Submitted communication – Social LCA – November 2014 – Montpellier (France) Systematic review of Social-Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) case studies Luigia Petti, Università degli Studi « G. d’Annunzio », Pescara (Italy) Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya, Federal University of Technology – Parana, Curitiba (Brazil) Silvia Di Cesare, Università degli Studi « G. d’Annunzio », Pescara (Italy), di.cesare.silvia@alice.it 1 Context: Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), is a methodology standardised in 2009 with the emanation of the “Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products” by UNEP/SETAC. This methodology, although being not yet as widespread as other Life Cycle Thinking tools, is generating a growing interest, evidenced by an increasing number of related academic papers and case studies. The concept of positive impacts arise in the field of Social Impact Assessment (SIA), for example Vanclay (2003), introduces concepts that stimulate a new vision of Impact Assessment (IA), not only seen as a mere methodology aiming at calculating negative impacts, but also assuming a positive connotation for a proactive and better development of outcomes. The goal of this paper is to analyse the S-LCA case studies published between 2006 and 2014 in order to detect whether any positive impacts have been underlined along with the negative ones. To better understand this goal it is useful to define what a social impact is. A clear definition can be found on page 107 of the Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment (1994): “the consequences on human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize themselves so as to meet their needs and generally cope as members of society.” Starting from this concept, it is possible to try to give a definition of what social positive impact is, and to better understand the purpose of the present study. To better analyse the role of positive impacts in S-LCA, a questionnaire was edited and sent to all the authors of the case studies collected along with a number of experts in the S-LCA field. 2 Method: A systematic review of S-LCA case studies was implemented to conduct this paper. The search engines used in this review were: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Discovery browser (by EBSCO Host) accessed from the University “G. d’Annunzio”. The keywords used to conduct the research were the following: “Social Life Cycle Assessment” case study, SLCA case study, “Social LCA” case study, Social LCA case study, Societal LCA case study, “Societal LCA” case study, “Societal Life Cycle Assessment” case study, Societal Life Cycle Assessment case study, Social Life Cycle Assessment case study. The papers not pertinent to our research work and papers that were not S-LCA cases studies (including case studies in which social impacts are assessed, but not with the S-LCA methodology) were excluded. At the end of this first phase, 35 case studies were considered as relevant. A Summary Table was prepared to summarise them for the identification of the main trends. 3 Results and Discussion: Critical review. Using the keyword “case study” to perform the research, proved to be insufficient since most case studies are integrated in theoretical papers as an application or appendix. Within the 35 case studies considered, apart from examining their goals, the following were identified: 4 papers on energy sources (3 on biofuels and 1 on diesel and petrol), 7 on Information and Communication Technologies, 7 on the agri-food sector and 5 on waste management. The remaining 12 papers can be classified as “Others” because of the diversity of the topics covered. The analysis of the 35 identified papers showed that approximately 71% (25 of 35) of these were conducted in accordance with the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines, thus confirming the fact that these have had an essential influence (leverage) on the S-LCA research field. Main methodological issues. Here some of the methodological matters described in ISO 14040 were analysed: Functional Unit (FU), System Boundary and Impact Assessment (IA) methods. Only 34% of the papers analysed took into consideration a numerical FU, whereas 51% considered a non-numerical FU (of the latter only 14% specified the reference flow). The remaining 14% did not state any FU (Figure 1). Regarding the System Boundary, 40% of the analysed studies (Figure 1) considered the entire life cycle from “cradle to grave”, 20% of these assessed the life cycle of the product from “cradle to gate” while the 26% assessed it from “gate to gate” (e.g. between banana plantations and the port in Feschet et al. 2013). 9% of the authors did not specify the System Boundary considered in their work. Two papers were categorised as “Other” because of the particularity of the System Boundary considered: Macombe et al. 2013 considered “the national economy” and Paragahawewa et al. 2009 affirmed that “it is appropriate to focus on all socially significant impacts from both company and production specific activities as per ISO 14044 requirements for E-LCA”. Regarding the IA phase, 68% of the analysed papers used an IA method in the field of the so-called Taskforce approach, 6% used DALY (Disability-Adjusted Life Year), 6% the Pathways approach, two papers