Up to a sustainability tool: the integration of social criteria into LCA The work of the Task Force under the UNEP Life Cycle Initiative: State of Play

1
Up to a sustainability tool the integration of
social criteria into LCAThe work of the Task
Force under the UNEP Life Cycle
InitiativeState of Play

• 10th Meeting
• (Freiburg, 2-5 June 2008)

International Life Cycle Partnership to put life
cycle approaches into practice
2
Tools for a process or product oriented
assessment a short overview
People Planet Profit People planet profit
Social SA 8000 Health and Safety OHSAS18001, ILO-OSH Social LCA Environment ISO 14001, EMAS Env. LCA Quality ISO 9000, 6 Sigma, Financial LCC General ISO guide 72, Frameworks en models AA 1000, EFQM-model, ISO 26 000 Sust. LCA
? P r o c e s s O r i e n t e d ?
? P r o d u c t O r i e n t e d ?
3
State of Play

• History

4
Life Cycle Assessment

• Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (ELCA),
  generally simply called Life Cycle Assessment
  (LCA), is an environmental assessment tool that
  aims at addressing the environmental aspects and
  potential environmental impacts throughout a
  product's life cycle
• Short historical overview
• During the 70 energy balances
• During the 80 packaging materials
• First half of the 90 underpinning of the
  methodology
• 1993Publication of the Code of Practice for a
  environmental LCA
• Second half of the 90 further detailing of
  the methodology and applications
• Standardization

5
SETAC History

• Cf. A Conceptual Framework for Impact
• Assessment(Fava et all., 1993)
• ? Relationship of Social Welfare Impact Category
  to Environmental Categories
• Cf. Several researches, reported at SETAC
  Meetings, taking into account working conditions

6
Portrait of SLCA methodologies
7
CSR and Social impacts assessment
8
Task Force Terms of Reference

• The aims of the Task Force are
• to convert the current environmental tool LCA
  into a triple-bottom-line sustainable development
  tool,
• to establish a framework for the inclusion of
  socio-economic benefits into LCA,
• to determine the implications for LCI analysis,
• to determine the implications for LCIA,
• to provide an international forum for the sharing
  of experiences with the integration of social
  aspects into LCA.

9
Task Force Members
More than 60 members on the mailing list, of
which approximately 20 core members. Chair
Bernard Mazijn (Belgium) Co-Chairs
Andrée-Lise Méthot (Canada) and Bo Weidema
(Denmark) A multidisciplinary team with experts
from universities, businesses, consultants,
public authorities, coming mostly from Europe,
but also from America, Asia and Africa.
10
Task Force Meetings

• 1st Meeting (April 2004, Prague)
• ? Workshop (November 2004, Ghent)
• 2nd Meeting (January 2005, Bologna)
• 3rd Meeting (May 2005, Lille)
• ? Seminar (November 2005, Brussels)
• 4th Meeting (June 2006, Lausanne)
• 5 th Meeting (October 2006, Paris)
• 6th Meeting (March 2007, Sevilla)
• 7th Meeting (August 2007, Zurich)
• 8th Meeting (October 2007, Montréal)
• ? Seminar (October 2005, Montréal)
• 9th Meeting (February 2008, Paris)
• 10th Meeting (June 2008, Freiburg)
• 11th Meeting (September 2008, Vienna)

11
Task ForceProgramme of Work

• Phase I (2004-2006)
• Literature study
• Case Studies
• Feasibility study
• Phase II (2006-2008)
• Indicators (incl. methodological sheets)
• Case studies
• Code of practice

12
Feasibility StudyIntegration of social aspects
into LCA

• Abstract
• Status
• Goal of the feasibility study
• Background
• LCA-Methodology as background
• Social indicators a new challenge
• Methodology key elements
• Feasibility and future steps

