IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i11p4830-d1663348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Life Cycle Assessment Methodology to Capture “More-Good” and “Less-Bad” Social Impacts—Part 1: A Methodological Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Pasan Dunuwila

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Colombo 10250, Sri Lanka)

  • Ichiro Daigo

    (Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology (RCAST), The University of Tokyo, 4 Chome-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904, Japan
    UTokyo LCA Center for Future Strategy (UTLCA), 4 Chome-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904, Japan)

  • V. H. L. Rodrigo

    (International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), D. P. Wijesinghe Mawatha, Pelawatta, Battaramulla 10120, Sri Lanka)

  • D. J. T. S. Liyanage

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Colombo 10250, Sri Lanka)

  • Wenjing T. Gong

    (Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology (RCAST), The University of Tokyo, 4 Chome-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904, Japan)

  • Hiroki Hatayama

    (National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 16-1 Onogawa, Tsukuba 305-8569, Japan)

  • Koichi Shobatake

    (TCO2 Co., Ltd., 6F Daigo Nagamori bldg, 12 Nandocho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-0837, Japan)

  • Kiyotaka Tahara

    (National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 16-1 Onogawa, Tsukuba 305-8569, Japan)

  • Takeo Hoshino

    (Department of Materials Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan)

Abstract

Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) systematically assesses the social impacts of the entire life cycle of a product system or service that stretches from extraction and processing of raw material to recycling and final disposal. Most SLCA techniques highlight negative impacts and their reductions, while positive social impacts and their increments have received less attention. Positive social impacts highlight chances for improving human well-being and present a complete picture of a product’s overall social impact. The literature shows that norms for defining positive impacts and methodologies for assessing them are not yet fully established and retain lacunae, which can lead to conflicts in the usage of the term “positive impacts”. Therefore, we develop a novel SLCA methodology that can straightforwardly distinguish between the “good” and “bad” social state at the subcategories in the latest version of methodological sheets for SLCA. Here, we refrain from using the terms “positive” and “negative” as those terms retain scattered consensus; instead, we use the fresh terms “good” and “bad”, which are simpler to understand. To describe the positive changes in good and bad states, we introduce two new terms into SLCA: “more-good” (improvements within the good domain) and “less-bad” (improvements within the bad domain). Good and bad social domains are distinguished using compliance levels (e.g., industry standards), referred to as baseline requirements. Social impacts were evaluated using the social performance index (SPI). The SPI is computed by multiplying social performance levels with working hours at the factory/company level. Social performance levels are evaluated using a decision tree and a systematically proposed set of indicators representing basic requirements and good and bad domains of each subcategory. Working hours were used as an activity variable, estimated using a working hour model. This enables the application of the SPI across the supply chain of a product by linking social impacts to the time spent on each activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Pasan Dunuwila & Ichiro Daigo & V. H. L. Rodrigo & D. J. T. S. Liyanage & Wenjing T. Gong & Hiroki Hatayama & Koichi Shobatake & Kiyotaka Tahara & Takeo Hoshino, 2025. "Social Life Cycle Assessment Methodology to Capture “More-Good” and “Less-Bad” Social Impacts—Part 1: A Methodological Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4830-:d:1663348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4830/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4830/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louisa Pollok & Sebastian Spierling & Hans-Josef Endres & Ulrike Grote, 2021. "Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.
    2. Heng Yi Teah & Motoharu Onuki, 2017. "Support Phosphorus Recycling Policy with Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Case of Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Pasan Dunuwila & V. H. L. Rodrigo & Ichiro Daigo & Naohiro Goto, 2023. "Social Sustainability of Raw Rubber Production: A Supply Chain Analysis under Sri Lankan Scenario," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Lena Jarosch & Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Matthias Finkbeiner & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "A Regional Socio-Economic Life Cycle Assessment of a Bioeconomy Value Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Pasan Dunuwila & Enoka Munasinghe & V. H. L. Rodrigo & Wenjing T. Gong & Ichiro Daigo & Naohiro Goto, 2025. "Revealing the Environmental Footprint of Crepe Rubber Production: A Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment of a Crepe Rubber Factory in Sri Lanka," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Catherine Benoit Norris & Gregory A. Norris & Lina Azuero & John Pflueger, 2019. "Creating Social Handprints: Method and Case Study in the Electronic Computer Manufacturing Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, November.
