Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment

Purpose In social life cycle assessment (SLCA), to measure the social performance, it is necessary to consider the subcategory indicators related to each stakeholder dimension, such as workers, local community, society, consumers and value chain participants. Current methods in SLCA scientific liter...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The international journal of life cycle assessment 2017-12, Vol.22 (12), p.2007-2017
Hauptverfasser: do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles, Margni, Manuele, Baptiste, Pierre
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2017
container_issue 12
container_start_page 2007
container_title The international journal of life cycle assessment
container_volume 22
creator do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles
Margni, Manuele
Baptiste, Pierre
description Purpose In social life cycle assessment (SLCA), to measure the social performance, it is necessary to consider the subcategory indicators related to each stakeholder dimension, such as workers, local community, society, consumers and value chain participants. Current methods in SLCA scientific literature consider a standard arbitrary linear score set to translate qualitative performances into a quantitative assessment for all subcategory indicators, i.e., it translate a A, B, C, D scoring into a 4, 3, 2, 1 ordinal scale. This assumption does not cover the complexity of the subcategory indicators in the social life cycle assessment phase. The aim of this paper is to set out a customized scoring and weighting approach for impact assessment in SLCA beyond the assumption of arbitrary linearity and equal weighting. Methods This method overcomes the linearity assumption and develops specific value functions for each subcategory indicator and an approach to establish the weighting factors between the indicators for each social dimension (workers, local community, and society). The value function and weighting factors are based on the considered opinions of SLCA experts in Québec. Results and discussion The results show that value functions with different shapes used to score the performance of the product within each subcategory indicator influence SLCA results and have the potential to reverse the conclusions. The customized score is more realistic than the linear score because it can better capture the complexity of the subcategory indicators based on SLCA expert judgment. Conclusions Our approach addresses a methodological weakness of the impact assessment phase of SLCA through a more representative performance of the potential social impacts based on the judgment of the SLCA expert rather than a simplified assumption of linearity and equal weighting among indicators. This approach may be applied to all types of product systems. Recommendations The value functions and weighting factors cannot be generalized for all cases and the proposed approach must be adapted for each study. We stopped at the aggregation of the subcategory indicators based on expert judgment at the stakeholder level. If a complete aggregation in a single score is required, we recommend developing a framework that accounts for the value judgment of the decision-maker rather than the SLCA expert.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1961507460</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1961507460</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-8126b6232ccd91a7aeffabdecd5fbd0429f36c540b378c07b708078f91bbe3d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AG8Bz9VJkzbtURa_YMGLnkOaJt0s_dpMi-z-ertbBS-ehoHnfYd5CLllcM8A5AMyxlMZAZMRizOIxBlZsJSJSCYQn5MF5CKLOBf5JblC3ALEDPJkQQ6rEYeu8QdbUjRd8G1FdVvSL-urzXDa-j502mwsUtcFuht1O3i3_wV1VQVb6RMaLI71gNS3FDvjdU1r7yw1e1Nb6ptem4FqRIvY2Ha4JhdO12hvfuaSfD4_faxeo_X7y9vqcR0ZnoohylicFmnMY2PKnGmprXO6KK0pE1eUIOLc8dQkAgouMwOykJCBzFzOisLyMuNLcjf3Tn_sRouD2nZjaKeTiuUpS0CKFCaKzZQJHWKwTvXBNzrsFQN1VKxmxWpSrI6KlZgy8ZzB_ijOhj_N_4a-ASb5gdE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1961507460</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles ; Margni, Manuele ; Baptiste, Pierre</creator><creatorcontrib>do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles ; Margni, Manuele ; Baptiste, Pierre</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose In social life cycle assessment (SLCA), to measure the social performance, it is necessary to consider the subcategory indicators related to each stakeholder dimension, such as workers, local community, society, consumers and value chain participants. Current methods in SLCA scientific literature consider a standard arbitrary linear score set to translate qualitative performances into a quantitative assessment for all subcategory indicators, i.e., it translate a A, B, C, D scoring into a 4, 3, 2, 1 ordinal scale. This assumption does not cover the complexity of the subcategory indicators in the social life cycle assessment phase. The aim of this paper is to set out a customized scoring and weighting approach for impact assessment in SLCA beyond the assumption of arbitrary linearity and equal weighting. Methods This method overcomes the linearity assumption and develops specific value functions for each subcategory indicator and an approach to establish the weighting factors between the indicators for each social dimension (workers, local community, and society). The value function and weighting factors are based on the considered opinions of SLCA experts in Québec. Results and discussion The results show that value functions with different shapes used to score the performance of the product within each subcategory indicator