Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 150 – 155

The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Social Life Cycle Assessment of three companies of the furniture sector

Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork a, Durval João De Barba Juniorb*, Jefferson de Oliveira Gomes a
a
Centro de Competência em Manufatura (CCM), Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica (ITA), Praça Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50. 12.228-900. São José dos
Campos, SP.Brasil.
b
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Sul-Rio-Grandense (IFSul), Campus Sapucaia do Sul, R: Copacabana, 100. 93.216-120. Sapucaia do Sul,
RS. Brasil
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 51 3452 9200; fax:+55 51 3452 9200.E-mail address:debarbajr@sapucuai.ifsul.edu.br

Abstract

Given the high amount of resources consumed and waste generated by the construction industry it was identified the need to seek for
constructive systems that take into account three aspects of sustainable development - economic, social and environmental - in a balanced way.
This paper aims at comparing through sustainability assessment in different industrialized building systems to the conventional system which
are used in the construction of social housing in Brazil. An assessment that provides a way to improve production processes for sustainability
of buildings is looked for, stimulating lower environmental impact, meeting the needs and providing conditions for their employees and users in
the best cost/benefit ratio.
© 2015
© 2015 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the Conference “22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Engineering.under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering
Peer-review
Keywords:Building Systems, Sustainable Construction, Sustainability

1. 1. Introduction Compared to environmental and economic aspects, the

When observing sustainability, from a social perspective,
emphasis is given to human well-being, human condition
and the means used to increase the quality of life of this
condition [1].
[2] state that social benefits may be estimated with the
analysis of the effects of the stakeholders on local, national
and global levels and that most social indicators measure
the degree in which these social values and goals in specific
areas of life may be attained. In contrast to environmental
and economic aspects on the sustainability assessment,
social assessment still lacks a full consensus related to
adequate indicators or a standardized approach.
There is no generally accepted definition for the social
dimension of sustainability, once this dimension
distinguishes itself by particular characteristics, such as: it
is bipolar (it refers both to individual and collective levels),
it is reflexive (personal perceptions and interpretations of
social conditions alter social behavior of individuals and of
the collective) and it is immaterial (social phenomena are
difficult to understand and analyze quantitatively) [3].
social aspects present distinct issues that may be pondered
in different manner by the various stakeholders
(workers/employees; local community; national and global
community; consumers, including end consumers, as well
as the consumers that are part of each phase of the supply
chain; and other actors of the value chain) or by different
countries and regions, and the assessment is subject to rapid
changes throughout time (such as, cultural changes)) [4].
The Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) assesses the
impact of an organization, product of system on society,
more specifically, on these different stakeholders.
The SLCA does not supply information on whether a
product should be produced or not, although the information
obtained may offer alternative paths before decision
making. The SLCA documents, for a certain product, are
useful, but they do not have the capacity or the role of
informing the decision makers on this level.

2212-8271 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.191
 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 150 – 155 151

Table 1: Comparison among indicator sources (modified as per [5])

Indicators A B C D E F G H I

Child / Juvenile Labor

Forced labor / Adequate working hours / Labor contract / Fair labor
Health and safety
Maternity protection (day-care or day-care assistance)
Social security
Collective association / Relationship with the unions
Diversities (race, gender, age and handicap)
Harassment / Discrimination
Remuneration
Benefits
Training
Dismissal
Working conditions
Voluntary work
Level of internal education
Career development
Marketing policies
Disclosure of information (Internal and external transparency)
Corruption
Consumer – Health and Safety
Research development
Intellectual property
Privacy protection / Privacy of Consumer
Relations with the competition
External indicators – Fiscal contributions / Taxes
Infrastructure services
Technology transfer
Association with Universities
Respect towards local community
Sustainable development
Support to suppliers (contracts, complaint and dialogues, investments)
Culture, Sports and Leisure
Fight against hunger
Fight against armed conflicts
Displacement and Migration / Local employment
Preparation for retirement
Relationship with outsourced workers
End-of-life responsibility

A – Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas [6]; B –International Labor Organization [7]; C -
Instituto Ethos de Empresas e Responsabilidade Social [8]; D - Ethos – Applied to the Global Pact Principle
[9]; E – Global Reporting Initiative [10]; F - Prosa – Product Sustainability Assessment [4]; G - Guidelines
for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products [11]; H – Catherine Benoît [12] and I – Andreas Jørgensen
[13].
152 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 150 – 155
“It is certain that the information on the social
conditions of production use and disposal can supply
elements for reflection on the matter, but, these are
rarely a sufficient basis for a decision”, in accordance
with [11]. In this manner, it can aid decision makers to
better understand and follow-up on implications for
consumption and production of products throughout
their life-cycles, in terms of impacts on the quality of
the work and the quality of life of people, supporting the
improvement of social performance, especially in
societies where social systems are more fragile [11].
Despite the fact that the Social Life Cycle
Assessment (SLCA) is not new, it is still considered to
be in its early years, due to the great methodological
difficulties [14].
According to [14], the central difficulties of the
SLCA are: (1) how to relate the social indicators
quantitatively to the functional unit of the system; (2)
how to obtain specific regionalized data; (3) how to
decide among the large quantity of indicators, where
most are qualitative; (4) how to adequately quantify the
impacts; and (5) how to assess the results. He also states
that the quantification of the indicators may be the
greatest issue to be solved.
Furthermore, the company is the fundamental unit of
the life-cycle system of the product, and not the process.
In this manner, the inventory is focused on the conduct
of the company and in the manner in which it is
organized and manages its business, which occasions
the issue related to the how much of the total social
impacts of the company should be allocated to the
process and included in the assessed product [13; 15].
The company is assessed in the manner in which it
relates with the stakeholders, which could include five
main categories: (1) workers/employees, (2) local
community, (3) society (national and global), (4)
consumers, and (5) other actors of the value chain
(ONGs, public and state authorities and future
generations, etc.) [11]. Each stakeholder is assessed by
means of indicators. These indicators, since they are not
standardized, may vary widely depending on whom is
performing the SLCA.
Table 1 presents a comparison between indicator
obtained from a bibliographical review from
management institutes or researches, represented per
letter in alphabetical order, as indicated (modified as per
[5]).
This comparison, among the main sources of
research, demonstrates that the universe for the
preparation of indicators is vast, complex and dependent
on the field of activity of these (references). This makes
the work of the person responsible for the
conception/execution of the SLCA difficult because he
could implement an analysis and, after comparing the
information, verify that it is not conclusive, due to the
wrong choice of indicators, or manner in which these
are measured.
The purpose of this paper is to compare three
companies which are self-referred to as sustainable with
the purpose of characterizing the process of
incorporation of the social requirements regarding the
sustainability of their products. In this manner, it is
possible to suggest improvements in order that they may
increase their performance on social sustainability and
increase social benefits related to certain stakeholders.
2. Methodology
This case study is a comparison among three
companies: Company 1 (RS) has 170 employees,
Company 2 (SC) has 21 employees and Company 3
(BA) has 38 employees.
The three companies are focused on the production
of modular and customized (planned) furniture made to
order. Production made to order (planned) is
characterized by the production of a great variety of
articles in small quantities, demanding more time in the
development of the products and in the planning of
production, in relation to the time for manufacturing.
Also these companies have a very similar machines and
productive systems.
Social analysis was performed with the use of the
SLCA methodology, considering that the company is
the fundamental unit of the life-cycle system of the
product, according to [13; 15]. In this manner, the
companies were assessed in the manner in which they
relate to the stakeholders, which are presented in five
categories: (1) Workers/Employees, (2) Government,
(3) Consumers, (4) Suppliers and (5) Local Community.
The construction of the SLCA derives from a
hierarchical structure of e levels (Figure 1). The level
“Categories of impact” represents the social aspect. The
“sub-category” level represents social aspects where the
indicators are aggregated, in this case the stakeholders.
Categories
Sub-categories Indicators
of impact
Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure for evaluation and application of the
social assessment.
Each stakeholder is assessed by means of the
“Impact Indicators”. These indicators were based on
Table 1 for the creation of two questionnaires: one for
the Human Relations sector and another for production
workers. The indicators of [11] were mainly used.
The five sub-categories were created to make the
analysis of the 20 indicators consulted easier (Table 2).
In this same manner, all the indicators were considered
as having the same weights because not all of the sub-
categories were fully evaluated due to the time and
personnel available for the research. These weights are
necessary for aggregating in sub-categories and for the
standardization used in the presentation of the graphical
format.
 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 150 – 155 153

Table 2: Hierarchical structure with weights for social assessment.