    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. Louisa Pollok & Sebastian Spierling & Hans-Josef Endres & Ulrike Grote, 2021. "Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.
    2. Pasan Dunuwila & V. H. L. Rodrigo & Ichiro Daigo & Naohiro Goto, 2023. "Social Sustainability of Raw Rubber Production: A Supply Chain Analysis under Sri Lankan Scenario," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    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. Jianing Wei & Jixiao Cui & Yinan Xu & Jinna Li & Xinyu Lei & Wangsheng Gao & Yuanquan Chen, 2022. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Major Staple Grain Crops in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Mohamed M. Shamil & H. A. K. N. S. Surangi & M. A. D. H. Mallawarachchi, 2024. "Exploring values, orientation, and motives towards corporate social responsibility: SME owners’ and managers’ viewpoint in Sri Lanka," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis, 2022. "Type I Social Life Cycle Assessments: Methodological Challenges in the Study of a Plant in the Context of Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-13, November.
    7. Manuela D’Eusanio & Monica Serreli & Luigia Petti, 2019. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment of a Piece of Jewellery. Emphasis on the Local Community," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, September.
    8. Zeug, Walther & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2020. "Towards a holistic and integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of the bioeconomy: Background on concepts, visions and measurements," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2020, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    9. Alberto Bezama & Jakob Hildebrandt & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Integrating Regionalized Socioeconomic Considerations onto Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluating Bioeconomy Value Chains: A Case Study on Hybrid Wood–Concrete Ceiling Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Prisca Ayassamy & Robert Pellerin, 2023. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment in the Construction Industry: A Review of Characteristics, Limitations, and Challenges of S-LCA through Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-19, October.
    11. Idiano D’Adamo & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2022. "Exploring regional transitions to the bioeconomy using a socio-economic indicator: the case of Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 989-1021, October.
    12. Renata Aguayo Lopes da Silva & Renato Cesar Gonçalves Robert & Thomas Purfürst, 2023. "How Is the Forest Sector’s Contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Being Addressed? A Systematic Review of the Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-25, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Pasan Dunuwila & Enoka Munasinghe & V. H. L. Rodrigo & Wenjing T. Gong & Ichiro Daigo & Naohiro Goto, 2025. "Revealing the Environmental Footprint of Crepe Rubber Production: A Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment of a Crepe Rubber Factory in Sri Lanka," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Manjengwa, Evelyn Ruvimbo & Dorfling, Christie & Tadie, Margreth, 2023. "Development of a conceptual framework to evaluate factors that affect drivers for stakeholder engagement in mine waste management," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    16. Fanny Richter & Wladislav Gawenko & Uwe Götze & Michael Hinz, 2023. "Toward a Methodology for Social Sustainability Assessment: a Review of Existing Frameworks and a Proposal for a Catalog of Criteria," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 587-626, December.
    17. Jakob Hildebrandt & Alberto Bezama & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "Insights from the Sustainability Monitoring Tool SUMINISTRO Applied to a Case Study System of Prospective Wood-Based Industry Networks in Central Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-30, May.
    18. Charisios Achillas & Dionysis Bochtis, 2020. "Toward a Green, Closed-Loop, Circular Bioeconomy: Boosting the Performance Efficiency of Circular Business Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-6, December.
    19. Di Letizia, Gerardo & De Lucia, Caterina & Pazienza, Pasquale & Cappelletti, Giulio Mario, 2023. "Forest bioeconomy at regional scale: A systematic literature review and future policy perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    20. Escobar, Neus & Laibach, Natalie, 2021. "Sustainability check for bio-based technologies: A review of process-based and life cycle approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    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:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4830-:d:1663348. 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.