
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

doi: 10.3390/su6074200
To promote the development of Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA), we conducted a comprehensive review of recently developed frameworks, methods, and characterization models for impact assessment for future method developers and SLCA practitioners. Two previous reviews served as our foundations for this review. We updated the review by including a comprehensive list of recently-developed SLCA frameworks, methods and characterization models. While a brief discussion from goal, data, and indicator perspectives is provided in Sections 2 to 4 for different frameworks/methods, the focus of this review is Section 5 where discussion on characterization models for impact assessment of different methods is provided. The characterization models are categorized into two types following the UNEP/SETAC guidelines: type I models without impact pathways and type II models with impact pathways. Different from methods incorporating type I/II characterization models, another LCA modeling approach, Life Cycle Attribute Assessment (LCAA), is also discussed in this review. We concluded that methods incorporating either type I or type II models have limitations. For type I models, the challenge lies in the systematic identification of relevant stakeholders and materiality issues; while for type II models, identification of impact pathways that most closely and accurately represent the real-world causal relationships is the key. LCAA may avoid these problems, but the ultimate questions differ from those asked by the methods using type I and II models.
- Michigan State University United States
- University System of Ohio United States
- University of Toledo United States
- University of Toledo United States
- Michigan State University United States
Environmental effects of industries and plants, social life cycle impact assessment, review, TJ807-830, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, SLCA; review; social life cycle impact assessment; UNEP/SETAC guidelines, Environmental sciences, SLCA, GE1-350, UNEP/SETAC guidelines, jel: jel:Q0, jel: jel:Q2, jel: jel:Q3, jel: jel:Q5, jel: jel:O13, jel: jel:Q, jel: jel:Q56
Environmental effects of industries and plants, social life cycle impact assessment, review, TJ807-830, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, SLCA; review; social life cycle impact assessment; UNEP/SETAC guidelines, Environmental sciences, SLCA, GE1-350, UNEP/SETAC guidelines, jel: jel:Q0, jel: jel:Q2, jel: jel:Q3, jel: jel:Q5, jel: jel:O13, jel: jel:Q, jel: jel:Q56
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).144 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 1% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Top 10% impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Top 1%