influence SLCA results and have the potential to reverse the conclusions. The customized score is more realistic than the linear score because it can better capture the complexity of the subcategory indicators based on SLCA expert judgment. Conclusions Our approach addresses a methodological weakness of the impact assessment phase of SLCA through a more representative performance of the potential social impacts based on the judgment of the SLCA expert rather than a simplified assumption of linearity and equal weighting among indicators. This approach may be applied to all types of product systems. Recommendations The value functions and weighting factors cannot be generalized for all cases and the proposed approach must be adapted for each study. We stopped at the aggregation of the subcategory indicators based on expert judgment at the stakeholder level. If a complete aggregation in a single score is required, we recommend developing a framework that accounts for the value judgment of the decision-maker rather than the SLCA expert.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0948-3349</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1614-7502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Agglomeration ; Aggregates ; Communities ; Complexity ; Customization ; Decision making ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Environment ; Environmental Chemistry ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology ; Indicators ; Life cycle analysis ; Life cycle assessment ; Life cycle engineering ; Life cycles ; Linearity ; Societal Lca ; Stakeholders ; Value analysis ; Weighting ; Workers</subject><ispartof>The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2017-12, Vol.22 (12), p.2007-2017</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017</rights><rights>The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-8126b6232ccd91a7aeffabdecd5fbd0429f36c540b378c07b708078f91bbe3d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-8126b6232ccd91a7aeffabdecd5fbd0429f36c540b378c07b708078f91bbe3d83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Margni, Manuele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baptiste, Pierre</creatorcontrib><title>Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment</title><title>The international journal of life cycle assessment</title><addtitle>Int J Life Cycle Assess</addtitle><description>Purpose In social life cycle assessment (SLCA), to measure the social performance, it is necessary to consider the subcategory indicators related to each stakeholder dimension, such as workers, local community, society, consumers and value chain participants. Current methods in SLCA scientific literature consider a standard arbitrary linear score set to translate qualitative performances into a quantitative assessment for all subcategory indicators, i.e., it translate a A, B, C, D scoring into a 4, 3, 2, 1 ordinal scale. This assumption does not cover the complexity of the subcategory indicators in the social life cycle assessment phase. The aim of this paper is to set out a customized scoring and weighting approach for impact assessment in SLCA beyond the assumption of arbitrary linearity and equal weighting. Methods This method overcomes the linearity assumption and develops specific value functions for each subcategory indicator and an approach to establish the weighting factors between the indicators for each social dimension (workers, local community, and society). The value function and weighting factors are based on the considered opinions of SLCA experts in Québec. Results and discussion The results show that value functions with different shapes used to score the performance of the product within each subcategory indicator influence SLCA results and have the potential to reverse the conclusions. The customized score is more realistic than the linear score because it can better capture the complexity of the subcategory indicators based on SLCA expert judgment. Conclusions Our approach addresses a methodological weakness of the impact assessment phase of SLCA through a more representative performance of the potential social impacts based on the judgment of the SLCA expert rather than a simplified assumption of linearity and equal weighting among indicators. This approach may be applied to all types of product systems. Recommendations The value functions and weighting factors cannot be generalized for all cases and the proposed approach must be adapted for each study. We stopped at the aggregation of the subcategory indicators based on expert judgment at the stakeholder level. If a complete aggregation in a single score is required, we recommend developing a framework that accounts for the value judgment of the decision-maker rather than the SLCA expert.</description><subject>Agglomeration</subject><subject>Aggregates</subject><subject>Communities</subject><subject>Complexity</subject><subject>Customization</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Chemistry</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Life cycle analysis</subject><subject>Life cycle assessment</subject><subject>Life cycle engineering</subject><subject>Life cycles</subject><subject>Linearity</subject><subject>Societal Lca</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>Value