Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes
Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu Editor
Social Life Cycle Assessment Case Studies from Agri and Food Sectors
Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes Series editor Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu, SgT Group and API, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
This series aims to broadly cover all the aspects related to environmental assessment of products, development of environmental and ecological indicators and eco-design of various products and processes. Below are the areas fall under the aims and scope of this series, but not limited to: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment; Social Life Cycle Assessment; Organizational and Product Carbon Footprints; Ecological, Energy and Water Footprints; Life cycle costing; Environmental and sustainable indicators; Environmental impact assessment methods and tools; Eco-design (sustainable design) aspects and tools; Biodegradation studies; Recycling; Solid waste management; Environmental and social audits; Green Purchasing and tools; Product environmental footprints; Environmental management standards and regulations; Eco-labels; Green Claims and green washing; Assessment of sustainability aspects.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13340
Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu Editor
Social Life Cycle Assessment Case Studies from Agri and Food Sectors
123
Editor Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu SgT Group and API Hong Kong, Hong Kong
ISSN 2345-7651 ISSN 2345-766X (electronic) Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes ISBN 978-981-13-3235-7 ISBN 978-981-13-3236-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3236-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018961219 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore
Contents
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural Products: Experiences on Rice, Sugarcane and Cassava in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . Jittima Prasara-A and Shabbir H. Gheewala
1
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible Profile: The Case of Food Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ioannis E. Nikolaou, Thomas Tsalis and Konstantinos Evangelinos
39
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
59
v
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural Products: Experiences on Rice, Sugarcane and Cassava in Thailand Jittima Prasara-A and Shabbir H. Gheewala
Abstract This chapter presents social performances of major agricultural products in Thailand, i.e. rice, sugarcane and cassava. The social performances are social conditions associated with the products under study and are the results of Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). It discusses the social performances of these crops individually, as well as compares the performance between crops. In addition, it presents social performances of these crops under conventional and area based practices. Moreover, it discusses the applicability of the social performance assessment method used in this study. The results suggest that the performances on working conditions for workers in cultivation of all crops are not much different. The workers gain higher wage on occasion that is competitive to hire workers. Despite relative high number of employment in sugarcane cultivation, its social performance on the local community is relatively low due to the problem of cane trash burning. Compared to all stakeholders, the farm owners for all crops have the lowest social performance. This is because they often face the problem of price fluctuation. Contract farming benefits sugarcane farm owners in all indicators examined. Contract farming provides technology development assistance and access to loan from the sugar factory. Moreover, the area based policy can help to significantly increase social performances of the farm owners for all crops in all aspects studied. In addition, the proposed Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (SLCIA) method used is found to be applicable to all crops studied although modifications are needed to provide more comprehensive results. J. Prasara-A (B) Climate Change and Adaptation Research Unit (CCARE), Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham 44150, Thailand e-mail:
[email protected] S. H. Gheewala Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand S. H. Gheewala Centre of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, Science and Technology Postgraduate Education and Research Development Office (PERDO), Bangkok 10400, Thailand © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 S. S. Muthu (ed.), Social Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3236-4_1
1
2
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Keywords Social life cycle assessment · SLCA · Agricultural products · Rice Sugarcane · Cassava
1 Introduction Agriculture is one of the key economic sectors of Thailand. Moreover, the nation is one of the world’s largest exporters of major agricultural based products such as rice, sugar and cassava starch. In 2017, rice made the largest value of total export among all exporting agricultural products at 175,160 million baht (1 USD ≡ 33 baht). This was followed by products from cassava, the export of which was valued at 95,545 million baht while sugar products from sugarcane had a value of total export of 93,240 million baht (Ministry of Commerce 2017). This implies that abundant amounts of rice, sugarcane and cassava are produced in the country. Like other nations, Thailand has a commitment towards achieving the sustainable development goals. Within these goals, sustainable agriculture is emphasized. The main goal is to help sustain food security and increase farmers’ well-being. Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is a technique used to assess the social and socio-economic performances, both positive and negative, along the life cycle of products. This technique can be used to identify social hotspots for improvement (UNEP/SETAC 2009). It is a useful approach to help moving forward social sustainability of agricultural products. There have been several SLCA studies on agricultural products globally—both food and non-food based products. For example, SLCA studies of agri-food products include roses (Ecuador and Netherlands) (Franze and Ciroth 2011), strawberry yogurt (USA) (Benoit-Norris et al. 2012), wine (Italy) (Arcese et al. 2017), tomato (Italy) (Petti et al. 2018), dairy farm (Ireland) (Chen and Holden 2017), citrus (Italy) (Iofrida et al. 2018), honey (Italy) (D’Eusanio et al. 2018) and soy bean (Brazil) (Zortea et al. 2018). There have also been SLCA studies on non-food agricultural products such as sugarcane for bio-refinery (Brazil) (Souza et al. 2018), bamboo for bicycle frame (Ghana) (Agyekum et al. 2017), oil palm for biodiesel (Indonesia) (Manik et al. 2013) and wood based products (Germany) (Siebert et al. 2018). The previous SLCA studies adopted a variety of their own developed SLCIA methods following the guidelines of UNEP/SETAC (2009). As to date there has not been a standardized SLCIA method to be used among all the studies; the previous SLCA studies on agricultural products have contributed to the methodology development. In Thailand, there have also been some SLCA studies for both food and non-food based agricultural products including the previous study of the authors themselves. For example, SLCA studies of sugarcane for food and biofuel (Prasara-A and Gheewala 2018a; Sawaengsak and Gheewala 2017) and cassava for ethanol (Papong et al. 2017). The previous studies used different reference units; therefore, the comparison is not possible. In addition, they only considered conventional cultivation practices; alternative cultivation practices have not yet been examined.
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
3
This chapter discusses experiences on conducting SLCA case studies of the major agricultural products in Thailand, i.e. rice, sugarcane and cassava. The results presented here are mainly based on recent work, using cases in the northeastern region of Thailand which hosts the largest planting areas of these crops (Phantha et al. 2018; Prasara-A and Gheewala 2018b; Thuayjan et al. 2018). This chapter discusses results in the context of different crops. In addition, it compares results of different crops. Moreover, it discusses applicability of the social performance assessment method proposed for all selected crops. Section 2 describes methodology adopted in this chapter. Sections 3–5 present the social performances of rice, sugarcane and cassava products respectively. Section 6 compares the social performances of all selected crops studied. Section 7 presents the social effects of area based agriculture policy on rice, sugarcane and cassava products. The applicability of the proposed SLCIA method used in this study is discussed in Sect. 8 and concluding remarks are presented in Sect. 9.
2 Materials and Methods 2.1 Goal and Scope Definition The SLCA studies presented follow the framework as outlined in the guidelines of UNEP/SETAC (2009). The reference unit is 1 rai (a standard Thai area unit; equals to 0.16 ha) of plantation area. This reference unit was set to make the results comparable across different product systems. System boundary of this study is cradle to mill gate as shown in Fig. 1.
2.1.1
Site Selection
The sites selected are in the northeastern region of Thailand as it is the largest producer of rice, sugarcane and cassava (Office of Agricultural Economics 2017).
Land preparation
Planting
Fertilization
Transportation
Harvesting
Weed and pest management
Fig. 1 System boundary
4
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 1 Descriptions of sites selected for different crops Crop Description of site Rice
Det Udom district, Ubon Ratchathani province. Distance from farm to rice mill is about 24 km. Plantation area is non-irrigated
Cassava
Khon Buri district, Nakhon Ratchasima province. Distance from farm to cassava starch factory is about 12 km. Plantation area is non-irrigated
Sugarcane
Ban Phue district, Udon Thani province. Distance from farm to sugar factory is about 14 km. Plantation area is non-irrigated
The sites selected are those areas with the largest plantation areas of each crop under study. Descriptions of the sites selected for each crop are shown in Table 1.
2.1.2
Stakeholder Identification
Stakeholders groups examined include workers, local community, and value chain actors (farm owners and machine contractors). The key stakeholder groups included are based on the suggestions in UNEP/SETAC (2009). The previous study on SLCA of sugarcane (Prasara-A and Gheewala 2018a) suggests that more than eighty percent of social effects of agricultural product occur in the plantation stage. This means that social performance in the cultivation stage plays an important role in the overall results. Therefore, the studies presented in this chapter emphasizes on cultivation stage of agricultural products. Consumers are excluded in these studies due to difficulty in data collection. The agricultural products are sold within the country and are also exported. Value chain actors included are based on expert consultation. It is noted that agro-chemical suppliers are not included in this study. Results from previous study on SLCA of sugarcane (Prasara-A and Gheewala 2018a) show that workers are those stakeholders who are socially affected the most. Therefore, it is essential to include this stakeholder group in this study. Workers in the areas studied are mostly locals. They are not contracted workers and are seasonal workers. A single worker is free to work on any number of sites, including plantation of different crops. Some workers also have their own small sized plantation. Local community is included as the plantation is part of the local community. The agricultural cultivation will have social effect on the local community. Most people who live in the studied areas work in agriculture for a living. There are also other minor jobs such as construction work. However, these jobs may need higher skills. Jobs in agriculture do not need high skills. Farm owners in the areas examined are mostly small sized farmers. One farmer normally grows more than one crop. Farm owners included in this study for each crop are those who mainly grow each particular crop studied. Therefore, sites selected for each crop are those areas hosting the largest plantation areas for different crops. Machine contractors are normally the farm owners themselves. They use their own machines in their farms and also rent out to other farm owners within their
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
5
Table 2 Numbers of stakeholders included in the case studies Crop Rice Cassava No. of workers No. of locals No. of farm owners No. of machine contractors
31 26 38 14
34 30 41 12
Sugarcane 32 29 44 10
local areas. The machine used in all crop cultivation is the tractor. In sugarcane cultivation, there is also a planting machine which is incorporated with the tractor while rice and cassava are still planted manually. In rice cultivation, there is rice harvesting machine. Sugarcane and cassava plantation in the areas studied are still manual based. Numbers of stakeholders included in this study are shown in Table 2.
2.2 Data Collection Data collection was done using face-to-face interviews with stakeholders during July 2018. Information provided for this study is from their latest cropping year. The farm owners were contacted through district agricultural officers. Workers and machine contractors were contacted through farm owners. As mentioned earlier, some of the farm owners are also workers and machine contractors. Locals were contacted through heads of villages. In the context of the agricultural products examined, one stakeholder may share different roles. To avoid biased information against other stakeholder groups, one interviewee only represents a particular stakeholder group as suggested in (Manik et al. 2013).
2.3 Impact Assessment 2.3.1
Characterization
The social life cycle impact assessment method used in this study is the performance reference points method where social inventory data are used to compare with the thresholds (Parent et al. 2010). Key social issues examined and their indicators for different stakeholders are described in Table 3. Where possible, social indicators are calculated based on the reference unit, i.e. 1 rai. These include wage, employment generation and income for farm owners and machine contractors. Other indicators are presented as percentages. Key social indicators are adapted from the relevant international standards/guidelines, namely UNEP/SETAC (2009), Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) (Natural Resources Management
6
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 3 Key social issues and indicators examined for different stakeholders Stakeholder Social aspect Indicator Notes group Workers
Local community
Wage
– Average total income received (Bahta /rai)
–
– Wage/day (Baht/day)
–
Health and safety
– Percentage of workers – not having accident in the past year (%)
Discrimination
– Percentage of workers – reporting that males and females are treated the same way in work place (%)
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
– Percentage of workers – having freedom of association and collective bargaining (%)
Child labor
– Percentage of workers Workers are 15 years of reporting absence of age or more child labor issue (%) (Department of Labour Protection and Welfare 2010)
Forced labor
– Percentage of workers – reporting absence of forced labor issue (%)
Working hours
– Percentage of workers – having maximum working hours not exceed 60 h per week (%)
Local employment
– Average employment generation (p-y/rai)
Employment is expressed in unit of p-y (person-year) which is a full time equivalent job in one year. This is equal to 2,080 h (Global Bioenergy Partnership 2011). Employment includes both direct and indirect employment. Indirect employment is calculated using proportional factors from (Silalertruksa et al. 2012) (continued)
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural … Table 3 (continued) Stakeholder Social aspect group
Farm owners
Indicator
Notes
Health and safety
– Percentage of locals not reporting health and safety issue related to agricultural products (%)
–
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
–
Market security
– Percentage of farm owners having fixed market (%)
–
Assistance with loan
– Percentage of farm – owners having access to proper loan system (%)
Assistance with – Percentage of farm technology development owners having access to technology development (%)
Machine contractors a Baht
7
–
Water rights
– Percentage of farm – owners not experiencing legitimate water contest by other users (%)
Land rights
– Percentage of farm – owners not experiencing legitimate land contest by other users (%)
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
–
is the Thai currency unit, 1 Baht 0.03 USD (at August 2018)
and Environment Department of FAO) (2013), Sustainable Rice Platform (2015), Department of Labour Protection and Welfare (2010) and Bonsucro (2014).
2.3.2
Normalization
The normalization step is undertaken to ease the comparison between social performances of different crops, as well as between different indicators. The units of all
8
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
social indicators examined are made into same unit, i.e. percentage. Those characterized indicator results not having unit in percentage are normalized into percentage. For each indicator (for all rice, sugarcane and cassava products), the maximum characterized indicator result is equal to a hundred percent. The rest are made into percentage of the maximum value. For those characterized indicators results already having unit in percentage, normalization is not required. For those indicator results presented in range such as wage/day, the minimum wage paid is used in normalization process. This is based on the idea that the minimum wage is more sensitive to the social condition than the maximum wage. Therefore, the minimum wage is used as a threshold. This step will make it possible to compare indicator results across different indicators, as well as to compare social performances of different agricultural products.