Category weight Sub-category weight Indicator weight

Child / Juvenile labor (under 18 years) 0.05
Forced Labor (overtime) 0.05
Health and Safety (occupational accident) 0.05
Maternity Protection (day-care or day-care assistance) 0.05
Collective association / Relationship with the unions 0.05
Workers/ 0.55
Employees Equal opportunity /Diversity (gender preference) 0.05
Fair salary (salary in accordance with the job) 0.05
Benefits (sickness allowance, dental assistance or medical care) 0.05
Refectory 0.05
Social 1
Internal training (new technologies, new jobs) 0.05
Employee satisfaction research 0.05
Operating license and environmental licenses 0.05

Government 0.2 Job description and operational instructions (legislation) 0.05

External indicators (Fiscal contributions / Taxes) 0.05
Tax incentive 0.05
Consumers 0.1 Customer assistance service 0.05
Customer satisfaction information 0.05
Suppliers 0.05 Relationship with Suppliers (fixed suppliers, training) 0.05
Local Community 0.1 Local employment (close to the company) 0.05
Relation with the local community (visits, sponsoring events) 0.05

Table 3: Results of the performance of the three companies (RS, SC and BA) according to the indicators.

Sub-category Indicator RS SC BA
Child / Juvenile labor (under 18 years) no no no
Forced Labor (overtime) yes no yes
Health and Safety (occupational accident) no no no
Maternity Protection (day-care or day-care assistance) yes no no
Collective association / Relationship with the unions yes yes yes
Workers/
Employees Equal opportunity /Diversity (gender preference) no yes no
Fair salary (salary in accordance with the job) yes yes yes
Benefits (sickness allowance, dental assistance or medical care) yes no yes
Refectory yes yes yes
Internal training (new technologies, new jobs) yes yes yes
Employee satisfaction research no no no
Operating license and environmental licenses yes yes yes

Government Job description and operational instructions (legislation) yes no yes

External indicators (Fiscal contributions / Taxes) yes yes yes
Tax incentive yes no yes
Consumers Customer assistance service no no yes
Customer satisfaction information yes yes yes
Suppliers Relationship with Suppliers (fixed suppliers, training) yes yes yes
Local community Local employment (close to the company) no yes no
Relation with the local community (visits, sponsoring events) yes yes yes
154 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 150 – 155
Fig. 2. Performance of alternatives in accordance with sub-categories.
3. Results and Discussions
Table 3 demonstrates the results of analyses made on the
three companies in accordance with the indicators employed.
As previously mentioned and with the purpose of making
the understanding of the results easier, the graphic format was
used because it serves to visually express the information
(Figure 2). When indicators are used with their respective
values, these should be standardized in order to expose the
results, for which purpose all the graphs have the maximum
weight of 5 (best option) [2; 16], ie the maximum value (5) is
obtained when all Indicators are scored into the respective
Sub-categories.
When observing Figure 2, it is possible to observe that the
companies RS and SC have practically the same performance,
differing only in the sub-category Local Community, where
the company SC has a better result, and Government, where
the company RS presented a better performance.
The company BA demonstrated a better performance in
three sub-categories (Suppliers, Consumers and Government)
out of the five under analysis. The company SC has two sub-
categories (Local Community and Suppliers) and the
company RS also has two (Suppliers and Government).
Furthermore, the three companies demonstrated a very close
and equal performance in the sub-categories Workers and
Suppliers, respectively.
The methodology applied in this work was based on [11].
Nevertheless, some difficulties (limitations) were encountered
in the implementation, mainly in the data collection and
interpretation of results phases.
The limitations encountered were:
1) Determining which impact indicators are most important
for the SLCA and which can be easily acquired.
2) Reduce the number of indicators in order for the
questionnaires to be answered quickly.
3) Translate the impact indicators to a language (question)
which both the employee of the Human Resource sector as
well as the machine operator can understand.
4) Manage that most of the questionnaires are
answered, mainly those sent to machine operators once
this question was directly related to the understanding of
company management of the necessity of truthful
answers.
5) Have all the questions of these questionnaires be
answered making the employees to feel committed in
their answers once these represent their opinion on the
facts.
6) Group the information for a better understanding
of the results (aggregating in sub-categories).
7) Decide the weights of the standardization of
information, once this phase is not included in the [11]
and is considered as optional in the LCA studies.
8) Assess the cultural factor may be the main point
that caused the greatest differences among the surveyed
companies – they are in different regions of Brazil, until
3000 km away – and that is not been reviewed by any
SLCA methodology searched.
4. Conclusions
The analysis of the Social Life Cycle Assessment of
the three companies of the furniture sector demonstrates
that these could incorporate social requirements for
sustainability to improve their social performance, in
other words, the analysis of the Impact Indicators where
the company did not present a satisfactory performance
could be the focus for introducing improvements. Thus,
the companies could become more responsible for their
business, considering the complete range of social
impacts associated to their products and services (social
responsibility).
The three companies could search for more
information/training to reduce occupational accidents
and aim to obtain information on the satisfaction of their
employees.
Apart from these two factors, the companies could
promote other improvements in the indicators:
 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 150 – 155 155