13
Feasible? Yes, but
In terms of methodology, there are evidently
no fundamental problems calling the feasibility
of SLCA into question. There are however
certainly considerable hurdles to be overcome in
practice, especially in characterisation
modelling, because social impacts will require
an entirely different type of modelling. Hurdles
arise in the categorization of indicator groups,
in the classification of the associated
individual indicators and in their
characterization.
14
LCA-Methodology as background

• The basic methodology structure is the same,
• but with priorities on
• Participation of stakeholders
• Product utility versus functional equivalence

15
Social indicators a new challenge

• Midpoints versus endpoints
• Classification system for social indicators
• The stakeholder approach for the indicator
  classification
• The indicator classification with impact
  categories
• Qualitative versus quantitative indicators
• The complexity behind social indicators and the
  need for clear definitions

16
Methodology key elements

• Goal and scope definitions(incl. indicator
  selection)
• Inventory analysis(incl. data collection and
  data availability check)
• Impact assessment(incl. classification,
  characterization and normalisation as an optional
  step)
• Interpretation of results and evaluation(incl.
  evaluation process and weighting models)

17
Life Cycle AssessmentFramework ISO 1404x
18
future steps?
to establish a generally accepted list of
social indicators (inventory indicators,
midpoint indicators, endpoint indicators),
structured after stakeholder groups and after
generally accepted impact categories. The
connection with indicators in the field of CSR
() should be emphasized and to define and
characterize the single indicators and typical
measurement units
19
Indicatorsthe methodological sheet

• Indicator (name, brief definition, unit of
  measurement, monitoring)
• Policy relevance(purpose, relevance to
  (un)sustainable development, international
  conventions and agreements, international
  targets/recommended standards, linkages to other
  indicators)
• Methodological description(underlying
  definitions and concepts, measurement methods,
  limitations of the indicator, status of the
  methodology, alternative definitions/indicators)
• Assessment of data(data needed to compile the
  indicator, national and international data
  availability and sources, data references)
• References(readings, internet site)

20
The list of key indicatorsrelated to the
stakeholder employee

• Child Labour
• Wages
• Corruption
• Freedom of Association
• Working Hours
• Forced Labour
• Equal opportunities/Discrimination
• Health and Safety
• Social Benefits/Social Security

21
The draft list of key indicatorsrelated to other
stakeholders (1)

• linked to the stakeholder consumers
• Protection of the users
• Enhancing the consumers social and economic
  position
• Usability/Satisfaction
• Product Utility
• Product benefits and Social acceptability

22
The draft list of key indicatorsrelated to other
stakeholders (2)

• linked to the stakeholder local community
• Safe healthy living conditions
• Respect of human rights
• Respect of indigenous rights
• Community engagement
• Improving social and economic opportunities
• Local community impacts
• Changing the community composition
• Changing the community

23
The draft list of key indicatorsrelated to other
stakeholders (3)

• linked to the stakeholder society
• Public commitments to sustainable issues
• Prevention of unjustifiable risks
• Employment creation
• Vocational training
• Contribution to the national economy and stable
  economic development
• Contribution to the national budget
• Prevention mitigation of armed conflicts

24
CSR themes

• GRI
• Economic
• Direct economic impacts (customers, suppliers,
  employees, providers of capital, public sector)
• Social
• Labour practices and decent work
• Human rights
• Society
• Product responsability

• SA 8000 criteria
• Child labour
• Forced labour
• HS
• Freedom of Association / Right to Collective
  Bargaining
• Discrimination
• Disciplinary Practices
• Working Hours
• Renumeration
• Management Systems

• Global Compact principles
• Human Rights
• Labour
• Freedom of association and collective bargaining
• Forced and compulsory labour
• Child labour
• Discrimination
• Environment
• Anti-Corruption

25
Purpose of the Code of Practice

• First it promotes dialogue amongst the task force
  members on methodological issues, which can
  facilitate movement towards consensus.
• Second, it obliges SLCA developers to communicate
  the work on Social LCA to stakeholders and to
  collect their comments, hence enabling a positive
  feedback loop during the process of writing.
• Third, it will create the necessary basis and
  consensus on core issues to build databases and
  software.
• The code of practice will be the first
  international reference
• document on the subject of social LCA. It will
  present the
• methodologies broadly -- leaving place for
  innovation --but
• explicitly, representing its current state of
  development.

