Can you measure the social impact of fashion?
How Social Life Cycle Assessments work and what social washing traps they entail
Welcome to the latest issue of The Crisps, your newsletter on anti-greenwashing and honest fashion communication. In this issue, we dive into Social Life Cycle Assessments (SLCAs) and how they can measure the social impact of textile products.
This week, Fridays for Future protesters around the world asked for an end to fossil fuels. Fashion plays an important role as one of the industries that relies heavily on them. When we speak about change and the impact fashion has on the environment and what could help move the industry toward a less environmentally damaging one, Life Cycle Assessments come into play.
This scientific method can help to gain an overview of the environmental impacts of a product or service. LCAs measure the impact in 15 impact categories like global warming, land use, eco-toxicity and more over a defined lifetime. In case you missed it: We already talked about Life Cycle Assessments in this issue in more detail.
While the methodology can give us an overview, it also has its limitations. One is that classic LCAs usually don’t include social aspects. But luckily Social Life Cycle Assessments (SLCAs) are on the rise.
So let’s have a look at how the social component of textile production can be measured and which limitations SLCAs have. For our pro issue next week, we spoke to one of the leading voices in the field: Natascha van der Velden.
What is a Social Life Cycle Assessment and how does it work?
The Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is a methodology used to assess the social and ethical impacts of products or services throughout their entire life cycle–from raw material extraction to production, distribution, use, and disposal.
In the context of the fashion industry, SLCA aims to evaluate the social aspects and consequences of clothing and textile products, addressing concerns related to labor practices, working conditions, human rights, and community impacts.
There are usually five goups of stakeholders considered:
workers/employees
local community
society
consumers
value chain actors
Each category of stakeholders is associated with specific subcategories, for instance workers/employees are linked to the subcategories “freedom of association,” “child labor,” “fair salary,” “working hours,” “forced labor,” “discrimination,” “health and safety,” and “social benefits.” Consumers are linked to the subcategories “health and safety,” “feedback mechanism,” “consumer privacy,” “transparency,” and “end of life responsibility” (UNEP/SETAC, 2009). 1
If conducted honestly and diligently, SLCAs hold a great potential to detect hidden social impacts.
The main difference between Environmental Life Cycle Assessments and Social Life Cycle Assessments
“The E-LCA framework gives a framework, but the data needed as input is different. Environmentalists deal with information that is largely quantitative, transmitted from sensing stations in oceans, climate monitors on earth, sensors in the atmosphere and satellite imaging from space. Social and Behavioural scientists are dealing with qualitative information, coloured by culture, with norms and moral codes that differ from nation to nation.”2
Similar to Life Cycle Assessments that focus on the environmental impact of product and services, SLCAs also have limitations. Here are the most important ones.
1. Data quality and availability: Obtaining accurate and comprehensive social data throughout a product's life cycle is a challenge. Companies often conceal information related to labor practices and working conditions, making it hard to paint a true picture.
2. Complexity and subjectivity: Social issues are intricate and often deeply subjective. SLCAs may require qualitative assessments, introducing biases and inaccuracies.
3. Interconnectedness of factors: Social aspects are intertwined with environmental and economic factors. Isolating the social dimension can be challenging, risking oversight of crucial connections.
Which socialwashing risks do SLCAs have?
🔸 Selective reporting: Companies can cherry-pick data, emphasizing positive aspects while leaving out severe social issues.
🔸 Complex supply chains: The fashion industry's intricate supply chains create opportunities for companies to obscure unethical practices, making it challenging for SLCAs to capture the full scope of the problem.
🔸 Limited transparency: Some companies resist transparency and external scrutiny, increasing greenwashing risks when there’s a lack of access to accurate and comprehensive data.
🔸 Lack of standardization: Like environmental assessments, SLCAs lack standardization. This ambiguity can enable companies to manipulate or misrepresent their social performance.
In our pro issue next week, we’ll look at SLCAs in more detail with the help of Natascha van der Velden, one of the leading experts in the field. Be sure not to miss this issue by becoming a pro subscriber.
Best,
Tanita & Lavinia
🔹 Learned something in this issue? Share The Crisps with your friends and colleagues.
🔸 Like our content? Support our work with a paid subscription.
🔹 Got feedback or topics we should cover? Send us a mail to thecrisps@substack.com
Disclaimer: The content and opinions presented in The Crisps newsletter are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal, ethical, or professional advice. The Crisps does not endorse any specific brands or products mentioned in its content.
Ren, J., & Toniolo, S. (Eds.). (2019). Life cycle sustainability assessment for decision-making: Methodologies and case studies. Elsevier.
Yang, S., Ma, K., Liu, Z., Ren, J., & Man, Y. (2020). Development and applicability of life cycle impact assessment methodologies. In Life cycle sustainability assessment for decision-making (pp. 95-124). Elsevier.