IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i16p10060-d887976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Organizational Life Cycle Assessment of Transport Services: Case Studies in Colombia, Spain, and Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Jose Luis Osorio-Tejada

    (School of Engineering, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
    Territorial Environmental Management Research Group (GAT), Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Pereira 660003, Colombia)

  • Eva Llera-Sastresa

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Sabina Scarpellini

    (Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Tito Morales-Pinzón

    (Territorial Environmental Management Research Group (GAT), Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Pereira 660003, Colombia)

Abstract

Freight operations are relevant for economies but can negatively impact society due to the performance of activities related to fuel production, vehicle manufacturing, and infrastructure construction. This study applies the social organizational life cycle assessment (SO-LCA) methodology to analyze the social performance of companies involved in the supply chain of road transport companies located in different contexts such as Latin American, European, and Asian. The results of the three case studies are compared to analyze the methodology’s robustness and the influence of development and culture on how social performance is perceived. An approach for the SO-LCA, based on the UNEP/SETAC guidelines, was applied to freight companies in Colombia, Spain, and Malaysia. This integrated approach considers the key components of the transport system: fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. A multi-tier inventory analysis was performed for 26 social impact subcategories, and reference scale assessments were applied to obtain single and aggregated social performance indexes. Interviews with stakeholders were used to aggregate indexes and identify priorities for decision-making in different contexts. First, the stakeholders concurred that freight companies must focus on labor rights to improve their social performance. The second social category in order of importance was human rights, except in the Spanish case study, where it was socioeconomic repercussions. These results indicate that social impact subcategories are influenced by socioeconomic development and the culture or beliefs of its inhabitants. These specificities help identify hotspots and stakeholder concerns toward which transport companies should direct their efforts. This study expands the range of indicators for social impact measurement and the known literature by investigating social matters for different categories of stakeholders spanning three continents. When these indicators are fully developed, their consideration in management practices could benefit business practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose Luis Osorio-Tejada & Eva Llera-Sastresa & Sabina Scarpellini & Tito Morales-Pinzón, 2022. "Social Organizational Life Cycle Assessment of Transport Services: Case Studies in Colombia, Spain, and Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:10060-:d:887976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10060/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10060/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew J. Nahlik & Andrew T. Kaehr & Mikhail V. Chester & Arpad Horvath & Michael N. Taptich, 2016. "Goods Movement Life Cycle Assessment for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(2), pages 317-328, April.
    2. Michael Kühnen & Rüdiger Hahn, 2019. "From SLCA to Positive Sustainability Performance Measurement: A Two‐Tier Delphi Study," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(3), pages 615-634, June.
    3. Thomas Schaubroeck & Benedetto Rugani, 2017. "A Revision of What Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Should Entail: Towards Modeling the Net Impact on Human Well†Being," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1464-1477, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Junming Zhu, 2020. "Suggested use? On evidence‐based decision‐making in industrial ecology and beyond," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(5), pages 943-950, October.
    2. Maarten Koese & Carlos F. Blanco & Vicente B. Vert & Martina G. Vijver, 2023. "A social life cycle assessment of vanadium redox flow and lithium‐ion batteries for energy storage," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(1), pages 223-237, February.
    3. Anni Orola & Anna Härri & Jarkko Levänen & Ville Uusitalo & Stig Irving Olsen, 2022. "Assessing WELBY Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach through Cobalt Mining Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    4. repec:ags:ijaeri:334605 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Irene Huertas-Valdivia & Anna Maria Ferrari & Davide Settembre-Blundo & Fernando E. García-Muiña, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Whiting, Kai & Carmona, Luis Gabriel & Brand-Correa, Lina & Simpson, Edward, 2020. "Illumination as a material service: A comparison between Ancient Rome and early 19th century London," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Deike Schlütter & Lena Schätzlein & Rüdiger Hahn & Carolin Waldner, 2024. "Missing the Impact in Impact Investing Research – A Systematic Review and Critical Reflection of the Literature," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(6), pages 2694-2718, September.
    8. Marwa B. Hannouf & Alejandro Padilla‐Rivera & Getachew Assefa & Ian Gates, 2023. "Methodological framework to find links between life cycle sustainability assessment categories and the UN Sustainable Development Goals based on literature," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 707-725, June.
    9. Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis, 2020. "Integrating Individual Behavior Dimension in Social Life Cycle Assessment in an Energy Transition Context," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    10. Weber, Rolf & Braun, Jürgen & Frank, Markus, 2022. "How does the Adoption of Digital Technologies Affect the Social Sustainability of Small-scale Agriculture in South-West Germany?," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 13(03), September.
    11. João Pires Gaspar & Pedro Dinis Gaspar & Pedro Dinho da Silva & Maria Paula Simões & Christophe Espírito Santo, 2018. "Energy Life-Cycle Assessment of Fruit Products—Case Study of Beira Interior’s Peach (Portugal)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-12, October.
    12. Langshaw, Liam & Ainalis, Daniel & Acha, Salvador & Shah, Nilay & Stettler, Marc E.J., 2020. "Environmental and economic analysis of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for heavy goods vehicles in the UK: A Well-to-Wheel and total cost of ownership evaluation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    13. Mikołaj Owsianiak & Lauran van Oers & Johannes Drielsma & Alexis Laurent & Michael Z. Hauschild, 2022. "Identification of dissipative emissions for improved assessment of metal resources in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 406-420, April.
    14. Anna Petit-Boix & Defne Apul, 2018. "From Cascade to Bottom-Up Ecosystem Services Model: How Does Social Cohesion Emerge from Urban Agriculture?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Jose Luis Osorio-Tejada & Eva Llera-Sastresa & Sabina Scarpellini, 2024. "Environmental assessment of road freight transport services beyond the tank-to-wheels analysis based on LCA," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 421-451, January.
    16. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert, 2018. "Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, March.
    17. Michael Kühnen & Samanthi Silva & Janpeter Beckmann & Ulrike Eberle & Rüdiger Hahn & Christoph Hermann & Stefan Schaltegger & Marianne Schmid, 2019. "Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the Handprint research project," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 65-82, March.
    18. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Sanjuan Delmás, D. & Thomassen, G. & Dewulf, J., 2021. "The path to sustainable energy supply systems: Proposal of an integrative sustainability assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    19. Ian Vázquez-Rowe & Claudia Cucchi & Luis Moya & Eduardo Parodi & Ramzy Kahhat, 2024. "Applying the multi-dimensional damage assessment (MDDA) methodology to the Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption in La Palma (Spain)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 120(15), pages 14593-14624, December.
    20. Martínez-García, V. & Martínez-Paz, J.M. & Alcon, F., 2025. "Sustainability assessment of agricultural practices integrating both LCA and ecosystem services approaches," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    21. Datu Buyung Agusdinata & Wenjuan Liu & Sinta Sulistyo & Philippe LeBillon & Je'anne Wegner, 2023. "Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 746-759, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:10060-:d:887976. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.