Company RS – decrease the use of overtime, not

privileging the hiring of the male gender and permitting
new channel of communication with customers;
Company SC – permit a location where the children of
employees may remain/study, search mainly for medical
insurance, develop job descriptions and operational
instructions and also permit a new channel of
communication with customers; and Company BA –
decrease the use of overtime and not privileging the hiring
of the male gender.

References

[1] Saldanha, E.E. Modelo de Avaliação da Sustentabilidade Socioambiental.

122f. Tese (Doutor em Engenharia de Produção) – Programa de Pós-
Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina (2007).
[2] Finkbeiner, M. et al. Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment.
Sustainability. v.2, p.3309-3322. (2010) doi:10.3390/su2103309.
[3] Petti, L.; Campanella, P. The Social LCA: the state of art of an evolving
methodology. The Annals of The Ştefancel Mare, Fascicle of The
Faculty of Economics and Public Administration, University of Suceava.
v.9, n.2(10), p.47-56. (2009).
[4] Griesshammer, R. et al. PROSA – Product Sustainability Assessment:
Guideline. Meisterdruck, Freiburg, Germany: Öko-Institut e.V. –
Institute for Applied Ecology. 21p. (2009).
[5] Corrêa, S.R.C. Avaliação Social do Ciclo de Vida de um Produto: Estudo
de caso em uma microempresa do ramo automotivo. 130f. Dissertação
(Mestre em Tecnologia) - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Tecnologia,
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná. (2009).
[6] Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas (IBASE). Relatório
IBASE 2009. 65p. (2009). <www.ibase.br >
[7] International Labor Organization (ILO). Giving globalization a human
face. Report III (Part 1B). 1.ed. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO, 402f. (2012).
<www.ilo.org>
[8] Custodio, A.L.M.; Moya, R. (coordenadores) Indicadores Ethos de
Responsabilidade Social Empresarial. São Paulo: Instituto Ethos, 78p.
(2012). <www.ethos.org.br>.
[9] Esteves, A.M.C. et al. Indicadores Ethos Aplicados aos Princípios do
Pacto Global – 2005. Instituto São Paulo: Ethos de Empresas e
Responsabilidade Social, 58f. (2005). <www3.ethos.org.br>.
[10] Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines
(G4): Reporting principles and standard disclosures. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: GRI, 94p. (2013). <www.globalreporting.org >
[11] United Nations Environmental Programme/Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-SETAC). Guidelines for Social Life
Cycle Assessment of Products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative,
Paris: UNEP, 104p. (2009) <www.unep.fr>.
[12] Benoît, c. et al. Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for
subcategories of social LCA. International Journal of LCA. v.16, p.682–
690. (2011). doi 10.1007/s11367-011-0301-y.
[13] Jørgensen, A. et al. Methodologies for Social Life Cycle Assessment.
International Journal of LCA. v.13(2), p.96–103. (2008). doi:
10.1065/lca2007.11.367.
[14] Klöpffer, W. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Products.
International Journal of LCA. v.13(2), p.89-95. (2008). doi:
10.1065/lca2008.02.376.
[15] Dreyer, L.C.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Schierbeck, J.A framework for social life
cycle impact assessment. International Journal of LCA. v.11 (2) p. 88-
97. (2006). doi: 10.1065/lca2005.08.223.
[16] Traverso M. et al. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an
implementation to photovoltaic modules. International Journal of LCA.
v.17, p.1068–1079. (2012). doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0433-8