., indigenous rights) – Socio-‐economic repercussions (e.g., poliAcal conflict, disease, poverty, etc.)
Picture: UNEP/SETAC, 2009
IV. InterpretaAon of Impacts
• The context accounts for impact – The local stakeholders define the impact – Impact must take into account the context:
• To be used by company? • To be used by policy-‐makers?
Conclusion: Different Methodologies and Uses
• Three different uses of SLCA methods: – Management SLCA: social hot spots – ConsequenAal SLCA – EducaAve SLCA
Example1. Brodeu,2011. • FuncAon: Manage end of life compuAng coming from industrial, commercial and insAtuAonal (ICI) sectors
• The funcAonal unit: To manage 1000 computers or 1000 screens CRT or 1000 LCD monitors from the ICI sector
Scope and Goal DefiniAon
• Scope – Computers from companies located in the province of Quebec
– State of the art: no export to developing countries
– Recycling industry: mostly private companies
– Refurbishing industry: mostly community oriented NFPO
Data CollecAon
• Phone interviews, face to face interviews, literature review, and documentary review
• Refurbishing industry profile (phone survey)
Contributors Sectors
RECYC-‐QUEBEC Recycling and refurbishing
Insertech Angus OPEQ Reseau des CFER
Refurbishing value chain
GEEP Global FCM Lavaltrie PC Recycle
Recycling value chain
Contributors to data collecAon, SLCA
Stakeholders Mapping Stakeholder categories
Life cycle stages
System 1: refurbishing and reuse
System 2: recycling
RecepIon and refurbishing
DistribuIon/ sale of refurbished computers
UIlizaIon Recycling EliminaIon
Employees X X X X
Local Community X X X X X
Youth in integraAon or training program
X X
Society Quebec Society
Consumers (clients) Individuals, NFPO, Schools, Others
Individuals, NFPO, Schools, Others
X
Actors of the value chain
Suppliers (large co.s and insAtuAons)
Suppliers (large co.s and insAtuAons)
X
Impact Inventory and Assessment
• UNEP/SETAC 2009 guidelines for SLCA of products
• Same stakeholders and impact categories Stakeholder categories Impact categories
Workers Human rights
Consumers Working condiAons
Local community Health and safety
Society Cultural heritage
Value chain actors Governance
Youth in integraAon or training program
Socio-‐economic repercussions
Scales for Social Impact Assessment
• Assessment of social risks – High risk ; medium risk; low risk
• Assessment of social benefits – 0 no benefits, + low benefits, ++ medium benefits, +++ high benefits
• UnquanAfiable benefits – Yes/No scale
Results: Scenario 1 • Society
Impact Subcategory Indicator Scenario 1
Reuse Recycling
Public commitments to sustainability issues
Public commitments related to sustainable development
++ ++
Respect of the 3Rs (reuse, refurbishing, recycling)
Nature of acAviAes in relaAon to the 3Rs
ContribuAon to economic development
Job creaAon +++ +
R&D investments Yes No
Added value creaAon +++ +
Results: Scenario 1 • Local community
Impact Subcategory Indicator Scenario 1
Reuse Recycling Community engagement Volunteer work, sponsorship, financial support and
other parAcipaAon in community organizaAons and iniAaAves
+++ +
Commitment with and involvement of community stakeholders
Neighborhood related problems, annoyances (noise, odors, heavy trucking, etc.)
Local employment Local Employment preferences (producAon jobs, execuAve jobs, etc.)