2.3.3
Weighting
The normalized indicator results are then weighted using weighting factors for each particular indicator. Weighting factors in this study are obtained from the stakeholders involved in each social aspect themselves. Rather than using expert judgment to rate importance of each social aspect and indicator affecting different stakeholders, the stakeholders were asked to rate the importance of each social aspect and indicator themselves. This way is thought to reflect the significance of social issues for the people who are socially affected directly. The steps to evaluate weighted social indicator results are described below: 1. Rating importance: To simplify the weighting value evaluation, the stakeholders were asked to rate importance scales from one to ten for each particular social indicator. Scale one represents least important and scale ten represents most important. 2. Evaluating weighting factors for different indicators: For the social aspects having more than one indicator, the average importance scale for each indicator is proportioned to make the summation into value of one. The proportioned scales represent weighting factors for different social indicators. For the social aspects having one indicator, weighting is not required. 3. Weighting different social indicators: After obtaining weighting factors for different social indicators, the normalized indicator results are multiplied by the obtained weighting factors to get weighted indicator results. The weighted indicator results for each social aspect are summed up to get the single weighted result for each social aspect.
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
9
2.4 Interpretation The weighted social indicator results are all in percentage. Zero percent represents poor social performance; while, a hundred percent represents best social performance. To make the results comparable across different stakeholder groups, a single weighted result for each stakeholder group is evaluated. This is done using weighting factors of different social aspects, rating by stakeholders involving. The weighting of social aspect results process is similar to that of the social indicators and it has been discussed in the previous section.
3 Social Performance of Rice Product 3.1 Context of Rice Cultivation Rice is a staple food of the Thai people and also a raw material for a variety of rice based products such as flour, noodles and snacks. Moreover, rice is the most exported agricultural products of Thailand (Ministry of Commerce 2017). Therefore, Thai rice farmers grow rice to feed themselves and to sell. Rice are sold both domestically and abroad. In 2016, Thailand generated about 24 million tonnes of paddy rice (Office of Agricultural Economics 2017). This implies large significance of rice cultivation in the nation. Due to its importance as typical food, there is more area reserved for rice cultivation compared to other crops. Areas which are suitable to grow rice are mostly reserved for it. Depending on rice and other crops’ selling prices, some areas may be changed to grow other crops such as sugarcane, corns and vegetables. However, the farmers always grow enough to feed themselves. Most of the farms studied are small sized farms. All of them grow major rice which depends only on rain water. Major rice is grown once a year. The whole crop cycle takes about half a year. In the site selected to study, rice cultivation is still mostly manual based. Table 4 shows a summary of the stages of rice cultivation. In the planting stage, the farmers mostly use direct seeding approach and some use transplantation approach. Transplantation approach is an approach to grow seedlings in one site and then replanting them in another site. This approach is believed to be more affective as it can help ease weed and pest management more effectively. It can consequently produce higher yields. However, this approach is labor and cost intensive. The direct seeding approach is easier and less labor intensive but uses higher amount of seeds. Fertilization, weeding and pest management, are both manual based. Harvesting can be both manual and mechanized based. Mechanized based approach is quicker but may not be suitable in all areas. However, this approach may have higher loss of paddy rice on the fields. Manual based approach can better keep paddy rice but it is time consuming and is more costly.
10
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 4 Descriptions of rice cultivation in different stages Stage Descriptions Planting
Manual based (about 90% direct seeding and 10% transplantation)
Fertilization Manual based Weed and pest management Manual based Harvesting
About 28% manual based and 72% mechanized based
3.2 Characterized SLCA Results of Rice Product The characterized social performances of rice cultivation in the site studied are shown in Table 5. The results show that for workers, the rice cultivation shows best performances on discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labor, forced labor and working hour. For health and safety, the social performance is relatively high compared to the other mentioned aspects. For wage issue, the daily wage is ranked from 250 to 350 Baht/day, depending on tasks and time. In some sites, workers in rice harvesting can get up to 350 Baht/day. This may be competitive time to hire workers. Major rice is harvested around November to December which may overlap with other crop such as sugarcane. Therefore the wage can be a little higher than usual. When considering wage gain per 1 rai, workers seem to earn the least compared to farm owners and machine contractors. Rice cultivation shows high social performance on local community regarding health and safety having a score of a hundred percent. It generates employment of 0.015 p-y per 1 rai. Farm owners gain the most income per 1 rai, compared to workers and machine contractors. Machine contractors gain higher income per 1 rai than workers, but less than that of farm owners. For water and land rights issues, the farm owners have a score of a hundred percent social performances. Whereas, social performances on market security, access to loan and technology development are poor. In rice cultivation sector, there is no fixed market system. The farm owners sell paddy rice freely. However, they have to bear the fluctuation in selling price. They do not usually have access to proper loan system and technology development, unless there are special programs from the government to support the farmers.
4 Social Performance of Sugarcane Product 4.1 Context of Sugarcane Cultivation Thailand is the world’s second largest sugar exporter (Workman 2017). Sugarcane is a feedstock for both food and fuel (Gheewala et al. 2011). The main product from the sugarcane is sugar which is used to feed the nation’s population and also to
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural … Table 5 Summary of characterized social performances of rice cultivation Stakeholder group Social aspect Indicator Workers
Local community
Farm owners
Wage
11
Results
– Average total income received (Baht/rai)
912
– Wage/day (Baht/day)
250–350
Health and safety
– Percentage of workers not having accident in the past year (%)
97
Discrimination
– Percentage of workers 100 reporting that male and female are treated the same way in work place (%)
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
– Percentage of workers having freedom of association and collective bargaining (%)
100
Child labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of child labor issue (%)
100
Forced labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of forced labor issue (%)
100
Working hour
– Percentage of workers having maximum working hours not exceeding 60 h per week (%)
100
Local employment – Average employment generation (p-y/rai)
0.015
Health and safety
– Percentage of locals not reporting health and safety issue related to agricultural products (%)
100
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
3048
Market security
– Percentage of farm owners having fixed market (%)
0
Assistance with loan
– Percentage of farm owners having access to proper loan system (%)
0
(continued)
12
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 5 (continued) Stakeholder group Social aspect
Machine contractors
Indicator
Results
Assistance with technology development
– Percentage of farm owners having access to technology development (%)
0
Water rights
– Percentage of farm owners not 100 experiencing legitimate water contest by other users (%)
Land rights
– Percentage of farm owners not 100 experiencing legitimate land contest by other users (%)
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
1487
export. Its co-products such as molasses and bagasse are the main feedstocks for bio-ethanol and bio-electricity production. This means that the large amount of the sugarcane being produced in Thailand, to feed both sugar mills and sugarcane based bio-refineries. Sugarcane cultivation has a strong connection with the sugar industry. There is established a contract farming system between sugarcane farm owners and the sugar factories. The farm owners who are contracted with the sugar factories have quotas to supply specific amounts of sugarcane to the sugar mills. In addition, the contracted farm owners can access loan and technology development from the sugar factories. Depending on the sugar factories, there are also incentives given to the contracted farmers who can reach the sugarcane supplying quotas. In addition, the government established the profit sharing from the sale of sugar to the sugarcane farm owners. This is to distribute more income to the sugarcane farm owners. Sugarcane is a ratoon crop. This means that after the first planting and harvesting, its remaining parts can give rise to the new crop stand. Therefore, even though it is harvested yearly, it does not have to be planted every year. However, fertilization, weed and pest management are required along the yielding time. In the site studied, the sugarcane has three ratoons. Depending on soil fertility and farm management, in some cases, larger number of ratoons can be achieved. Not like other crops such as rice and cassava, arable land planting sugarcane may not be changed to other crops easily as it can produce ratoons in the later years. In the site studied, sugarcane planting is normally mechanized. The sugarcane planting machine is fixed with the tractor. Only a few workers are needed to control the machines. Fertilization and weed and pest management, are manual based. In the maintenance stage, both machine such as small tractor and labor are required. Harvesting is still manual based for cutting sugarcane as the cane harvesters are not suitable in the area studied. Machines are required for lifting sugarcane onto trucks. Table 6 shows descriptions of sugarcane cultivation in different stages. For selling products in this site, there are two typical ways: selling directly to the sugar factories
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
13
Table 6 Descriptions of sugarcane cultivation in different stages Stage Descriptions Planting
Mechanized based
Fertilization Manual based Weed and pest management Mechanized or manual based Harvesting
Manual based for cutting sugarcane and machine required for lifting sugarcane on trucks
and selling green cane to the middle man. These two options result in different incomes for the farm owners. When selling sugarcane to the middle man, the farm owners do not need to hire workers themselves for harvesting but they will earn less income. Some farm owners choose this option because they do not want the hassle of dealing with lack of workers.
4.2 Characterized SLCA Results of Sugarcane Product The characterized social performances of sugarcane cultivation in the site studied are shown in Table 7. The results show that for workers, the sugarcane cultivation shows best possible performance on health and safety, discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labor, forced labor and working hour, with a score of a hundred percent. The daily wage is ranked from 250 to 600 Baht/day, depending on tasks and time. For harvesting, workers can gain up to 600 Baht/day depending on how much sugarcane they can cut. Sugarcane cultivation does not perform very well on local community regarding health and safety. About sixty percent of locals reported health and safety issues relating to sugarcane cultivation. This is the problem of air pollution arising from cane trash burning. Some locals reported that the air pollution from cane trash burning have an effect on them. Sugarcane cultivation generates an employment of 0.035 p-y per rai. When considering wage gain per rai, the income of workers is very close to that of the farm owners. It is to be noted that if the farm owners sell green cane to the middle man, their income per rai will be even less than that of the workers. The machine contractors earn a little less income per rai than the others. For water and land rights issues, the farm owners have best possible social performance. Social performances on market security, access to loan and technology development are relatively low. Even though there is contract farming system, only ten percent of the total farm owners interviewed had contracts with the sugar factories. Others are sub-contracted. Only the contracted farmers have access to proper loan system and technology development. In addition, the contracted farmers seem to have more market security because they have fixed market.
14
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 7 Summary of characterized social performances of sugarcane cultivation Stakeholder Social aspect Indicator group Workers
Local community
Farm owners
Machine contractors a Income
Results
Wage
– Average total income received (Baht/rai)
4319
– Wage/day (Baht)
250–600
Health and safety
– Percentage of workers not having accident in the past year (%)
100
Discrimination
– Percentage of workers reporting that male and female are treated the same way in work place (%)
100
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
– Percentage of workers having freedom of association and collective bargaining (%)
100
Child labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of child labor issue (%)
100
Forced labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of forced labor issue (%)
100
Working hour
– Percentage of workers having maximum 100 working hours not exceeding 60 h per week (%)
Local employment
– Average employment generation (p-y/rai)
Health and safety
– Percentage of locals not reporting health and 40 safety issue related to agricultural products (%)
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
Market security
– Percentage of farm owners having fixed market 10 (%)
Assistance with loan
– Percentage of farm owners having access to proper loan system (%)
10
Assistance with technology development
– Percentage of farm owners having access to technology development (%)
10
Water rights
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate water contest by other users (%)
100
Land rights
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate land contest by other users (%)
100
Economic development
– Average net income (B/rai)
3399
in case of selling green cane to middle man
0.035
4480 (3380a )
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
15
Table 8 Descriptions of cassava cultivation in different stages Stage Descriptions Planting
Manual based
Fertilization Weed and pest management
Manual based Mechanized and manual based
Harvesting
Mechanized mixed with manual based
5 Social Performance of Cassava Product 5.1 Context of Cassava Cultivation Cassava is one of the major agricultural products playing an important role in the Thai economy. It is a feedstock for food and fuel such as cassava starch and bio-ethanol (Numjuncharoen et al. 2015). Moreover, Thailand is the world’s largest exporters of tapioca starch and other products from cassava (Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute 2015). This implies that a large amount of cassava being produced in Thailand. Cassava is grown once a year and can be harvested about a year later. In the area studied, cassava and sugarcane are grown in similar geographical conditions. This means that these two crops are competitive to be grown on the same land. The farmers may choose between these two crops. However, as discussed earlier that sugarcane, once grown, will stay on for a couple of years as it is a ratoon crop. Therefore, the decision to change crop to grow may happen in a couple of year time. Table 8 shows description of cassava cultivation in different stages. Cassava cultivation is mostly manual based. Planting are all manual based. Unlike other crops, there is still no available planting machine for cassava crop. The planting stage is therefore labor intensive. Fertilization is also manual based. Weed and pest management use both machine and labor. Some small tractors are used in weed management but some workers are still required. Harvesting cassava requires both tractors and workers. Tractors are used to dig out the cassava roots and several workers are required to pick up the cassava roots and put them onto the trucks.
