IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02114758.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality

Author

Listed:
  • Yazdan Soltanpour

    (UMR MOISA - Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - CIHEAM-IAMM - Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier - CIHEAM - Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier, Unict - Università degli studi di Catania = University of Catania, Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • Iuri Peri

    (Unict - Università degli studi di Catania = University of Catania)

  • Leila Temri

    (UMR MOISA - Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - CIHEAM-IAMM - Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier - CIHEAM - Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier, Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

Abstract

Purpose The set of stakeholders included in the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) guideline (UNEP/SETAC 2009) could create confusion as to the target of the assessment: individuals or society. This paper attempts to develop the epistemological foundations of S-LCA in social sciences. Its major discussion is who should be addressed in S-LCA: individuals or society as a whole. This article contributes to the definition of a social life cycle based on sociological perspectives. Methods This paper is a critical evaluation of well-being methodologies and sociological perspectives used to analyze the effects of a change in a social system. The two perspectives, individualistic and holistic, have been evaluated based on four criteria: subjectivity, social values, possibility of aggregation of social data and rebound effects. We have examined different points of view in the sociologic discipline to determine which perspective would be more suitable. Insights have been taken from structural functionalist, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theories to answer the troubling debates identified in S-LCA: Can the life cycle defined for LCA be used in S-LCA? More specifically, does S-LCA include the same actors and timeline as LCA? Does aggregation of data of individuals convey the characteristics of a society? Results and discussion Organizational or technical changes induce new cost and benefits in the social system. When focusing on the well-being of individuals, little emphasis is directed to the relations between people, and thus social costs and benefits are not valorized. The sociological perspectives that deal with social change (structuralism, functionalism, and symbolic interaction) seek to explain social phenomena based on the relations that are established and affected by a social phenomenon. The sociologic concept has brought insights to the definition of a social life cycle, the object of S-LCA. Conclusions This paper is an attempt to bring the attention of S-LCA practitioners to the concept of social change defined by sociologists. Whether society is considered as a sum of individuals or as an independent entity determines our approach as individualistic or holistic. This would obviously influence our perspective in the selection of stakeholders of the life cycle, the boundaries of the analysis, and the indicators to be assessed. We recognize the central social matter of a product system as its contribution to the overall order in a society.

Suggested Citation

  • Yazdan Soltanpour & Iuri Peri & Leila Temri, 2019. "Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality," Post-Print hal-02114758, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02114758
    DOI: 10.1007/s11367-019-01620-y
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02114758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02114758/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11367-019-01620-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marie J. Bouchard, 2006. "De l’expérimentation À l’institutionnalisation positive: l’innovation sociale dans le logement communautaire au Québec," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 77(2), pages 139-166, June.
    2. Henrikke Baumann & Rickard Arvidsson & Hui Tong & Ying Wang, 2013. "Does the Production of an Airbag Injure more People than the Airbag Saves in Traffic?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(4), pages 517-527, August.
    3. Monica Budowski & Sebastian Schief & Rebekka Sieber, 2016. "Precariousness and Quality of Life—a Qualitative Perspective on Quality of Life of Households in Precarious Prosperity in Switzerland and Spain," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 11(4), pages 1035-1058, December.
    4. Pamela Abbott & Claire Wallace, 2012. "Social Quality: A Way to Measure the Quality of Society," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 153-167, August.
    5. Justus von Geibler & Christa Liedtke & Holger Wallbaum & Stephan Schaller, 2006. "Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: experiences from the biotechnology industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 334-346, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    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. Anna Furberg & Rickard Arvidsson & Sverker Molander, 2018. "Live and Let Die? Life Cycle Human Health Impacts from the Use of Tire Studs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    3. Robin Hogrefe & Sabine Bohnet-Joschko, 2023. "The Social Dimension of Corporate Sustainability: Review of an Evolving Research Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, February.
    4. Luis César Herrero-Prieto & Iván Boal-San Miguel & Mafalda Gómez-Vega, 2019. "Deep-Rooted Culture and Economic Development: Taking the Seven Deadly Sins to Build a Well-Being Composite Indicator," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 601-624, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Francisco Palací & Irene Jiménez & Gabriela Topa, 2018. "Too soon to worry? Longitudinal examination of financial planning for retirement among Spanish aged workers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Jérôme Blanc & Marie Fare, 2012. "Les monnaies sociales en tant que dispositifs innovants : une évaluation," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 67-84.
    8. von Geibler, Justus & Kristof, Kora & Bienge, Katrin, 2010. "Sustainability assessment of entire forest value chains: Integrating stakeholder perspectives and indicators in decision support tools," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(18), pages 2206-2214.
    9. Jacoba Huizenga & Aukelien Scheffelaar & Agnetha Fruijtier & Jean Pierre Wilken & Nienke Bleijenberg & Tine Van Regenmortel, 2022. "Everyday Experiences of People Living with Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-25, August.
    10. Wellington Spetic & Patricia Marquez & Robert Kozak, 2012. "Critical Areas and Entry Points for Sustainability‐Related Strategies in the Sugarcane‐Based Ethanol Industry of Brazil," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(6), pages 370-386, September.
    11. A. D. Nuwan Gunarathne & H. M. P. Peiris, 2017. "Assessing the impact of eco-innovations through sustainability indicators: the case of the commercial tea plantation industry in Sri Lanka," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 41-58, September.
    12. Siu-ming To & Ching-man Lam & Yuk-yan So, 2020. "A Qualitative Study of Rural-To-Urban Migrant Chinese Mothers’ Experiences in Mother-Child Interactions and Self-Evaluation," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(3), pages 813-833, July.
    13. Carola Hommerich & Tim Tiefenbach, 2018. "Analyzing the Relationship Between Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Social Affiliation," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1091-1114, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Pamela Abbott & Claire Wallace & Ka Lin & Christian Haerpfer, 2016. "The Quality of Society and Life Satisfaction in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 653-670, June.
    16. Xing, Yangang & Horner, R. Malcolm W. & El-Haram, Mohamed A. & Bebbington, Jan, 2009. "A framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 209-224.
    17. Murat Darçın, 2016. "Relationship Between Working Condition Quality and Perceived Quality of Society," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 1193-1205, December.
    18. María Dolores Hurtado & Gabriela Topa, 2019. "Quality of Life and Health: Influence of Preparation for Retirement Behaviors through the Serial Mediation of Losses and Gains," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-28, April.
    19. Parisa Rafiaani & Zoumpolia Dikopoulou & Miet Dael & Tom Kuppens & Hossein Azadi & Philippe Lebailly & Steven Passel, 2020. "Identifying Social Indicators for Sustainability Assessment of CCU Technologies: A Modified Multi-criteria Decision Making," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 15-44, January.
    20. Lucia Corsini & James Moultrie, 2019. "Design for Social Sustainability: Using Digital Fabrication in the Humanitarian and Development Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, June.

    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:hal:journl:hal-02114758. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.