Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment?

Purpose The present paper aims to offer an explanation for the diversity of methodological approaches proposed up to the present for social life cycle assessment (sLCA), tracking down its roots in the cultural and scientific heritage of social sciences and especially management sciences. A second aim is to shift the current debate on methodologies to an epistemological level, presenting the first results of an ongoing critical review about which underlying paradigms have been applied in sLCA literature. Methods This paper moves from the hypothesis that the diversity of positions in philosophy of science and the “multiparadigmatic” character of social sciences have had repercussions on sLCA literature since its beginnings, probably in an unconscious manner. Therefore, a discriminating reflection on the scientific and disciplinary inheritance that can represent the roots of sLCA has been conducted. The philosophy of science and the role of different research paradigms in social sciences have been deepened to provide an overview of the main elements of a paradigm (in terms of ontology, epistemology, and methodology). Finally, a brief but critical review of 133 selected scientific contributions on sLCA has been conducted to highlight which paradigms have been applied in sLCA studies. Results and discussion Recognizing that boundaries between paradigms are subtle and that researchers are rarely conscious of which paradigm underpins their works, a distinction between the interpretivist and post-positivist approaches used by the studies has been carried out on the basis of a text analysis conducted by identifying the main “literal” criteria. From an initial population of 209 studies, we excluded those concerning reviews of sLCA literature and those with selected criteria that were insufficient to catch the epistemological viewpoint of the authors. Among the remaining papers (133), 73 % has been ascribed to the group of interpretivism-oriented paradigms and only 24 % could be ascribed to the post-positivist one; the remaining 3 % is represented by studies with both characteristics. This data deserves some attention because, since the beginnings of sLCA methodologies, most sLCA publications explicitly suggest having the same underlying perspectives as environmental life cycle assessment (eLCA). Conclusions In light of the reflections carried out, we argue that it is important, before going into methodological questioning issues, to be aware of which paradigm is underlying. Indeed, in this phase of sLCA development, scholars should go beyond the simple methodological debate and recognize the “multilayered” nature of social phenomena and the multiparadigmatic characteristics of social and management sciences.