5.2 Characterized SLCA Results of Cassava Product The summary results of characterized social performances of cassava for each stakeholder group are shown in Table 9. The results show that for workers, the cassava cultivation shows best possible performances on discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labor, forced labor and working hour, with a score of a hundred percent. For health and safety, nine percent of workers interviewed reported small injuries. The
16
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 9 Summary of characterized social performances of cassava cultivation Stakeholder Social aspect Indicator group Workers
Local community
Farm owners
Machine contractors
Results
Wage
– Average total income received (Baht/rai)
2049
– Wage/day (Baht)
250–350
Health and safety
– Percentage of workers not having accident in the past year (%)
91
Discrimination
– Percentage of workers reporting that male and female are treated the same way in work place (%)
100
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
– Percentage of workers having freedom of association and collective bargaining (%)
100
Child labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of child labor issue (%)
100
Forced labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of forced labor issue (%)
100
Working hour
– Percentage of workers having maximum 100 working hours not exceeding 60 h per week (%)
Local employment
– Average employment generation (p-y/rai)
Health and safety
– Percentage of locals not reporting health and 100 safety issue related to agricultural products (%)
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
Market security
– Percentage of farm owners having fixed market 0 (%)
Assistance with loan
– Percentage of farm owners having access to proper loan system (%)
0
Assistance with technology development
– Percentage of farm owners having access to technology development (%)
0
Water rights
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate water contest by other users (%)
100
Land rights
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate land contest by other users (%)
100
Economic development
– Average net income (B/rai)
1641
0.038
6470
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
17
daily wage ranges from 250 to 350 Baht/day, depending on the tasks and time of the year. When there is high demand for workers for different crops at the same time, daily wages may go up to 350 Baht/day. Cassava cultivation shows best possible social performance on local community regarding health and safety. It generates employment of 0.037 p-y per 1 rai. Farm owners gain the most income per rai, compared to workers and machine contractors. Machine contractors gain the least. For water and land rights issues, the farm owners have best possible social performances. Whereas, social performances on market security, access to loan and technology development are poor. In the cassava cultivation sector, there is no fixed market system. The farm owners sell cassava freely. They often face fluctuations in selling price. Also, they do not have proper access to loan system and technology development.
6 Comparison of Social Performance Between Different Crops This section will discuss social performances of different crops using normalized and weighted results as these results are in the same unit (percentage). Therefore, it allows comparison across different social indicators, social aspects and also different crops.
6.1 Normalized Results Using normalization process described in Sect. 2.3.2, normalized SLCA results of different crops obtained are shown in Table 10 and Fig. 2. The results suggest that sugarcane performs best among different crops, except for local employment, health and safety issues for locals and net income for farm owners. Although the employment generation of sugarcane cultivation is relatively high compared to other crops, it does not perform well regarding health and safety issues. This is due to the air pollution caused by cane trash burning. This issue not only has an effect on sugarcane plantation, but also has an effect on local community. The working conditions are not so much different for the three crops. The daily wages for all crops are the same. However, when considering wage gain per area, sugarcane performs best. Sugarcane has highest social performance on accident issue, while other crops have relatively high performance on this indicator. This may result from changing to more mechanized based agricultural practices for rice and sugarcane. While cassava cultivation is still mostly manual based, the cultivation of other crops are more mechanized. Due to several manual based tasks in cassava cultivation, it has a little higher accident rate compared to other crops.
18
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 10 Normalized social performances of different crops Stakeholder Social aspect Indicator Rice group Workers
Wage
– Average total income received
Cassava
21
100
47
100
100
100
97
100
91
Discrimination – Percentage of 100 workers reporting that male and female are treated the same way in work place
100
100
Freedom of – Percentage of association workers having and collective freedom of bargaining association and collective bargaining
100
100
100
Child labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of child labor issue
100
100
100
Forced labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of forced labor issue
100
100
100
Working hour – Percentage of 100 workers having maximum working hours not exceed 60 h per week
100
100
39
92
100
100
40
100
– Daily wage Health and safety
Local community
Sugarcane
– Percentage of workers not having accident in the past year
Local employment
– Average employment generation
Health and safety
– Percentage of locals not reporting health and safety issue related to agricultural products
(continued)
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural … Table 10 (continued) Stakeholder Social aspect group Farm owners
Machine contractors a Case
Indicator
19
Rice
Sugarcane
Cassava
47
69a
– Percentage of farm owners having fixed market
0
10
0
Assistance with loan
– Percentage of farm owners having access to proper loan system
0
10
0
Assistance with technology development
– Percentage of farm owners having access to technology development
0
10
0
Water rights
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate water contest by other users
100
100
100
Land rights
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate land contest by other users
100
100
100
Economic development
– Average net income
44
100
48
Economic development
– Average net income
Market security
100
of self managed harvesting
For farm owners, the sugarcane farm owners seem to have higher social performance than that of other crops with regards to market security, access to loan and technology development. This is due to the contract farming system established for sugarcane cultivation sector. There is no contract farming for other crops. However, the social performances of sugarcane on these indicators are still relatively low. This is because not all farm owners interviewed are contracted with the sugar factories, most of them are sub-contracted to the contracted ones. The sub-contracted farmers do not get benefits on these like the contracted ones. Net income per area of cassava farm owners is the highest among the three crops. This is because at the time of study, the selling price of cassava was relatively higher
20
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
120 100 80 60 40 20 rice 0 Net income per rai
Farm owners
Legitimate land contest
Legitimate water contest
Access to technology development (%)
Access to proper loan system
Local community
Fixed market
Net income per rai
Health and safety issue
Employment generation
Working hours
Forced labor
Child labor
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
Discrimination in workplace
Accident
Daily wage
Total income per rai
Workers
sugarcane cassava
Machine contractors
Fig. 2 Comparison of normalized social indicators for different crops
than at other times, whereas the selling prices of rice and sugarcane were relatively lower than at other times. However, the farm owners of all crops often face a problem with selling price fluctuation and market security. Sugarcane seems to be more advantageous in relation to these issues with the contract farming system. In addition, the sugarcane selling price is fixed yearly while selling prices of other crops can fluctuate along the year. Despite having the highest social performance in several aspects, sugarcane has poorer social performance on local health and safety issues. The problem of cane trash burning before harvesting the sugarcane is a major concern for the local community. About sixty percent of locals reported that they are affected by this problem of sugarcane cultivation. Rice seems to have lowest social performances on total income per area for workers, employment generation and net income per area for machine contractors. This is because rice cultivation has a shorter crop cycle than others. Its crop cycle takes about half year, while that of other crops take about a year. Therefore, it requires fewer workers resulting in less employment generation, total income per area for workers, and net income per area for machine contractors.
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
21
120 100 80 rice
60
sugarcane cassava
40 20 0 workers
local community
farm owners
machine contractors
Fig. 3 Comparison of weighted social performances of different crops
6.2 Weighted Results Normalized social performance results have been discussed in the previous section. However, not all social indicators and aspects are given the same priority. This section shows the weighted social performance results of different crops. Following the process described in Sect. 2.3.3, weighted SLCA results of different crops obtained are shown in Table 12 and Fig. 3. Table 11 shows weighting factors of social aspects and their indicators (process of evaluation of weighting factors has been described in Sect. 2.3.3). It is noted that weighting factors for workers in cultivation of all crops are similar. This is because in the site studied, all rice, sugarcane and cassava cultivation share the same workers. Jobs in crop cultivation in the site study are seasonal and casual works, the workers are free to work in any plantation sites. Results from Table 11 suggest that weighting factors of social indicators and aspects for different crops are not much different. Workers give higher importance rating scores to health and safety, fair wage, working hours and discrimination. Importance rating scores for freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labor and forced labor are smaller. This may be due to that there are no problems on these issues in the area studied. Therefore, the stakeholders may not realize the problems on these; and therefore they do not feel the importance of these issues. The farm owners for all crops give high importance rating scores to land rights, economic development, market security, access to loan and technology development. For technology development aspect, the cassava farm owners give lowest importance rating scores compared to that of other crops. The reason for this may be that technology used in cassava cultivation is not so advanced compared to other crops. For example, planting of cassava is still manual based, while there are machines used for planting other crops. Therefore, the cassava farm owners may not see technology development as important. Water rights aspect is given relatively low importance by farm owners for all crops in the sites studied. This is because all the sites studied are
0.05
Freedom of 0.13 association and collective bargaining
0.05
0.10
0.18
Child labor
Forced labor
Working hour
Local employment
0.13
0.17
Discrimination
Local community
0.17
0.19
Health and safety
0.48
0.50
0.18
0.10
0.19
0.17
0.17
Sugarcane
Wage
Rice
Workersa
Factor
Social aspect
Stakeholder group
0.50
0.18
0.10
0.05
0.13
0.17
0.19
0.17
Cassava
Table 11 Weighting factors of social aspects and their indicators for rice cultivation
– Average employment generation (p-y/rai)
– Percentage of workers having maximum working hours not exceed 60 h per week (%)
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of forced labor issue (%)
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of child labor issue (%)
– Percentage of workers having freedom of association and collective bargaining (%)
– Percentage of workers reporting that male and female are treated the same way in work place (%)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.49
– Wage/day – Percentage of workers not having accident in the past year (%)
0.51
(continued)
Factor
– Average total income received
Indicator
22 J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
a Weighting
Machine contractors
0.03
0.06
0.20
Water rights
Land rights
1
0.18
Assistance with 0.18 technology development
Economic development
0.18
Assistance with 0.18 loan
1
0.23
0.20
Market security 0.20
0.50
Sugarcane
0.19
0.52
Rice
Factor
0.18
Economic development
Health and safety
Social aspect
1
0.17
0.06
0.09
0.19
0.20
0.29
0.50
Cassava
Factor
1
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate land contest by other users (%)
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate water contest by other users (%)
– Percentage of farm owners having access to technology development (%)
– Percentage of farm owners having access to proper loan system (%)
1
1
1
1
1
– Percentage of farm owners having fixed market 1 (%)
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
– Percentage of locals not reporting health and 1 safety issue related to agricultural products (%)
Indicator
factors for workers in cultivation of all crops are similar as in the site studied, same workers can work in all rice, sugarcane and cassava plantation
Farm owners
Stakeholder group
Table 11 (continued)
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural … 23
24
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 12 Weighted social indicator results of different crops Stakeholder Social aspect Rice group
Sugarcane
Workers
Local community Farm owners
Machine contractors
Cassava
Wage
10
17
12
Health and safety
18
19
17
Discrimination Freedom of association and collective bargaining
17 13
17 13
17 13
Child labor Forced labor Working hour
5 10 18
5 10 18
5 10 18
Local employment
19
46
50
Health and safety
52
20
50
Economic development
8
13
29
Market security
0
2
0
Assistance with loan Assistance with technology development
0 0
2 2
0 0
Water rights
6
3
6
Land rights
20
23
17
Economic development
44
100
48
non-irrigated areas and they depend only from rain water. Hence, they do not give importance to rights of using irrigation water. Table 12 shows weighted social indicator results of different crops using weighting factors from Table 11. For workers in cultivation of all crops, weighted social performances on fair wage, health and safety, discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, and working hour, are higher than child labor and forced labor. Although the normalized results of these indicators are high, the weighting factors for these two indicators are very low. Consequently, this makes the weighted results relatively low. For farm owners, social performance on land rights stands out as the highest for all crops. This is because this indicator has highest normalized results and highest weighing factors compared to the other indicators for all crops. For economic development, the cassava farm owners have highest social performances among that of other crops. This has resulted from the highest net income from selling this crop. Figure 3 shows the overall weighted social aspect results of different crops using weighting factors from Table 11. Considering overall social aspects for different stakeholder groups, workers seem to be in a better place than other stakeholder groups. All crops studied have lowest social performances on farm owners.
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
25
For workers, sugarcane performs best, while other crops also have relatively high social performances. For local community, cassava has the highest social performance. This is because it generates highest employment and also has no social effect on local health the safety. Sugarcane has lowest social performance among the three crops. This is due to cane trash burning which causes health and safety problem for locals. For farm owners, rice cultivation has the lowest social performance. This is mainly due to low net income per area compared to other crops. For machine contractors, sugarcane performs best. This is because sugarcane cultivation is most mechanized compared to other crops. Therefore, the machine contractors can earn more income per area than other crops.
7 Social Effects of Area Based Agriculture Policy on Agricultural Products This section will discuss SLCA results of the studied agricultural products in the context of government policy implementation. As the agricultural sector is important for the Thai nation, there is some support from the government which attempts to increase social welfare of the farmers. In this section, SLCA results of agricultural products with area based agricultural policy will be presented. Thailand’s new agricultural policy, called “area based approach” has been established in 2016. It promotes shifting from traditional agriculture to modern agriculture. This means changing from manual to more mechanization. This approach combines small farms and manages them as one large farm. The idea is that the farmers still own their lands but the management is done through the group. It aims to increase yields, to meet the needs of the market, to lower production cost which will result in an increase of farmers’ incomes, as well as to increase the farmers’ bargaining power (Thailand Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 2016).
7.1 Rice In the site studied, the area based rice cultivation tends to change to be more mechanized. In the planting stage, 17% have changed to use planting machines (paddy-drop down machine). This can help to save amount of seeds used and also to reduce labor cost. Fertilization and weeding are still manual based. For harvesting, about 11% more farm owners have changed to use harvesting machines. The area based group rents out machines to farm owners who are members, at lower cost. Moreover, the members can buy fertilizers and agro-chemicals from the group at lower prices. This is to help lower the production cost. The area based group has a memorandum of understanding with the rice mills to buy paddy rice from the group members at a better price than normal market price. The group also organizes trainings for members
26
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
to disseminate knowledge and transfer technology. The farm owners joining the area based group can also get access to a proper loan system with lower interest rate. The characterized social performances of conventional and area based rice cultivation are shown in Table 13. The results show that for workers, social performances for both conventional and area based are very similar for all social indicators examined. For farm owners and machine contractors, the area based approach can help improve social performances in all social indicators examined. These include net income per area, market security, access to loan and technology development. The members of the area based group can gain knowledge on new technology by attending trainings provided by the government. This would help to increase rice yields and lower the production costs, which will increase net income per rice for farm owners. Machine contractors earn more for area based approach. This is due to an increase in using mechanization in rice cultivation. In addition, being part of the large group can have more power to negotiate with the rice mills. This makes the market more secured. Total wage received per rai for workers and local employment generation for area based approach are a little lower than that of the conventional approach. This is because the area based approach promotes changing cultivation practice to be more mechanized. Therefore, less labor is required in the rice cultivation. This in turn makes the employment generation lower; and consequently lowers the wage gain per rai for workers.
