IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i16p6925-d1455103.html

Development and Design Perspective of a Model for Analyzing the Social Life Cycle of Public Organizations: Examination of Existing Models

Author

Listed:
  • Bernadette Sidonie Libom

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, DICEA, 35131 Padova, Italy)

  • Marzia Traverso

    (Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering in RWTH Aachen, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Rose Nangah Mankaa

    (Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering in RWTH Aachen, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Alessandro Manzardo

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, DICEA, 35131 Padova, Italy)

Abstract

This paper establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating the social life cycle of public services through a thorough examination of existing literature published from 2013 to 2022. The central research question is to determine how insights from this literature review can contribute to the advancement of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodologies within the public sector. Methods: To address this question, we conducted a mixed-methods analysis of data sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The quantitative analysis determined the total number of S-LCA and SO-LCA papers published by main journals, and main authors. The qualitative analysis highlighted the different themes and research objectives addressed in the work relating to the S-LCA of products/services and organizations. Our findings indicate that a total of 222 papers on S-LCA were published across 94 journals. However, there is a noticeable gap in research specifically targeting public services, with most studies concentrating on products, services, and organizations. Despite the absence of direct scientific data, our study identified 17 actors, 74 impact subcategories, and 178 indicators that are potentially relevant to the S-LCA of public services. Given the unique characteristics of public services, it is imperative to develop tailored stakeholder categories, subcategories, and performance indicators for each service type. This approach will facilitate more accurate assessments of the social impacts of public services, thereby aiding both the scientific community and S-LCA practitioners in their evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernadette Sidonie Libom & Marzia Traverso & Rose Nangah Mankaa & Alessandro Manzardo, 2024. "Development and Design Perspective of a Model for Analyzing the Social Life Cycle of Public Organizations: Examination of Existing Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6925-:d:1455103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6925/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6925/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yu-Tsang Lu & Yuh-Ming Lee & Chien-Yu Hong, 2017. "Inventory Analysis and Social Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste-to-Energy Incineration in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Lokman I. Meho & Kiduk Yang, 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2105-2125, November.
    3. Richard M. Walker & George A. Boyne, 2006. "Public management reform and organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the U.K. Labour government's public service improvement strategy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 371-393.
    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. Borrett, Stuart R. & Sheble, Laura & Moody, James & Anway, Evan C., 2018. "Bibliometric review of ecological network analysis: 2010–2016," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 382(C), pages 63-82.
    2. Nianhang Xu & Winnie P. H. Poon & Kam C. Chan, 2014. "Contributing Institutions and Authors in International Business Research: A Quality-Based Assessment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 735-755, October.
    3. Isidro F. Aguillo, 2012. "Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 343-351, May.
    4. Dejian Yu & Sun Meng, 2018. "An overview of biomass energy research with bibliometric indicators," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(4), pages 576-590, June.
    5. Elena Rivo-López & Mónica Villanueva-Villar & Alberto Vaquero-García, 2016. "Family office: a new category in family business research?," Working Papers. Collection C: Family business 1601, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    6. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    7. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    8. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    9. García-Pérez, Miguel A., 2011. "Strange attractors in the Web of Science database," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 214-218.
    10. Loizides, Orestis-Stavros & Koutsakis, Polychronis, 2017. "On evaluating the quality of a computer science/computer engineering conference," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 541-552.
    11. Kjetil K. Haugen & Frode E. Sandnes, 2016. "The new Norwegian incentive system for publication: from bad to worse," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1299-1306, November.
    12. Kam C. Chan & Anna Fung & Hung-Gay Fung & Jot Yau, 2016. "A Citation Analysis of Business Ethics Research: A Global Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 557-573, July.
    13. Petridis, Konstantinos & Malesios, Chrisovalantis & Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Thanassoulis, Emmanuel, 2013. "Efficiency analysis of forestry journals: Suggestions for improving journals’ quality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 505-521.
    14. Mike Thelwall, 2012. "Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 429-441, August.
    15. Lala Hajibayova, 2020. "(Un)theorizing citizen science: Investigation of theories applied to citizen science studies," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 916-926, August.
    16. João Paulo Coelho Ribeiro & Fábio Duarte & Ana Paula Matias Gama, 2022. "Does microfinance foster the development of its clients? A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-35, December.
    17. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Pedro Cosme Vieira & Ana Patrícia Abreu, 2017. "Sleeping Beauties and their princes in innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 541-580, February.
    18. Kendall D. Funk & Erica Owen, 2020. "Consequences of an Anti‐Corruption Experiment for Local Government Performance in Brazil," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 444-468, March.
    19. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.
    20. Anna D’Auria & Marco Tregua & Manuel Carlos Vallejo-Martos, 2018. "Modern Conceptions of Cities as Smart and Sustainable and Their Commonalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, July.

    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:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6925-:d:1455103. 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.