26
SLCA code of practice timeline

• February-April 2008
• April-May 2008
• May 2008
• June 2nd-5th
• June
• July-August
• September 25-26th
• October
• October
• November or December

• Drafting of the different chapters
• Review of the first draft
• Stakeholder consultation
• 10th Task Force meeting
• Review of the second draft
• ILCP review process
• 11th Task Force meeting
• UNEP review process
• Editing process
• Publication of the CoP

27
ISO 26000 the 7 core issues at a glance
28
State of Play

• Stakeholder Consultation

29
Meetings with stakeholders(business, trade
unions, consumer ngos, labelling, IGOs)

• UNEP LCI Capacity development programme meeting
• UNEP/SETAC ILCP Meeting
• Fair trade advocacy office
• ITUC - International Trade Union Confederation
• ICRT Euroconsumers Test-Achats
• Consumers International
• ISEAL Alliance
• ILO
• International Organisation of Employers
• WBCSD
• IOE
• SOVAMAT 2nd Int. Seminar on Society and
  Materials
• GRI
• Metal Workers Associations

30
Meetings with stakeholdersto do ?

• NGOs WWF , FoE, Oxfam (London)
• SustainLabour Organisation
• Global Compact, New York
• CERES
• Permanent Indigenous Issues, NY
• Public Authorities EC,
• IGOs ILO, UNDESA, UNICEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNCTAD

31
Lessons learned

• CoP at the right time
• for a sustainability tool !
• Stakeholder consultation is a bidirectional
  process
• Communication and outreach from our side
• Update on interesting information from their side
• LC Thinking is not yet a common practice
• Indicators related to the stakeholder employee
  are for all stakeholders crucial
• Dont complicate things for the other sets of
  indicators KISS !

32
Knowledge and experience of the stakeholders

• sLCA methodology and indicators
• UNEP LCI Capacity building, SOVOMAT, ICRT, ISEAL
  Alliance, ILO (2), WBCSD
• Indicators
• Fair Trade Advocacy Office, ITUC, Consumers
  International, ILO (1)
• ?
• IOE

33
Comments in relation to indicators

• Corruption is an important !
• Socio-economic indicators are a central focus for
  fair trade, so integrate economic aspects for
  producers in the south
• Empowerment and education of producers
• Benefit distribution / Distribution of profits
  through the chain. Consumers wants to know if
  they do a fair deal and contribute to poverty
  alleviation.
• Consumer behaviour
• Freedom of association and collective bargaining
  should be mentioned together
• Industrial relations
• Skills, capacity building
• Participation (and conflict resolution).
• Productivity

34
Comments in relation to methodology

• How do you tackle allocation?
• Difference between end-users consumers and
  consumers of inputs in the product life cycle.
• What are the suggested monitoring methodologies
  proposed?
• It might be interesting to differentiate between
  sectors (e.g. accidents are important in forestry
  and homework in textile).
• One could observe that environmental and social
  considerations are linked in the first place at
  the cradle ( extraction of natural resources)
  and at the grave ( end of live).
• What about the viability of sectors (cf. climate
  change and the most important sectors).
• How do you monitor?

35
Comments in relation to

• Links
• Reflect about further integration of sLCA with
  eLCA considering that many developing countries
  are only starting now with eLCA
• Plurality of certification scheme, a problem for
  suppliers/producers. What about streamlining with
  other CSR tools?
• Pitfalls
• Anticipate trade to barriers issues
• Reflect on the possible negative impacts of such
  a code
• Beware of the risk of comparing countries
  (especially developing countries)
• Reflect on power relations cf. North versus
  South
• Future work
• Communication, outreach efforts,
• How can you interest enterprises in this tool?