7.2 Sugarcane Area based sugarcane cultivation in the area studied has not really changed the cultivation practice. Despite the establishment of high technology for sugarcane harvesting, it is not appropriate for all areas. Moreover, it is too expensive for the area based group to invest. In the area studied, it is not suitable to deploy the harvesting machine. Therefore, the sugarcane cutting in area based sugarcane cultivation is still manual based. Machine is used to lift the harvested sugarcane onto the trucks. To help lower production costs and increase net income for farm owners, the area based group in the site studied rents out machines at lower cost. In addition, it has established a group of workers to provide service within their own group at lower cost. Some of the workers are also the farm owners within the area based group. This is thought to also solve labor shortage problem. The farm owners joining the group who own the machines rent out machines to members at lower cost. The members can also buy fertilizers and agro-chemicals from the group at lower prices. The farm owners normally sell green cane to the group. The group then manages harvesting, transportation and selling to the sugar factory. Apart from selling price, the farm owners will later get profit allocation from the group. The group members can get access to knowledge and new technology by attending trainings organized by the group. The farm owners joining the area based group can also get access
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
27
Table 13 Summary of characterized social performances of conventional and area based rice cultivation Stakeholder Social aspect Indicator Conventional Area based group Workers
Wage
Health and safety
Local community
Farm owners
– Average total income received (Baht/rai)
912
925
– Wage/day (Baht/day)
250–350
250–350
– Percentage of workers not having accident in the past year (%)
97
98
Discrimination – Percentage of workers 100 reporting that male and female are treated the same way in work place (%)
100
Freedom of – Percentage of workers association and having freedom of collective association and bargaining collective bargaining (%)
100
100
Child labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of child labor issue (%)
100
100
Forced labor
– Percentage of workers reporting absence of forced labor issue (%)
100
100
Working hour
– Percentage of workers having maximum working hours not exceeding 60 h per week (%)
100
100
Local employment
– Average employment generation (p-y/rai)
0.015
0.013
Health and safety
– Percentage of locals not 100 reporting health and safety issue related to agricultural products (%)
100
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
3048
3347
Market security
– Percentage of farm owners having fixed market (%)
0
100
(continued)
28
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 13 (continued) Stakeholder Social aspect group
Machine contractors
Indicator
Conventional
Area based
Assistance with loan
– Percentage of farm 0 owners having access to proper loan system (%)
100
Assistance with technology development
– Percentage of farm 0 owners having access to technology development (%)
100
Water rights
– Percentage of farm 100 owners not experiencing legitimate water contest by other users (%)
100
Land rights
– Percentage of farm 100 owners not experiencing legitimate land contest by other users (%)
100
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
1703
1487
to proper loan system with lower interest rate. Table 14 shows characterized social performances of conventional and area based sugarcane cultivation. The results show that in the area based approach, workers gain less total wage per rai. This is due to the labor cost for area based cultivation being lower. Numbers of local employment for both practices are similar as cultivation practices have not much been changed. Moreover, the area based approach performs best with regards to market security, access to loan and technology development. However, in area based practice, the machine contractors earn smaller net income per rai than the conventional practice. This is because the cost of machine hiring in area based practice is lower than normal market cost.
7.3 Cassava In the site studied, there is not much difference between conventional and area based cassava cultivation. The cultivation practice remains the same, which is mostly manual based. In some cultivation stages such as planting and harvesting, machine use is mixed with labor. Fertilization and weeding are still manual based. Among the three crops studied, the management structure of the area based cassava cultivation seems to be loosest. In area based approach, the members can buy fertilizers and agro-chemicals from the group at lower prices compared to normal market price. This is because the group buy bulk purchase these inputs.
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
29
Table 14 Summary of characterized social performances of conventional and area based sugarcane cultivation Stakeholder Social aspect Indicator Conventional Area based group Workers
Local community
Farm owners
Wage
– Average total income received (Baht/rai)
4319
3920
– Wage/day (Baht/day)
250–600
250–600
Health and safety
– Percentage of workers 100 not having accident in the past year (%)
100
Discrimination
– Percentage of workers 100 reporting that male and female are treated the same way in work place (%)
100
Freedom of – Percentage of workers 100 association and having freedom of collective association and bargaining collective bargaining (%)
100
Child labor
– Percentage of workers 100 reporting absence of child labor issue (%)
100
Forced labor
– Percentage of workers 100 reporting absence of forced labor issue (%)
100
Working hour
– Percentage of workers 100 having maximum working hours not exceeding 60 h per week (%)
100
Local employment
– Average employment generation (p-y/rai)
0.035
0.035
Health and safety
– Percentage of locals not reporting health and safety issue related to agricultural products (%)
40
40
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
4480
5470a
10
100
Market security – Percentage of farm owners having fixed market (%)
(continued)
30
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 14 (continued) Stakeholder Social aspect group
Machine contractors
Indicator
Conventional
Area based
Assistance with – Percentage of farm loan owners having access to proper loan system (%)
10
100
Assistance with – Percentage of farm technology owners having access development to technology development (%)
10
100
Water rights
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate water contest by other users (%)
100
100
Land rights
– Percentage of farm 100 owners not experiencing legitimate land contest by other users (%)
100
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
2850
3399
a Farm
owners manage all cultivation in all stages themselves and sell green cane to the group to harvest and sell to factory. The farm owners will also gain profit allocation from the group
The area based group for cassava has a memorandum of understanding with the cassava starch factories to buy cassava from the group members at a better price than normal market price. However, the farm owners have to manage all harvesting and transportation to the factory themselves. There is no assistance from the group regarding to these. The group also organizes trainings for members to access knowledge and new technology. The farm owners joining the area based group can also get access to proper loan system with lower interest rate. The characterized social performances of conventional and area based cassava cultivation are shown in Table 15. The results show that for workers, local community and machine contractors, the area based and the conventional approaches have very similar social performance for all social indicators examined. For farm owners, the area based practice performs better regarding net income per rai. This is due to the production cost reduction. Moreover, the area based approach has best possible performances with regards to market security, access to loan and technology development. Figure 4 shows comparison of normalized social indicator results for different area based agricultural crops. A comparison of results in Figs. 2 and 4 shows that the area based and the conventional approaches have very similar social performance for
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
31
Table 15 Summary of characterized social performances of conventional and area based cassava cultivation Stakeholder Social aspect Indicator Conventional Area based group Workers
Local community
Farm owners
Wage
– Average total income received (Baht/rai)
2049
2049
– Wage/day (Baht/day)
250–350
250–350
Health and safety
– Percentage of workers 91 not having accident in the past year (%)
93
Discrimination
– Percentage of workers 100 reporting that male and female are treated the same way in work place (%)
100
Freedom of – Percentage of workers 100 association and having freedom of collective association and bargaining collective bargaining (%)
100
Child labor
– Percentage of workers 100 reporting absence of child labor issue (%)
100
Forced labor
– Percentage of workers 100 reporting absence of forced labor issue (%)
100
Working hour
– Percentage of workers 100 having maximum working hours not exceeding 60 h per week (%)
100
Local employment
– Average employment generation (p-y/rai)
0.038
0.038
Health and safety
– Percentage of locals not reporting health and safety issue related to agricultural products (%)
100
100
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
6470
7470 (continued)
32
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Table 15 (continued) Stakeholder Social aspect group
Machine contractors
Indicator
Conventional
Area based
Market security – Percentage of farm owners having fixed market (%)
0
100
Assistance with – Percentage of farm loan owners having access to proper loan system (%)
0
100
Assistance with – Percentage of farm technology owners having access development to technology development (%)
0
100
Water rights
– Percentage of farm owners not experiencing legitimate water contest by other users (%)
100
100
Land rights
– Percentage of farm 100 owners not experiencing legitimate land contest by other users (%)
100
Economic development
– Average net income (Baht/rai)
1641
1641
all social indicators examined, except net income for farm owners, market security, access to loan and technology development. This is because the area based approach aims at providing these assistances to the farmers to help them lower production costs and in turn increase net income. This approach seems to succeed in helping the farm owners. However, other stakeholder groups such as workers and machine contactors may be a little disadvantaged by this approach. However, this may compensate the labor shortage issue. Moreover, the workers and machine contractors are also the farm owners within the area based group. They will get benefits from higher net income from selling products. Figure 5 shows comparison of weighted social performances of area based cultivation of different crops. Farm owners and workers seem to be in a better place than other stakeholder groups. All crops studied have lowest social performances on machine contractors, except for sugarcane. Machine contractors for sugarcane have best performance compared to other crops because sugarcane cultivation is most mechanized. Hence, they can earn more income per rai than other crops. Compared to the results of conventional practice in Fig. 3, it is seen that farm owners group is the most sensitive (compared to other stakeholder groups) to this
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
33
120 100 80 60 40 20 rice sugarcane
0 Net income per rai
Farm owners
Legitimate land contest
Legitimate water contest
Access to technology development
Access Proper loan system
Local community
Fixed market
Net income per rai
Health and safety issue
Employment generation
Working hours
Forced labor
Child labor
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
Discrimination in workplace
Daily wage
Accident
Total income per rai
Workers
cassava
Machine contractors
Fig. 4 Comparison of normalized social indicators for different area based agricultural crops 120 100 80 rice
60
sugarcane cassava
40 20 0 workers
local community
farm owners
machine contractors
Fig. 5 Comparison of weighted social performances of area based cultivation of different crops
area based approach. The weighted results of this stakeholder group have changed tremendously after implementing this area based policy. The weighted social performances of the farm owners for all crops have significantly increased. However, this approach may slightly disadvantage other stakeholder groups such as workers and machine contractors. However, as in the site studied, same stakeholders share different roles. So, they can benefit from this policy as the farm owners.
34
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
8 Applicability of the Proposed SLCIA Method Used in Different Agricultural Products This section will discuss the applicability and limitations of SLCIA method used in this study.
8.1 Applicability The proposed SLCIA method used in this study is applicable for assessing social performances of cultivation of all crops. This is because this method can help evaluate extents of social conditions of different social indicators, as well as different stakeholder groups. The data collection can be done on sites using face-to-face interviews. Moreover, the process to obtain weighting factors for social indicators and social aspects is simple (described in Sects. 2.3.2 and 2.3.3). Data collection for SLCA in agricultural sector should be made as simple as possible. This is for the stakeholders to understand the questions/data required well, as well as to save time. The rating importance process for different stakeholders has been designed to be very simple. This is to avoid complication of questions, in order to get valid results which really reflect the opinions of stakeholders. For instance, this study asked the stakeholder to choose one scale from importance scales of 1–10, instead of asking them to give importance scales of one choice against another.
8.2 Limitations Data collection is time consuming and expensive. Other method such as focus group to obtain data may help to save time and budget. However, for some detailed data, interviews are still required. This study has been undertaken as a first step to test this SLCIA method. More social aspects and indicators, for example woman empowerment, cultural heritage and delocalization, are needed to be included to give more comprehensive results. With time limitation, this study only includes main social aspects and indicators. In addition, to make the results comparable with other studies which use score card system, further step such as score card system may be useful.
9 Conclusions The key findings reveal that working conditions of workers in cultivation of different crops are not much different. The problem of air pollution from cane trash burning can also affect local community. This issue is essential to be addressed. Numbers of
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
35
employment generation of cassava and sugarcane are very close, while the employment generation of rice product is relatively low. This is due to its shorter cycle crop compared to others. Rice product then provides lower employment generation than other crops. Among all stakeholder groups examined, the farm owners have lowest social performances for all crops. Farm owners often face the problems of low price and price fluctuation. However, apart from sugarcane, there is no contract farming system for the other crops. The area based policy can help to greatly increase social performances of the farm owners for all crops in all aspects studied. Experience from the studies showed that the proposed SLCIA method used is applicable to all crops studied. However, more social aspects and indicators are needed to be included to give more comprehensive results. For example social aspects such as woman empowerment, cultural heritage and delocalization will be included. In addition, the score card system should be further developed. Acknowledgements The National Science and Technology Development Agency (Grant No. P16-51880), Thailand Research Fund, and the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC) (Grant No. MRG6180276) are gratefully acknowledged for financial support.
References Agyekum, E. O., Fortuin, K. P. J., & van der Harst, E. (2017). Environmental and social life cycle assessment of bamboo bicycle frames made in Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 1069–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.012. Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M. C., & Massa, I. (2017). Modeling social life cycle assessment framework for the Italian wine sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.137. Benoit-Norris, C., Cavan, D. A., Norris, G. (2012). Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: Overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability (Vol. 4). https:// doi.org/10.3390/su4091946. Bonsucro. (2014). Bonsucro Production Standard Version 4.01. Bonsucro, London, UK. Chen, W., & Holden, N. M. (2017). Social life cycle assessment of average Irish dairy farm. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22, 1459–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367016-1250-2. D’Eusanio, M., Serreli, M., Zamagni, A., & Petti, L. (2018). Assessment of social dimension of a jar of honey: A methodological outline. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 503–517. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.157. Department of Labour Protection and Welfare. (2010). Standard for Thai labour (8001-2010). Department of Labour Protection and Welfare. https://www.labour.go.th/th/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=38:2554-05-11-09-05-35&catid=33:downloadcategory& Itemid=108. Accessed July 15, 2018. Franze, J., & Ciroth, A. (2011). A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16, 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367011-0266-x. Gheewala, S. H., Bonnet, S., Prueksakorn, K., & Nilsalab, P. (2011). Sustainability assessment of a biorefinery complex in Thailand. Sustainability, 3, 518–530. Global Bioenergy Partnership. (2011). The global bioenergy partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy (1st ed.). FAO, Rome, Italy: Global Bioenergy Partnership.