analysis</subject><subject>Weighting</subject><subject>Workers</subject><issn>0948-3349</issn><issn>1614-7502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AG8Bz9VJkzbtURa_YMGLnkOaJt0s_dpMi-z-ertbBS-ehoHnfYd5CLllcM8A5AMyxlMZAZMRizOIxBlZsJSJSCYQn5MF5CKLOBf5JblC3ALEDPJkQQ6rEYeu8QdbUjRd8G1FdVvSL-urzXDa-j502mwsUtcFuht1O3i3_wV1VQVb6RMaLI71gNS3FDvjdU1r7yw1e1Nb6ptem4FqRIvY2Ha4JhdO12hvfuaSfD4_faxeo_X7y9vqcR0ZnoohylicFmnMY2PKnGmprXO6KK0pE1eUIOLc8dQkAgouMwOykJCBzFzOisLyMuNLcjf3Tn_sRouD2nZjaKeTiuUpS0CKFCaKzZQJHWKwTvXBNzrsFQN1VKxmxWpSrI6KlZgy8ZzB_ijOhj_N_4a-ASb5gdE</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles</creator><creator>Margni, Manuele</creator><creator>Baptiste, Pierre</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment</title><author>do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles ; Margni, Manuele ; Baptiste, Pierre</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-8126b6232ccd91a7aeffabdecd5fbd0429f36c540b378c07b708078f91bbe3d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Agglomeration</topic><topic>Aggregates</topic><topic>Communities</topic><topic>Complexity</topic><topic>Customization</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Chemistry</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Life cycle analysis</topic><topic>Life cycle assessment</topic><topic>Life cycle engineering</topic><topic>Life cycles</topic><topic>Linearity</topic><topic>Societal Lca</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>Value analysis</topic><topic>Weighting</topic><topic>Workers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Margni, Manuele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baptiste, Pierre</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The international journal of life cycle assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>do Carmo, Breno Barros Telles</au><au>Margni, Manuele</au><au>Baptiste, Pierre</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment</atitle><jtitle>The international journal of life cycle assessment</jtitle><stitle>Int J Life Cycle Assess</stitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2007</spage><epage>2017</epage><pages>2007-2017</pages><issn>0948-3349</issn><eissn>1614-7502</eissn><abstract>Purpose In social life cycle assessment (SLCA), to measure the social performance, it is necessary to consider the subcategory indicators related to each stakeholder dimension, such as workers, local community, society, consumers and value chain participants. Current methods in SLCA scientific literature consider a standard arbitrary linear score set to translate qualitative performances into a quantitative assessment for all subcategory indicators, i.e., it translate a A, B, C, D scoring into a 4, 3, 2, 1 ordinal scale. This assumption does not cover the complexity of the subcategory indicators in the social life cycle assessment phase. The aim of this paper is to set out a customized scoring and weighting approach for impact assessment in SLCA beyond the assumption of arbitrary linearity and equal weighting. Methods This method overcomes the linearity assumption and develops specific value functions for each subcategory indicator and an approach to establish the weighting factors between the indicators for each social dimension (workers, local community, and society). The value function and weighting factors are based on the considered opinions of SLCA experts in Québec. Results and discussion The results show that value functions with different shapes used to score the performance of the product within each subcategory indicator influence SLCA results and have the potential to reverse the conclusions. The customized score is more realistic than the linear score because it can better capture the complexity of the subcategory indicators based on SLCA expert judgment. Conclusions Our approach addresses a methodological weakness of the impact assessment phase of SLCA through a more representative performance of the potential social impacts based on the judgment of the SLCA expert rather than a simplified assumption of linearity and equal weighting among indicators. This approach may be applied to all types of product systems. Recommendations The value functions and weighting factors cannot be generalized for all cases and the proposed approach must be adapted for each study. We stopped at the aggregation of the subcategory indicators based on expert judgment at the stakeholder level. If a complete aggregation in a single score is required, we recommend developing a framework that accounts for the value judgment of the decision-maker rather than the SLCA expert.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0948-3349
ispartof The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2017-12, Vol.22 (12), p.2007-2017
issn 0948-3349
1614-7502
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1961507460
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Agglomeration
Aggregates
Communities
Complexity
Customization
Decision making
Earth and Environmental Science
Environment
Environmental Chemistry
Environmental Economics
Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology
Indicators
Life cycle analysis
Life cycle assessment
Life cycle engineering
Life cycles
Linearity
Societal Lca
Stakeholders
Value analysis
Weighting
Workers
title Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T01%3A34%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Customized%20scoring%20and%20weighting%20approaches%20for%20quantifying%20and%20aggregating%20results%20in%20social%20life%20cycle%20impact%20assessment&rft.jtitle=The%20international%20journal%20of%20life%20cycle%20assessment&rft.au=do%20Carmo,%20Breno%20Barros%20Telles&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2007&rft.epage=2017&rft.pages=2007-2017&rft.issn=0948-3349&rft.eissn=1614-7502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1961507460%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1961507460&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true