+++ +++
Buy-‐locally pracAces and policies ++ +
Access to material resources
Access to computer equipment Yes N/A
Access to immaterial resources
Access to community-‐based services +++ 0
Access to ciAzenship (reducAon of the digital gap) Yes No
Results: Scenario 1
• Youth in integraAon or training program
Impact sub-‐category
Indicator Scenario 1
Reuse Recycling
Access to immaterial resources
Access to training Yes N/A
Access to labor market
Yes N/A
Access to material resources
Access to a salary Yes N/A
Summary • No important social issues in the systems • More benefits related to reemployment than recycling for all stakeholder categories: – Socioeconomic repercussion and respect of the 3Rs (society), access to material and immaterial resources (local community and youth), responsible procurements (consumers), social responsibility promoAon (actors of the value chain)
• ProtecAon of confidenAal data and end-‐of-‐life responsibility were the only risks that were higher in the reemployment system (no cerAficaAon)
Example 2. ELCA and SLCA of cut roses from Ecuador
• Franze and Ciroth (GreenDelta, a sustainability consulAng company) , LCA conference, Boston (September 2009)
• Ecuadorian rose plantaAons: – 400 rose farms with 60,000 employees – Exports roses annually for 300 million USD – Advantages: Climate, low wage level
h:p://www.elstonhill.com/Ecuador3.html
Social Structure at Rose PlantaAons
Scope: Product System in Ecuador
FuncAonal Unit
• Packaged rose bouquet with 20 stems
• The roses are produced in a ficAAous company in Ecuador
• The bouquet is transported to a flower aucAon in Aalesmeer, Netherlands
Approach: SLCA, color coded impact assessment, assessment done based on internaIonal codes of conduct (e.g., ILO convenIon)
Stakeholder Stakeholder Subcategories/Indicators Workers: Employees of the rose plantaAons in Ecuador
Freedoms of associaAon, discriminaAon, child labor, fair salary, working hours, forced labor, health and safety, social benefits
Supply Chain Actors: FicAAous companies in Ecuador
Fair compeAAon, promoAng CSR
Local CommuniAes: Region Pichincha
Respect of indigenous rights, net migraAon rate, safe and healthy living condiAons, local employment
Society: Ecuadorian society
ContribuAon to economic development, corrupAon, technology development, prevenAon of armed conflicts
Consumer: Rose buyer in flower shops
Health, safety and transparency
Impact Categories
• Health and safety • Socio-‐economic repercussions • Human rights • Indigenous rights (incl. cultural heritage) • Development of the country
RaAng Scale
RelaAon to Impact Categories
Impact Assessment: Social Assessment
Impact Assessment: Social Assessment
Integrated Life Cycle Approach
• Three pillars of Sustainability (Socio-‐eco-‐efficiency)
Economic
Environmental Social
Mini Homework
• Due on the 2nd of October (Tuesday) in the class
• Assignment: a. Provide a brief review of “Social Life Cycle Assessment” in one paragraph. b. Describe in the second paragraph about
some of the issues (at least three) that make Social Life Cycle Analysis difficult to conduct.
QuesAons?
References • Macombe, C., P. Feschet, M. Garrabe, D. Loeillet. 2011. 2nd InternaAonal Seminar in Social Life Cycle
Assessment-‐ recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles. Interna'onal Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 16:940-‐943.
• Macombe, Catherine. 2011. Recent developments in assessing the social impacts of the product’s life cycles. Social LCA seminar, 5-‐6th May 2011, Montpellier, France. Accessed on September 13, 2012, Available at h:p://social-‐lca-‐2011.cirad.fr/papers.
• Ramirez, P.S., L.Per, C. L. Ugaya. 2011. A social LCA case study in the wine sector. • Petersen, E.E. 2011. Data collecAon challenges using social LCA in sustainable procurement. • Jorgensen, A., A.L.Bocq, L. Nazarkina, M. Hauschild. 2008. Methodologies for Social Life Cycle Assessment.
Interna'onal Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2(13):96-‐103. • ReiAnger, C., M.Dumke, M. Barosevcic, R. Hillerbrand. 2011. A conceptual framework for impact
assessment within SLCA. InternaAonal Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. • UNEP/SETAC. 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Accessed on September 22,
2012. Available at: h:p://www.unep.fr/shared/publicaAons/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-‐guidelines_sLCA.pdf.
Issues in SLCA
• Social dimension of sustainability is a very complex issue
• There is no common unit for assessment (e.g., CO2 equivalent)
• There are various quesAons on assessment methods (no standard)
• Lack of availability of data (mostly qualitaAve) • Data collecAon can be expensive