36
J. Prasara-A and S. H. Gheewala
Iofrida, N., De Luca, A. I., Silveri, F., Falcone, G., Stillitano, T., Gulisano, G., Strano, A. (2018). Psychosocial risk factors’ impact pathway for social life cycle assessment: an application to citrus life cycles in South Italy. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11367-018-1482-4. Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute. (2015). Cassava: Thailand’s cassava production. Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute. http://www3.rdi.ku.ac.th/ ?p=17882. Accessed February 26, 2018. Manik, Y., Leahy, J., & Halog, A. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: A case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1386–1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0581-5. Ministry of Commerce. (2017). Thailand’s values of exports. Ministry of Commerce. http://www. ops3.moc.go.th/export/. Accessed July 15, 2017. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department of FAO. (2013). Sustainability assessment of food and agriculture systems indicators. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Numjuncharoen, T., Papong, S., Malakul, P., & Mungcharoen, T. (2015). Life-Cycle GHG emissions of cassava-based bioethanol production. Energy Procedia, 79, 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.egypro.2015.11.477. Office of Agricultural Economics. (2017). Agricultural production. Office of Agricultural Economics. http://www.oae.go.th/production.html. Accessed January 11, 2018. Papong, S., Rewlay-ngoen, C., Itsubo, N., & Malakul, P. (2017). Environmental life cycle assessment and social impacts of bioethanol production in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.122. Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C., & Revéret, J.-P. (2010). Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes The. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15, 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0146-9. Petti, L., Sanchez Ramirez, P. K., Traverso, M., Ugaya, C. M. L. (2018). An Italian tomato “Cuore di Bue” case study: Challenges and benefits using subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 569–580. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11367-016-1175-9. Phantha, C., Prasara-A. J., Gheewala, S. H. (2018). Comparative social life cycle assessment of conventional and area based rice production: A case study in north-eastern Thailand. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment of Food 2018 (LCA Food) in conjunction with the 6th LCA AgriFood Asia and 7th International Conference on Green and Sustainable Innovation (ICGSI) On “Global food challenges towards sustainable consumption and production”, Bangkok, Thailand, 17–19 October 2018. Prasara-A, J., & Gheewala, S. H. (2018a). Applying social life cycle assessment in the Thai sugar industry: Challenges from the field. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 335–346. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.120. Prasara-A. J., Gheewala, S. H. (2018b). Social implications of competitive crops: A case study of sugarcane and cassava in north-eastern Thailand. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment of Food 2018 (LCA Food) in conjunction with the 6th LCA AgriFood Asia and 7th International Conference on Green and Sustainable Innovation (ICGSI) On “Global food challenges towards sustainable consumption and production”, Bangkok, Thailand, 17–19 October 2018. Sawaengsak, W., Gheewala, S. H. (2017). Analysis of social and socio-economic impacts of sugarcane production: A case study in Nakhon Ratchasima province of Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, Part 3:1169–1175. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.148. Siebert, A., Bezama, A., O’Keeffe, S., & Thrän, D. (2018). Social life cycle assessment indices and indicators to monitor the social implications of wood-based products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4074–4084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.146.
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural …
37
Silalertruksa, T., Gheewala, S. H., Hünecke, K., & Fritsche, U. R. (2012). Biofuels and employment effects: Implications for socio-economic development in Thailand. Biomass and Bioenergy, 46, 409–418. Souza, A., Watanabe, M. D. B., Cavalett, O., Ugaya, C. M. L., & Bonomi, A. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of first and second-generation ethanol production technologies in Brazil. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367016-1112-y. Sustainable Rice Platform. (2015). Implementation protocol for the SRP standard and performance indicators for sustainable rice cultivation. Sustainable Rice Platform. Thailand Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (2016). Manual for area based agricultural system extension procedure. Bangkok, Thailand: Thailand Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Thuayjan, T., Prasara-A. J., Gheewala, S. H. (2018). Social performances of conventional and area based sugarcane product: A case study in north-eastern Thailand. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment of Food 2018 (LCA Food) in conjunction with the 6th LCA AgriFood Asia and 7th International Conference on Green and Sustainable Innovation (ICGSI) On “Global food challenges towards sustainable consumption and production”, Bangkok, Thailand, 17–19 October 2018. UNEP/SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Workman, D. (2017) Sugar exports by country. World’s Top Exports. http://www.worldstopexports. com/sugar-exports-country/. Accessed December 2, 2017. Zortea, R. B., Maciel, V. G., & Passuello, A. (2018). Sustainability assessment of soybean production in Southern Brazil: A life cycle approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 13, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.002.
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible Profile: The Case of Food Industry Ioannis E. Nikolaou, Thomas Tsalis and Konstantinos Evangelinos
Abstract In the business management literature, many scholars have examined the impacts of business social performance on different groups of stakeholders. This book chapter suggests a technique to assist in improving our understanding regarding the social impacts of businesses in general and food industry in particular. It is based on life cycle product thinking and the scoring/benchmarking techniques. The suggested indicators examine both the social impacts of businesses and the various needs of different stakeholder groups. Finally, it is tested in a case study of a sample of 10 businesses in food sector. The suggested methodology will provide evidence for the social impact of food products and businesses which are played a crucial role in societies’ viability and sustainability. The findings show that a low social profile have been achieved from the sampled businesses. The majority of the sampled businesses have achieved scores below the mean score of each suggested indicators at every stage such as procurement, production and distribution. Keywords Social life cycle analysis · Scoring/benchmarking techniques CSR/sustainability reporting food industry
1 Introduction Business community is a significant agent of the overall social and economic system with a considerable influence on sustainable development. To explain the reasons of business community to adopt sustainability strategies, a number of theories has been suggested in the field of corporate environmental management such as stakeholder theory, resource-based theory, knowledge-based theory and institutional theory (Hart I. E. Nikolaou (B) · T. Tsalis Business Economics and Environmental Technology Laboratory, Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece e-mail:
[email protected] K. Evangelinos Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 S. S. Muthu (ed.), Social Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3236-4_2
39
40
I. E. Nikolaou et al.
1995; Nikolaou 2017). A popular and very important theory of them is the stakeholder theory which explain the behavior of businesses as result of the needs of stakeholders (Waddock 2004; Dreyer et al. 2006; Hauschild et al. 2008). The concept of sustainability encompasses various ethical issues which are voluntarily adopted by businesses in daily operation (Maon et al. 2009). Sustainability strategies implies efforts of businesses to incorporate basic values of sustainability in their strategic management in order to align their behavior with international standards of sustainability management (e.g. GRI guideline, ISO 26000 and Social Accountability 8000) (Alonso-Almeida et al. 2014; Sartor et al. 2016). To this logic, many scholars have lately focused on examining the impacts of products on sustainability (Kloepffer 2008; Finkbeiner et al. 2010; Heijungs et al. 2010; Hutchins et al. 2013; Mattioda et al. 2015). A common technique is the auditing of sustainability performance of products throughout their life cycle. A mainstream strategy is to combine LCA thinking with triple-bottom-line approach. Actually, this is not a contemporary idea since some aspect of sustainability has been previously attempted to integrate in the life cycle thinking. For instance, environmental aspect is associated with Environmental Life Cycle Analysis technique, while social and economic aspects have associated with Social Life Cycle and Life Cycle Costing techniques (Hunkeler and Rebitzer 2005; Schau et al. 2011; Lehmann et al. 2013). The majority of the suggested LCA techniques has focused on measuring various environmental impacts of product in its life cycle. So far, the social impacts of products in life cycle is limited examined. For this reason many scholars have pointed out the necessity for developing techniques to evaluate social impacts of products throughout life cycle (Vinyes et al. 2013; ChhipiShrestha et al. 2015). This technique is named Social Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) and much more work should be made in order to have better measurements (Ramirez et al. 2014). Current SLCA techniques have many methodological weaknesses which are necessary to be overcome in order to developed a general accepted framework to measure SLCA (Franze and Ciroth 2011; Hsu et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2016; De Luca et al. 2015; Siebert et al. 2016). Some weaknesses related to the collection of the suitable information and design proper indicators, to address the needs of stakeholders (Benoît et al. 2010; Vinyes et al. 2013; Martínez-Blanco et al. 2014). Actually, the field of SLCA is in its infancy and there is a lack of suitable techniques and appropriate information to estimate social performance of products in a life cycle prospect (Benoît Norris 2014). An important factor before measuring SLCA is the analysis of social and economic features among different countries where the products are distributed. Another weakness is the absence of information which makes very difficult the evaluation of social impacts of products in relation to different stakeholders. There is a need for information regarding direct impacts of products, business performance and relative factors mainly to make comparisons among different countries and business sectors. It is useful also to made selection of social indicators within difficult conditions since there are no quantifiable social impacts (Manik et al. 2013). Current techniques to measure SLCA require quite time and emphasize only on practicability of the processes (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2014).
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible …
41
These weaknesses of SLCA techniques and considerable interest of scholars for practical results offer a fertile ground for this book chapter which outlines a technique to measure SLCA through CSR/Sustainability reports. Particularly, it suggests a scoring/benchmarking system to assist in making comparisons among different business sectors in the field of social performance. Measurement indicators are based on GRI guidelines since it offers a general accepted context for identify sustainability indicators. GRI overcomes also today vague for a common accounting guidelines for recording social information. The suggested technique has been applied in a sample of food industry. Particularly, a sample of CSR/Sustainability reports have been selected from food industry. This book chapter is organized in four additional sections. The first section presents theoretical background in relation to the Social LCA. The second section provides some steps of suggested methodology. The third section presents an application of the suggested methodology in a sample of food industry. The final section analyzes the contribution of this book chapter to the field of SLCA.
2 Relative Literature The concept of SLCA focus on the social and social-economic influences of products in different phase on different stakeholder groups. It emphasizes on business procedures through the life cycle of a particular product. This interest is associated with the idea that products are considered accountable for a range of negative and positive impacts on different group of stakeholders (UNEP/SETAC 2009; Zamagni et al. 2011; Garrido et al. 2018). So far, a limited number of studies have been conducted in the field of SLCA (Jørgensen 2013). They could be classified in two general categories such as theoretical and empirical approaches. Theoretical studies provide normative techniques to measure SLCA (Dreyer et al. 2006; Parent et al. 2010; Lagarde and Macombe 2013; Ramirez et al. 2014; Mathe 2014; Wu et al. 2015; Sousa-Zomer and Cauchick Miguel 2015). The empirical approaches are based on experience of multicriteria methods to draw suitable information for measuring social impacts of products. In this logic, Dreyer et al. (2010) suggests a technique to examine social impacts of products by utilizing International Labor Organizations (ILO) guidelines. ILO assists in evaluating four types of information as forced labor, labor discrimination, child labor, and obstacles to labor association. Souza-Zomer and Miguel (2015) analyze prospects of utilizing a product-services systems in SLCA. They are based also on UNEP/SETAC guidelines and ISO 14040 to select indicators for determining social performance of products to different group of stakeholders. In the same sense, an effort has been put to be chosen suitable indicators to measure social impacts of products to stakeholder groups (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2014). Similarly, some scholars combine stakeholder theory with multiciteria techniques (De Luca et al. 2015). Theory of system dynamic is also utilized to determine the manner in which stakeholders could participate in a SLCA method (McCabe and Halog 2016).
