The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

By Bo Pedersen Weidema. 2006

336 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa5a22014bb37072284381b5b84576623d329113

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment (2009, background): “Furthermore, Dreyer et al. (2006) and Nazarkina and Le Bocq (2006) to a larger extent emphasise ‘standard of living’ through the fulfilment of physical needs and improvement of objective living conditions, whereas Weidema (2006) emphasises ‘safety, security and tranquillity’.”
Characterisation of social impacts in LCA (2010, methodology): “The QALY metric, which is the inverse of the DALY metric, has later been suggested applied in social LCA by Weidema (2006) .”
A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20 (2013, background): “2011), and a lot of discussion is still ongoing (Weidema 2006; Cavanagh et al. 2006; Grießhammer et al. 2007; Zamagni et al. 2009; Finkbeiner et al. 2010; EFORWOOD 2010; Swarr et al. 2011; Halog and Manik 2011; Spoerri et al. 2011; Vinyes et al. 2011).”
Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of Frameworks, Theories, and Empirical Experience (2017, background): “2015), quantify (Kim et al. 2014; Weidema 2006), and aggregate (Shokravi and Kurnia 2014) social and sustainability indicators (ChardineBaumann and Botta-Genoulaz 2014; Schmidt et al.”
Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems (2008, background): “…in the LCA framework, though the effort has been increasing (Jørgensen et al. 2008; Klöpffer 2008; Hunkeler 2006; Hofstetter et al. 2006; Norris 2006; Weidema 2006; Dreyer et al. 2006; Labuschagne 2006; Hunkeler and Rebitzer 2005; Klöpffer 2003; Heller and Koeleian 2000; O’Brien et al. 1996).”
Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis (2020, background): “, cost-benefit analysis, quality adjusted life years (QALY) [75], and social sustainability in supply-chains [76].”
Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs (2013, background): “In SLCA, Dreyer and colleagues (2006) suggest that the area to be protected is ‘human well-being and dignity’ and Weidema (2006) proposes ‘human well-being’, but the next theoretical or operational steps have not been addressed yet (Jeorgensen et al., 2008).”
Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (2019, background): “But this macro-approach may not necessarily reflect the effects on the individual, and could be said to reflect more the short-term economic advantages of the individual worker, for instance, and then the conflict arises when one considers where the line lies between fair employment compensation and”
Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles - Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment (2006, methodology): “Optionally (as in Weidema 2006), propose a method for aggregating results across the different endpoint indicators into a single indicator (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years).”