How to define the system in social life cycle assessments? A critical review of the state of the art and identification of needed developments

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana-Maria Dubois-Iorgulescu ◽  
Anna Karin Elisabeth Bernstad Saraiva ◽  
Rogerio Valle ◽  
Leonardo Mangia Rodrigues
2019 ◽  
Vol 142 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew T. Pack ◽  
Emma Rose Phipps ◽  
Christopher A. Mattson ◽  
Eric C. Dahlin

Abstract Though academic research for identifying and considering the social impact of products is emerging, additional insights can be gained from engineers who design products every day. This paper explores current practices in industries used by design engineers to consider the social impact of products. Forty-six individuals from 34 different companies were interviewed to discover what disconnects exist between academia and industry when considering a product’s social impact. These interviews were also used to discover how social impact might be considered in a design setting moving forward. This is not a study to find “the state of the art,” but considers the average engineering professional’s work to design products in various industries. Social impact assessments (SIA) and social life cycle assessments (SLCA) are two of the most common processes discussed in the literature to evaluate social impact, both generally and in products. Interestingly, these processes did not arise in any discussion in interviews, despite respondents affirming that they do consider social impact in the product design. Processes used to predict social impact, rather than simply evaluate, were discussed by the respondents. These tended to be developed within the company and often related to industry imposed government regulations. To build on this study, the findings herein should be further validated for executives, managers, and engineers. A study specific to these roles should be designed to understand the disconnect better. Additionally, processes should be developed to assist engineers in considering the social impact of their products. Work should also be done to help educate engineers and their leaders on the value of considering the social impact in product design.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 2472
Author(s):  
Teodora Stillitano ◽  
Emanuele Spada ◽  
Nathalie Iofrida ◽  
Giacomo Falcone ◽  
Anna Irene De Luca

This study aims at providing a systematic and critical review on the state of the art of life cycle applications from the circular economy point of view. In particular, the main objective is to understand how researchers adopt life cycle approaches for the measurement of the empirical circular pathways of agri-food systems along with the overall lifespan. To perform the literature review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was considered to conduct a review by qualitative synthesis. Specifically, an evaluation matrix has been set up to gather and synthesize research evidence, by classifying papers according to several integrated criteria. The literature search was carried out employing scientific databases. The findings highlight that 52 case studies out of 84 (62% of the total) use stand-alone life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the benefits/impacts of circular economy (CE) strategies. In contrast, only eight studies (9.5%) deal with the life cycle costing (LCC) approach combined with other analyses while no paper deals with the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodology. Global warming potential, eutrophication (for marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems), human toxicity, and ecotoxicity results are the most common LCA indicators applied. Only a few articles deal with the CE assessment through specific indicators. We argue that experts in life cycle methodologies must strive to adopt some key elements to ensure that the results obtained fit perfectly with the measurements of circularity and that these can even be largely based on a common basis.


Bone ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 106 ◽  
pp. 28-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.E. Litwic ◽  
C. Parsons ◽  
M.H. Edwards ◽  
D. Jagannath ◽  
C. Cooper ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 93 ◽  
pp. 701-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Martinez-Laserna ◽  
I. Gandiaga ◽  
E. Sarasketa-Zabala ◽  
J. Badeda ◽  
D.-I. Stroe ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1061-1079 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florence Alexia Bohnes ◽  
Michael Zwicky Hauschild ◽  
Jørgen Schlundt ◽  
Alexis Laurent

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document