42
I. E. Nikolaou et al.
Other scholars have suggested techniques to measure the social organizational aspects of products by integrating social issues into organizational LCA techniques (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2015). These models have contribute to current literature because of offering a good decision making tool for selecting alternative options for producing products with better social performance. Some scholars have focused on designing scoring/benchmarking techniques to evaluate SLCA of products (Ramirez et al. 2014; Hutchins et al. 2013). Parent et al. (2010) suggest a cause-effect relationships to measure SLCA of products. These techniques have provided numerous indicators to measure social impacts of products. It is known that there is no a consensus among them regarding social indicators. It is seemed that some indicators have focused on measuring only risks regarding child labor (Jørgensen et al. 2010a). Other put emphasis on topics on worker health at production stage such as on physical and mental health as well as on workers’ skill problems (Jørgensen et al. 2010b). Many other socio-economic indicators have been suggested which focus on measuring labor costs, costs of gendered labor and migrant labor costs, fair wages and discrimination of employees (Jørgensen et al. 2008; Kruse et al. 2009). A considerable consequence of various types of social indicators is the significant confusion on understanding among scholars and the difficulty of comparability among business sectors. This is happen since the majority of the current techniques are only based on informal standards which offer different information to address needs of different sectors and stakeholders. Obviously, there is a lack of formal standards and codes which certified by independent organization (Arcese et al. 2016). Only some informal guidelines have been launched from United Nations Environmental Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) which is considered a very significant step to promote the SLCA idea. It offers an assistant for developing a complete framework for measuring social influences of products within their life cycles (Benoît et al. 2010; Benoît-Norris et al. 2011; Benoît Norris et al. 2013). The second trend of literature includes empirical studies for SLCA in various business sectors such as on agricultural and dairy products (Franze and Ciroth 2011; Feschet et al. 2013; Nemarumane and Mbohwa 2015; Petti et al. 2016; Tsalis et al. 2017). Some studies focus on identifing opportunities and barriers from current SLCA techniques (Paragahawewa et al. 2009; De Luca et al. 2015; Mattioda et al. 2015). Some scholars have suggested SLCA techniques by using UNEP/SETAC guideline to evaluate the social impacts of rose production processes in various countries (Franze and Ciroth 2011). Additionally, a SLCA technique has been suggested to evaluate social impacts of cheese production in New Zealand (Paragahawewa et al. 2009). By designing a SLCA technique, Feschet et al. (2013) evaluate the social impacts of banana companies’ exports and identify a positive social influence on the population in the area of banana production. Other studies put more emphasis on the social effects of a variety of manufacturing products (Vinyes et al. 2013; Ekener-Petersen and Finnveden 2013; Ekener-Petersen and Moberg 2013). Some has been examined the social impacts of notebooks and airbag systems along their life cycles to different groups of stakeholders (Ciroth and
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible …
43
Franze 2011; Baumann et al. 2013). Finally, many case studies have been conducted to evaluate the social impacts of products. For example, Manik et al. (2013) have conducted a case study regarding palm and oil production system in Jambi Province of Indonesia by taking into account many stakeholders (e.g. value chain actors, employees, local community members, government, and NGOs). Based on a mutlicriteria technique (including 26 indicators), they identify that labor relations and negative effects on local communities are the most significant points for sustainability of palm oil biodiesel. Foolmaun and Ramjeeawon (2013) through a scenario-based methodology and SIMA-PRO software determine some interesting alternative projects for producing PET bottles. Similarly, some scholars focus on energy sector (Macombe et al. 2013; Ekener-Petersen et al. 2014; Karklina et al. 2015) to examine the impacts on society. Karklina et al. (2015) focus on examining the SLCA of biomethane production. Martínez-Blanco et al. (2014) proposed a four step-model to evaluate woodbased production systems in Germany by developing wood sustainability standards, conducting various SLCA case studies and making various stakeholder interviews. Hosseinijou et al. (2014) develop a four step model (goal and scope definition, life cyle inventory, life cycle impact assessment and life cycle interpretation) which is on UNEP/SETAC “guidelines for social life-cycle assessment of products”. This model is tested for concrete and steel product in Iran. Pelletier et al. (2007) focus on reviewing the social impact for seafood production and discuss many opportunities and problems for such methodologies.
3 Methodological Structure This book chapter is based on the UNEP/SETAC guideline (UNEP/SETAC 2009). The suggested technique has five steps such as goal design, system boundaries recognition, selection of stakeholders, indicators selection and measurement system design (as proposed by Tsalis et al. 2017).
3.1 Goal Design Tsalis et al. (2017) and UNEP/SETAC guideline (and LCA technique in general) consider that the first necessary step is to define the aims of a SLCA study. The aim of the suggested technique is to evaluate the overall social impacts of businesses throughout their life cycle of products. The aim of suggested SLCA technique is to improve the measurement of business social performance. This will assist managers and stakeholders in identifying businesses with better social performance. This assist managers in making appropriate corrections to their businesses in order to face the failures regarding social aspects and simultaneously to provide positive effect to their stakeholders. It offers also to managers a tool to improve the quality of the social
44
I. E. Nikolaou et al.
practices of businesses. This goal includes also the three further and useful aspects of social performance of businesses such as social performance, social practices and social reporting practices
3.2 System Boundaries Recognition The main concern of the second step is to clarify the stages of the product which going to be assessed. Figure 1 shows that there are three main stages on the measurement system such as the Procurement, the Production and the Distribution. The Procurement stage includes the social performance of businesses; suppliers and the influences of suppliers on stakeholder groups. The Production focuses on identifying the social impacts of business daily operations. Finally, the Distribution implies the social impacts at distribution and sale stage.
3.3 Selection of Stakeholders A substantial task is to identify the most significant group of stakeholders which is affected from a product or a business. The key criterion to select stakeholder groups and place them into various stages is their relevance to the context of each stage. Five stakeholder groups are considered significant (Fig. 1). Two groups of stakeholders (e.g. Society and Environment groups) are placed to all stages, since they influenced from businesses in all stages of a product’s life cycle. Other stakeholders groups per stage are Suppliers in the Procurement stage, Employees in production stage and Customers in the Distribution stage.
Fig. 1 The stages and the key stakeholder groups (Authors’ own)
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible …
45
3.4 Indicators Selection Another important task is to select appropriate indicators for evaluating business social profile. Some criteria have been utilized to select indicators. The first criterion to select indicators is to cover them a wide array of social aspects and stakeholder groups. The second criterion is to identify a pool with general accepted indicators which are appropriate for various business sector. To this logic, the suggested SLCA technique utilizes indicators which are emerged from Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Organization (GRI 2011, 2013a, b, 2015). Particularly, GRI-G4 guideline is utilized which includes 91 indicators for business sustainability performance which could be classified as follows: (a) 9 indicators for economic aspect, (b) 34 for environmental aspect and 48 for social aspect. Social aspect is furthermore classified in four categories such as employment, human rights, society and product responsibility. Figure 2 shows the classification of these indicators per selected stakeholder groups. The suggested SLCA technique utilizes 71 GRI indicators which are appropriate to evaluate the social profile of businesses. Some the GRI indicators are utilized more than one group of stakeholders. For this purpose, the selected indicators are 122.
Fig. 2 Indicators selection (Authors’ own)
46
I. E. Nikolaou et al.
3.5 Measurement System Design The next significant task is the measurement system which is used to evaluate the three components of the business social profile. Particularly, two sequential phases are developed to make comprehensive measurements such as the assessment point and the measurement stage.
3.5.1
Assessment Stage
In this stage, an effort to draw information from CSR/Sustainability reports has been made through three indicators. The idea of the first two indexes is based on previews studies of benchmarking/scoring measurement systems which measure the level of accountability and performance of businesses through CSR/Sustainability reports (Nikolaou and Tsalis 2013; Nikolaou et al. 2014; Demertzidis et al. 2015). The first (Accountability) Index (AI) arises information regarding the completeness of the disclosures by using a simple 3-point scoring system. The second (Performance) Index (PI) offers insight regarding the level of business sustainability performance. It is measured only in the case where quantitative information is disclosed in relation to examined indicator. Table 1 describes in a more detail way the 3 points scoring system. The third (Completeness) Index (CI) measures the total number of SLCA indicators per stakeholder group which are covered by each CSR/Sustainability report. This index assists in identifying how complete is a report and how businesses are accountable for SLCA issues.
3.5.2
Measurement Stage
To measure SLCA, four equations are designed. Three of these assist in analyzing some significant aspects of the social performance of businesses. The fourth equation estimates the total score of social performance of businesses. Table 2 describes the aim of each indicator and corresponding equation.
Table 1 Scoring scale of Indexes (Authors’ own) Indexes 3 Points scale Descriptions Accountability
Performance
0
When this information does not provided
1
When this information is qualitative
2
When this information is quantitative
0
When performance score is worse than previous year
1
When performance score is same with previous year
2
When performance score is better than previous year
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible … Table 2 The proposed equations (Authors’ own) Symbols Equations k n 1 i1 PIn SPI k PImax
47
Description Social Performance Indicator
j1
SMI
SRI SBPI
1 k
1 k
k n i1 PIn j1
2∗PImax
k n i1 PIn j1
3∗PImax
+
CI 2∗CImax
+
CI 3∗CImax
Social Management Indicator n
+
i1 AIn A3∗Imax
SPCI +SMCI +SRCI 3
Social Reporting Indicator Social Business Profile Indicator
The Social Performance Indicator is based on the PI to measure social performance which draw information from CSR/Sustainability reports to identify the progress of businesses in social aspects. The Social Management Indicator measures business management practices regarding stakeholder requirements. It is based on CI and PI. The third score is estimated by the Social Reporting Indicator and finally, Social Business Profile Indicator is estimated as the sum of all indexes.
4 The Case of Food Industry 4.1 Sample Selection It is very significant to say that this case study does not aim to make comparisons among businesses in order to provide general findings for the social performance of the sampled businesses. Actually, the main objective of this study is to identify the applicability of the suggested technique and point out the most significant benefits regarding assessment of social performance of businesses. The case study includes a set of international businesses which operate in the food industry. It is selected 10 food industries from the lists of GRI organization. It is gathered the latest available CSR/Sustainability report of each business. All the selected reports were stand-alone sustainability reports whose publication year was 2015 or 2016. Certainly, for confidentiality reasons, the trade names of the sampled businesses have not been presented.
48
I. E. Nikolaou et al.
4.2 Data Analysis Firstly, the relative information and data from the CSR/Sustainability reports were used to calculate indexes (AI, PI and CI). Table 3 illustrates an example for the score of business indexes. Table 3 shows that the CSR/Sustainability report of B1 businesses covers 8 indicators for the suppliers group (SU) from the Procurement stage. The sum of AI and PI scores of all indicators is 7 and 13 points. Next indicators were estimated in accordance with the suggested equations. These indexes are estimated for each stage of the suggested technique. Table 4 presents the results from all stages of SLCA technique. The majority of businesses have achieved scores below the mean score of each composite indicator (0.5) at every stage. This finding shows that the sampled businesses have poor performance at all stages of SLCA technique. Particularly, at the procurement stage, the average score of every index has the lowest score in relation to the average scores of the other two stages. This might show a limited notice of the sampled businesses for their social impacts regarding with suppliers. Additionally, the majority of sampled businesses fail to make significant progress to their social performance for many of the examined indicators. For the sampled businesses, the score of SPI is below the mean score. Similarly, the examination of CSR/Sustainability reports shows the insufficiency of social approaches adopted by sampled businesses. It is significant that the low average of SMI (0.40) which shows low attention to the majority of social aspects which are associated with the procurement stage. As for the CSR/Sustainability reports, the findings indicate that the sampled businesses do not provide necessary information about their social consequences regarding their relationships with suppliers. The highest score is 0.77 achieved by the B10 and the lowest value 0.13 was achieved by the B7. Similarly, the results of production stage are very low. Although the sampled businesses have achieved the highest average scores than other stages, they seem to adopt unsatisfactory ways to address social issues in the stage of production. Particularly, the average score of SPI is very low, which indicates that sampled food businesses have not make significant progress in their social performance regarding production stage. Additionally, the average scores of the SMI and SRI, which are slightly above the mean scores, shows the limited interest of sampled businesses for social aspects. Also, the poor quality of CSR/Sustainability practices is confirmed by the average score of SRI, which provides a signal that CSR/Sustainability reports present limited information regarding social issues in production stage. Finally, the findings of distribution stage shows that the average score of indicators SPI 0.36, SMI 0.43 and SRI 0.41 are lower than the mean score (0.5). This indicates the lack of awareness about the business social impacts on the stakeholder groups in distribution stage. Also, B10 achieve the best social performance. In order to evaluate the business social profile of food sampled businesses, the appropriate indicators were calculated. Table 5 shows the scores of these indicators.
CI
i1
n
i1
n
PIn
AIn
8
13
7
Procurement SU
6
9
4
SO
7
8
8
EN
12
15
14
Production EM
Table 3 An example of an index for the first business (B1) (Author’s own)
7
10
7
SO
7
10
10
EN
10
16
11
Distribution CU
6
10
8
SO
4
6
4
EN
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible … 49
B2
0.38 0.43 0.44
SPI SMI SRI
0.52 0.64 0.61
0.52 0.67 0.65
SPI 0.41 0.46 SMI 0.44 0.65 SRI 0.44 0.62 The stage of distribution
0.42 0.46 0.43
0.33 0.43 0.37
B3
SPI 0.45 0.42 SMI 0.52 0.45 SRI 0.44 0.42 The stage of production
The stage of procurement
B1
Indicators Businesses
0.28 0.39 0.35
0.28 0.42 0.36
0.25 0.33 0.31
B4
0.3 0.33 0.31
0.43 0.52 0.5
0.21 0.32 0.28
B5
Table 4 The scores of indicators from each stage (Authors’ own)
0.29 0.32 0.27
0.28 0.38 0.37
0.27 0.28 0.24
B6
0.25 0.33 0.32
0.23 0.34 0.31
0.24 0.22 0.25
B7
0.36 0.47 0.38
0.37 0.5 0.5
0.28 0.35 0.36
B8
0.28 0.37 0.39
0.27 0.48 0.49
0.24 0.35 0.36
B9
0.54 0.65 0.66
0.57 0.76 0.75
0.55 0.77 0.75
B10
0.36 0.43 0.41
0.38 0.51 0.49
0.32 0.40 0.37
Average scores
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5 0.5
Mean scores
50 I. E. Nikolaou et al.
0.41 0.51 0.48 0.46
0.46 0.58 0.55 0.53
SLCA SPI SMI SRI SBPI
0.42 0.47 0.43 0.44
B3
Indicators Businesses B1 B2 0.27 0.38 0.34 0.33
B4
Table 5 Final social impacts indicators (Authors’ own)
0.31 0.39 0.36 0.35
B5 0.28 0.32 0.29 0.3
B6 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.27
B7 0.33 0.44 0.41 0.39
B8 0.26 0.4 0.41 0.35
B9
0.55 0.72 0.72 0.66
B10
0.35 0.45 0.43 0.41
Average
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Mean
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible … 51
52
I. E. Nikolaou et al.
It is seemed that the sampled businesses have achieved poor business social profile (SBPI 0.41). Similarly, the low average score of SMI (0.43) indicates that the sampled businesses achieve a limited number of businesses social management practices regarding their stakeholders. Many businesses have not make high progress in their social performance. This means the inability of the sampled businesses management systems to help managers attain strategic goals. Similarly, for the social reporting practices, it is seemed that there is a low level of transparency and accountability of the CSR/Sustainability reports.
5 Conclusions The literature of LCA very little emphasis has been paid on social issues. This book chapter contributes in this field by reviewing the contemporary techniques in an effort to place the social topics within the sustainability context. In particular, it suggests a complete framework which solve some of the previous methodological failures of previous SLCA techniques. It helps also to assess social effects of business in different stages of their life cycle such as the procurement, the production and the distribution. A significant contribution has been made by developing a life cycle technique by utilizing experience from benchmarking- scoring techniques. In particular, this book chapter aims to contribute to the SLCA literature in three manners. Firstly, it suggests a technique to simplify the integration of social aspects into the overall life cycle thinking of businesses which mainly pertains both daily operations and products. So far, some scholars have focused on assessing the social impacts of the production stage, while some others have examined social impacts of products on various types of stakeholders (Dreyer et al. 2006; Benoît et al. 2010; Lehmann et al. 2013; Mathe 2014). Some of these approaches which mainly focus on a social impacts of products might provide an unclear picture of the social profile of businesses, since there are some other operations and activities of businesses which affect stakeholders. Additionally, these approaches very difficult can distinguish the impacts of products and businesses on stakeholders. A difficult task for evaluating social profile of businesses is to recognize businesses social impacts derived from both products and businesses’ operations. The suggested framework utilizes general accepted indicators for GRI guidelines to evaluate various aspects of social profile of businesses through CSR/Sustainability reports. One significant problem of many of the previous methodologies is the absented of comparability and reliability. Indeed, previous techniques offer very useful knowledge in order stakeholders to make good decisions for businesses, nevertheless it is incomplete for evaluating the improvements of businesses in social issues between years and firms. The suggested SLCA framework emphasizes to reduce such difficulties by developing a benchmarking- scoring system to evaluate social impact profile of businesses through CSR/Sustainability information. Actually, the suggested scoring system aims to provide an objective way to relate the business social profiles from different sectors.
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible …
53
Additionally, some of the previous SLCA techniques have reliability shortcomings since they focus on specific businesses and sectors. This implies different indicators and scoring systems. To overcome some reliability problems, it is proposed indicators from GRI guidelines as proposed by many studies (Morhardt 2001; Skouloudis et al. 2009; Nikolaou and Tsalis 2013). Additionally, the case study has provided some constructive evidence on the social impacts of the sampled food businesses. It is identified a low social profile for the sampled food businesses. At the production stage has been achieved the best social performance which implies that the higher interest of food sector to production activities since they have accepted high criticism for their production processes. It is known that food businesses adopt CSR strategies to reduce reactions of stakeholders. Certainly, the suggested framework has some limitations which could be a good basis for future research. The first limitation is the data collection only form CSR/Sustainability reports. Even though the useful information of such reports regarding the social impacts of businesses, nevertheless they are limited to address certain social problems without integrate life cycle thinking into business decision making. To overcome this problem, some further sources of information will be useful in order to have a complete picture for social profile of businesses. Furthermore, this framework has been applied in a very small sample because one of the main aim of the case study is to test the effectiveness of proposed framework. Future research should focuses on a wide samples of companies from different countries and different sectors. Thus, many different case studies could provide important knowledge for different sectors and countries. This is a good guide for many sectors which achieve low social profile. Additionally, the suggested methodological framework could play a critical role in current literature in order to be made some improvements in the previous methodological framework. In particular, it could be a good example for developing comparative indicators and suitable for business community through GRI guidelines. The majority of previous methodologies are based on specific characteristics of products/firms and not to develop a general methodology suitable for comparability among firms in different sectors. Furthermore, this paper could offer a fertile ground for conducting many case study drawing information through CSR/Sustainability reports in order to identify both the social impact of firms and products.
References Alonso-Almeida, M., Llach, J., & Marimon, F. (2014). A closer look at the ‘Global Reporting Initiative’ sustainability reporting as a tool to implement environmental and social policies: A worldwide sector analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 318–335. Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M. C., Massa, I., & Valente, C. (2016). State of the art in S-LCA: Integrating literature review and automatic text analysis. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1082-0. Baumann, H., Arvidsson, R., Tong, H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(4), 517–527.
54
I. E. Nikolaou et al.
Benoît Norris, C. (2014). Data for social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(2), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0644-7. Benoît Norris, C., Traverso, M., Valdivia, S., Vickery-Niederman, G., Franze, J., Azuero, L., et al. (2013). The methodological sheets for sub-categories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemiastry (SETAC). Benoît, C., Norris, G. A., Valdivia, S., Ciroth, A., Moberg, A., Bos, U., et al. (2010). The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(2), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0147-8. Benoît-Norris, C., Vickery-Niederman, G., Valdivia, S., Franze, J., Traverso, M., Ciroth, A., et al. (2011). Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(7), 682–690. Chhipi-Shrestha, G. K., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2015). ‘Socializing’ sustainability: A critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(3), 579–596. Ciroth, A., & Franze, J. (2011). LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. Berlin. ISBN 978–971. De Luca, A. I., Iofrida, N., Strano, A., Falcone, G., & Gulisano, G. (2015). Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: A methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(3), 383–396. Demertzidis, N., Tsalis, T. A., Loupa, G., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2015). A benchmarking framework to evaluate business climate change risks: A practical tool suitable for investors decision-making process. Climate Risk Management, 10, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.09.002. Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M., & Schierbeck, J. (2006). A framework for social life cycle impact assessment (10 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 88–97. Dreyer, L. C., Hauschild, M. Z., & Schierbeck, J. (2010). Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11367-009-0148-7. Ekener-Petersen, E., & Finnveden, G. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—Part 1: A case study of a laptop computer. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 127–143. Ekener-Petersen, E., & Moberg, Å. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 2: Reflections on a study of a complex product. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 144–154. Ekener-Petersen, E., Höglund, J., & Finnveden, G. (2014). Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy, 73, 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. 2014.05.034. Feschet, P., Macombe, C., Garrabé, M., Loeillet, D., Saez, A. R., & Benhmad, F. (2013). Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(2), 490–503. Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309–3322. Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2013). Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 155–171. Franze, J., & Ciroth, A. (2011). A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(4), 366–379. Garrido, S. R., Parent, J., Beaulieu, L., & Revéret, J. P. (2018). A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 432–444. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2011). A new phase: The growth of sustainability reporting. GRI’s year in review.
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible …
55
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2013a). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Reporting principles and standard disclosures. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2013b). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Implementation manual. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2015). Leading for a new era of sustainability. GRI’s Combined Report 2014–2015. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014. Hauschild, M. Z., Dreyer, L. C., & Jørgensen, A. (2008). Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective—Lessons learned. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 57(1), 21–24. Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., & Guinée, J. B. (2010). Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polymer degradation and stability, 95(3), 422–428. Hosseinijou, S. A., Mansour, S., & Shirazi, M. A. (2014). Social life cycle assessment for material selection: A case study of building materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(3), 620–645. Hsu, C.-W., Wang, S.-W., & Hu, A. H. (2013). Development of a new methodology for impact assessment of SLCA. In A. Y. C. Nee, B. Song & S.-K. Ong (Eds.), Re-engineering manufacturing for sustainability: Proceedings of the 20th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Singapore 17–19 April, 2013 (pp. 469–473). Singapore: Springer Singapore. Hutchins, M. J., Robinson, S. L., & Dornfeld, D. (2013). Understanding life cycle social impacts in manufacturing: A processed-based approach. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 32(4), 536–542. Hunkeler, D., & Rebitzer, G. (2005). The future of life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10(5), 305–308. Jørgensen, A. (2013). Social LCA—A way ahead? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(2), 296–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0517-5. Jørgensen, A., Le Bocq, A., Nazarkina, L., & Hauschild, M. (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 96–103. Jørgensen, A., Finkbeiner, M., Jørgensen, M. S., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2010a). Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(4), 376–384. Jørgensen, A., Lai, L. C., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2010b). Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(1), 5. Karklina, K., Slisane, D., Romagnoli, F., & Blumberga, D. (2015). Social life cycle assessment of biomethane production and distribution in Latvia. Paper presented at the Environment. Technology. Resources. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. Kloepffer, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89–95. Kruse, S. A., Flysjö, A., Kasperczyk, N., & Scholz, A. J. (2009). Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—An application to salmon production systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(1), 8. Lagarde, V., & Macombe, C. (2013). Designing the social life cycle of products from the systematic competitive model. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 172–184. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0448-1. Lehmann, A., Zschieschang, E., Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M., & Schebek, L. (2013). Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—Challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(8), 1581–1592. Macombe, C., Leskinen, P., Feschet, P., & Antikainen, R. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: A literature review and development needs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 205–216. Manik, Y., Leahy, J., & Halog, A. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: A case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(7), 1386–1392.
56
I. E. Nikolaou et al.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 71–89. Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., et al. (2014). Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 34–48. Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Chang, Y.-J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2015). Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)—A new approach for implementing social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(11), 1586–1599. Mathe, S. (2014). Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(8), 1506–1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0758-6. Mattioda, R. A., Mazzi, A., Canciglieri, O., Jr., & Scipioni, A. (2015). Determining the principal references of the social life cycle assessment of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(8), 1155–1165. McCabe, A., & Halog, A. (2016). Exploring the potential of participatory systems thinking techniques in progressing SLCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–12. Morhardt, J. E. (2001). Scoring corporate environmental reports for comprehensiveness: A comparison of three systems. Environmental Management, 27(6), 881–892. Nemarumane, T. M., & Mbohwa, C. (2015). Social life cycle assessment in the south african sugar industry: Issues and views. In Social Life Cycle Assessment (pp. 71–113). Springer, Singapore. Nikolaou, I. E. (2017). A framework to explicate the relationship between CSER and financial performance: An intellectual capital-based approach and knowledge-based view of firm. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–20. Nikolaou, I. E., & Tsalis, T. A. (2013). Development of a sustainable balanced scorecard framework. Ecological Indicators, 34, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.005. Nikolaou, I. E., Kourouklaris, G., & Tsalis, T. A. (2014). A framework to assist the financial community in incorporating water risks into their investment decisions. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 4(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2013.823853. Paragahawewa, U., Blackett, P., & Small, B. (2009). Social life cycle analysis (S-LCA): Some methodological issues and potential application to cheese production in New Zealand. Report by Agresearch. Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C., & Revéret, J.-P. (2010). Impact assessment in SLCA: Sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(2), 164–171. Pelletier, N. L., Ayer, N. W., Tyedmers, P. H., Kruse, S. A., Flysjo, A., Robillard, G., et al. (2007). Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: Review and prospectus. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(6), 414–421. Petti, L., Serreli, M., & Di Cesare, S. (2016). Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11367-016-1135-4. Ramirez, P. K. S., Petti, L., Haberland, N. T., & Ugaya, C. M. L. (2014). Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: Methodological framework. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(8), 1515–1523. Sartor, M., Orzes, G., Di Mauro, C., Ebrahimpour, M., & Nassimbeni, G. (2016). The SA8000 social certification standard: Literature review and theory-based research agenda. International Journal of Production Economics, 175, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.02.018. Schau, E. M., Traverso, M., Lehmann, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2011). Life cycle costing in sustainability assessment—A case study of remanufactured alternators. Sustainability, 3(11), 2268–2288. Siebert, A., Bezama, A., O’Keeffe, S., & Thrän, D. (2016). Social life cycle assessment: In pursuit of a framework for assessing wood-based products from bioeconomy regions in Germany. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1066-0.
A LCA Technique to Measure the Socially Business Responsible …
57
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2009). Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environmental Management, 44(2), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9305-9. Sousa-Zomer, T. T., & Cauchick Miguel, P. A. (2015). The main challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA) to support the social impacts analysis of product-service systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-1010-8. Tsalis, T., Avramidou, A., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2017). A social LCA framework to assess the corporate social profile of companies: Insights from a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1665–1676. UNEP/SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Vinyes, E., Oliver-Solà, J., Ugaya, C., Rieradevall, J., & Gasol, C. M. (2013). Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(2), 445–455. Waddock, S. (2004). Creating corporate accountability: Foundational principles to make corporate citizenship real. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 313–327. Wang, S.-W., Hsu, C.-W., & Hu, A. H. (2016). An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—Part 1: Methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(10), 1514–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1114-9. Wu, S. R., Chen, J., Apul, D., Fan, P., Yan, Y., Fan, Y., et al. (2015). Causality in social life cycle impact assessment (SLCIA). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), 1312–1323. Zamagni, A., Amerighi, O., & Buttol, P. (2011). Strengths or bias in social LCA? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(7), 596–598.
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
Abstract The present and expected development of the total population permits an expanded generation of enriched food products. Dairy farming is viewed as one of the imperative methods for fulfilling this need to take care of the developing demand for dairy products mainly milk in most of the developing countries. The emphasis on crossbreeding and expanding the profitability of dairy cattle has upgraded milk generation, additionally brought about an expanded utilization of agro-chemicals. Human health can likewise be influenced because of milk residues particularly in nations with inadequate quality of food products. These procedures add to the developing worldwide risk to human and animals postured by multi-resistant organisms. Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is rising as an intense and fundamental tool in maintaining sustainability. With its adaptability, SLCA can be used to measure social effects on a particular system. The sustainability investigations of dairy farms concentrated on environmental impacts; however, social impact has been rarely surveyed. This chapter survey on a few case studies for assessing social life cycle in various countries from the starting stage to the last commercial stage and its waste processing. Social Life cycle assessment has been utilized widely in Canada, Irish, Europe, the United States, and Japan for evaluation of industrial production processes and there has been a developing interest in the utilization of LCA for dairy production to survey social aspect and sustainability. Keywords Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) · Dairy production · Milk quality Waste management · Sustainability
P. Senthil Kumar (B) · P. R. Yaashikaa Department of Chemical Engineering, SSN College of Engineering, Chennai 603110, India e-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 S. S. Muthu (ed.), Social Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3236-4_3
59
60
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
1 Introduction Expanding attention to the reasonable human action on the environmental, social and economic texture of present-day society has made an interest for techniques to evaluate the individual effects of manufacturing processes. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has turned out to be built up as one comprehensive, yet complex technique for making such evaluations. Life cycle assessment (LCA) serves as an apparatus for assessing natural impacts of an item, process, or movement for the duration of its life cycle or lifetime, which is known as a from cradle to grave investigation (Berlin et al. 2007). Three noteworthy periods of an existence cycle evaluation are settling on a technique, getting information, and breaking down the information through utilization of a product program. Characterizing the procedure is the most essential piece of LCA in light of the fact that it states how the investigation will be completed by characterizing particular rules and limits. Gathering and computing information requires the biggest measure of time because of the different wellsprings of information, some of which may be found in writing and sorted out from outside sources. The utilization of monetarily accessible programming isn’t required, yet can help in the association of information, computations, and results rather than utilizing spreadsheets. Four phases of LCA includes (1) Definition of objective/goal and scope of the examination, (2) Life cycle inventory analysis, (3) Life cycle impact assessment, and (4) Improvement assessment. Based upon the particular objective and scope defining of the examination, the level of force for each period of LCA tremendously varies (Benoit-Norris 2012). The most straightforward type of LCA is assessing ecological effects of an item or capacity to point out where in the existence cycle the biggest change is required. The information accumulated in playing out an existence cycle examination to upgrade a specific item should be case particular. Contrasting one item and another is the most concentrated kind of LCA based on the interest of information that is currently multiplied, tripled, and so on (information relies upon the number of items, procedures, or administrations being analyzed) and requires exact data about each procedure. LCA is expected to be a frequentative procedure where each progression expands upon past conclusions and utilization a lot of refining all through the investigation (Roy et al. 2009). Different barriers could emerge, for example, constrained accessibility of information, requiring an adjustment in the extent of the investigation. Life cycle affect evaluation takes the information gathered and scales the effects in view of different human wellbeing and natural effect classifications and also the assigned objective and extent of the investigation. These effect classifications propose conceivable levels of weights, where risk can’t be particularly dissected. Characterizing the effect classifications, types, portrayal, and assessment of results are required strides in the ISO standards through standardization, gathering, and weighting are definitely not (Gauthier 2005).
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry
61
2 Social Life Cycle Assessment A SLCA is a social effect assessment procedure that expects to evaluate the social and socio-economic parts of items along their life cycle, including those that are at remote phases of the existence cycle in which organizations are included. SLCA might be utilized either to dissect the social impacts of an item framework, or to take a gander at the contrasts between two situations conveying a similar kindness (Arcese et al. 2013). While ELCA is worked from various fields of natural sciences such as toxicology, climatology, biology, SLCA needs additionally to eat the diverse orders of sociologies like financial aspects, administration sciences, and so forth. SLCA depends on information that is of various natures. A social effect mirrors a difference in express that influences people, associations and macro-social frameworks (Brien et al. 1996). A social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) is a technique that can be utilized to survey the social and sociological parts of items, their real and potential positive and negative effects along the existence cycle. This takes a gander at the extraction and handling of crude materials, producing, appropriation, utilize, reusing and last transfer. S-LCA makes utilization of bland and site-particular information, can be quantitative, semiquantitative or subjective, and supplements the natural LCA and LCC. It can either be connected without anyone else or in mix with alternate strategies. S-LCA surveys social and financial effects found along the existence cycle (production network, including the utilization stage and transfer) with bland and site specific information (Freudenburg 1986). It varies from other social effects assessment methods by its items: products and administrations, and its scope: the whole life cycle. Social and financial angles surveyed in S-LCA are those that may specifically influence partners in a negative or positive approach amid the life cycle of an item. They might be connected to the practices of undertakings, to financial procedures, or to impacts on social capital. Based upon the extent of the examination, incidental effects on partners may likewise be considered. S-LCA does not have the objective nor professes to give data on the topic of whether an item ought to be created or not. S-LCA reports the item utility yet does not have the capacity or the capacity to illuminate basic leadership at that level. It is right that data on the social states of creation, utilize and transfer may give components to considerations on the theme, however will, in itself, only from time to time be an adequate reason for choice (Burdge and Vanclay 1995). In principle, S-LCA might be directed on any items, even those that are purposely unsafe to society. It is prescribed to utilize S-LCA morally and it is expected that associate survey will avoid utilizing the strategy improperly. Socially dependable contributing firms regularly give arrangements of product classifications being barred for moral reasons. In the event that the product classification examined is recorded, it is prescribed to detail, in the objective and extension period of the examination, the motivation behind why it is moral and sensible to lead an S-LCA of this specific product. Proper information regarding the product utility and assessment of the utilization period of the life cycle will likewise reflect the deceptive or destructive
62
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
nature of the product. S-LCA is a system that educates incremental enhancements yet does not in itself give an achievement answer for feasible utilization and practical living. Those themes go well past the extent of the apparatus. S-LCA gives data on social and financial angles for basic leadership, affecting exchange on the social and financial parts of creation and utilization, in the prospect to enhance execution of associations and at last the prosperity of partners (Smith and Barling 2014). The SLCA Guidelines system recognizes five groups namely labourers, nearby network, society, buyers and esteem chain performers) and six effect classifications such as human rights, working conditions, wellbeing and security, social legacy, administration and socio-economic repercussions, which are thus verbalized in various impact sub-categories particular for every group of stakeholders (Feschet et al. 2013). An effect pathway approach is likewise being created for SLCA. These works present some normal qualities: • It endeavour to clarify and interface cause-impact connections between social effects and the life cycle of the products under investigation, • It utilize econometric displaying procedures (quantitative techniques) to exhibit objective and replicable connections, • It gives results that can be summed up and stretched out to different settings, with due suspicions and premises. The principal paper on SLCA was distributed in 1996. From that point, the quantity of papers identified with SLCA and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) has expanded gradually. Social effect information is identified with social issues that give data on how a social effect group is influenced with regards to a creation movement. Information on social execution is identified with the organization practises and is contrasted with a Performance Reference Points. There are diverse approaches to gather and compose information. The top-down approaches utilize nonexclusive information accessible at a worldwide level (Parent et al. 2012). SLCA is enduring more than other expository appraisal because of an absence of instruments and information, making its work on testing. The accessibility of information is entirely related with their quality and heartiness: there isn’t generally an open-disclosure arrangement about social information and in this manner information for SLCA experience the ill effects of deficiency. In addition, they are frequently subjective and semi-quantitative and are additionally entirely identified with the geographic and socio-economic setting in which the framework examined is inserted. These issues influence the manner by which SLCA is utilized inside a supportability system, particularly in the understanding of results and in the assessment of their power. Another critical issue is the manner by which to recognize reasonable and important social measures to be utilized inside a manageability assessment. It appears that the principle reason of hazy meaning of social and supportability measures is because of misty comprehension and additionally meaning of the logical system that standards the evaluation.
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry
63
SLCA has a forerunner, Social Impact Assessment (SIA), which is an idea utilized in SLCA. SIA went for inspecting the social effects of mechanical exercises. SIA does exclude the social effects of an item amid its entire life cycle; however measure the adjustments in human prosperity just made by one period of a task or an item. SLCA totals the SIA of each stage in an item’s life cycle. The quantification techniques utilized for SLCA are controlled by study targets that SLCA systems are distinctive for a solitary item and general item families. It is more supported to apply specific organization information in SLCA for a solitary item than to apply general foundation information. SLCA for a general item is more suited to utilizing general information than specific organization information. Notwithstanding the advancement of quantification techniques for SLCA, the social effect type additionally should be built. A noteworthy exertion in SLCA is to choose the pertinent and quantifiable social effects alluding to how a movement has influenced its related networks as far as human prosperity. SLCA is not quite the same as ELCA or Life Cycle Cost (LCC) because of its tendency, i.e., SLCA is an investigation in view of the manner in which the business influences human prosperity, as opposed to ELCA which depends on activity process (Zamagni et al. 2016).
3 Social Impact Tools Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is a particular type of LCA that dissects the impacts of an item on a recognized network. SIA can foresee the results introduced by through breaking down individuals’ lifestyle, their way of life, network, political frameworks, condition, wellbeing and prosperity, individual and property rights, fears and goals. Figure 1 represents the structural framework of social impact assessment in dairy farming. The wide decent variety of ethnic societies, social classes, and religious perspectives produces changing outcomes over the world. Social effect assessment should be done on a case-to-case premise, particularly when examining a particular issue in universal or assorted networks. Different rules and standards for performing SIA incorporate distinguishing and constantly evaluating the social outcomes of advancement, by including partners in each progression and also thinking about the specialized effects on the earth. People, in general, ought to be required at all conceivable occasions so as to guarantee an equivalent framework with no infringement of the district’s human rights. SIA specialists likewise need to work together with engineers and other experts to set up checking and moderation programs, recognize information sources and record for holes in information (Dreyer et al. 2006). To ensure complete SIA, there are few steps required to be followed are listed below: • Open inclusion through building up a compelling arrangement to include all possibly influenced people • Portray proposed activity or strategy change and sensible options • Depict the pertinent human condition or region of impact and standard conditions
64
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
Fig. 1 Conceptual structure of social impact of dairy farming
• Subsequent to acquiring a specialized comprehension of the proposition, recognize the full scope of likely social effects that will be tended to in view of talk with influenced parties • Estimation of assessed impacts through examination of the plausible effects • Foreseeing reactions to impacts by deciding the criticalness to the recognized social effects • Gauge consequent effects and aggregate effects • Suggested new or changed choices and evaluate or task their results • Build up a relief plan • Build up an observing system. When considering the agricultural part, worldwide nourishment security is additionally under the magnifying lens while talking about financial and natural effects of the generation line, particularly in creating networks. Environmental change is reliably influencing the nourishment division in poverty driven zones and should be broken down when choosing whether natural or customary cultivating is better over the years. Investigation of the natural and social cycles and streams may recognize where change should be made. Counteracting or moderating environmental change can help lessen the difficulties that will influence the farming sustenance part. On a little scale, it may be worth reasoning about the effects of bringing natural cultivating into networks that are focused on the land they have claimed for a considerable length of time. In the event that a customary dairy farm has been situated on a small piece of land, however society is favouring natural dairy cultivating, it could affect the effectively existing network in the perception that organic cultivation taking control over the economy (Hunkeler 2006).
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry
65
Fig. 2 SELCA methodology
4 SLCA and ELCA Methodology The accompanying diagram (Fig. 2) depicts the means associated with SELCA as an examination instrument and how the assessment structure can help with getting ready for framework ventures, for example, dairy industry and fuel management frameworks (Jorgensen et al. 2008; Chaudhary and Upadhyaya 2013). • Problem definition Social issues have a wide range of measurements. It can’t be accepted that the issues recognized by an organizer, designer, nearby specialist, or vitality organization, for instance, are either similar issues distinguished by some other individual from the rundown or the same as those distinguished by the networks and gatherings influenced by the activity of the framework. SELCA assumes that issue definition emerges out of discussion with and arrangement among various intrigue gatherings. Centre gatherings (or center boards) can be orchestrated in which delegates of various intrigued divisions such as industry, inhabitants, nearby expert offices, social research associations, etc.) meet to characterize the social measurements of neighbourhood issues. • Scoping Once the SLCA objectives are built up unmistakably, the checking activity will recognize the underlying specialized and social parameters related with various methods for accomplishing similar objectives. Scoping or Checking includes the starter look into work expected to develop the structure for the point by point SELCA. Vital operational and administrative procedures should be recognized and wellsprings of data should be determined. Scoping will characterize the geographic and transient
66
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
limits of the examination, the methodological procedure, the made suppositions and the scope of process parts to be incorporated. The perusing exercise sets up at first the case-particular natural edge of reference and goals and the social channels through which the procedures are sorted out, controlled and followed up on. • Information Analysis This progression includes the accumulation and understanding of the fundamental information on the diverse choices created amid the counsel procedure. The quantitative data is given as a stock table which incorporates crude materials inputs, outflows to air and water, build-ups, items and side-effects, and transport, etc. The subjective data given through this assessment is composed as a source of perspective framework distinguishing the social channels through which the distinctive procedure alternatives work. • Process Assessment For SLCA, the premise of the appraisal comprises in recognizing the key activities in, powers over and association of the work framework. • Evaluation The data produced by SELCA might be put to various distinctive purposes with the result that the change assessment might be expressed in various ways. Assessments may appear as arrangement or methodology proposition identifying with the association, control or task of contributory frameworks, or may include proposals identifying with levels of duty regarding segments of the operational cycle. On the other hand, the assessment may incorporate proposals for conference, checking or inquire about techniques. Assessment happens in two expository stages. In the first place, the discoveries of the ELCA and the SLCA are built as two tables for simplicity of reference. The second stage comprises in recognizing those focuses in the life cycle where the ELCA and the SLCA propose interrelated results. The ELCA and SLCA recommend different blueprints or uncover differentiating issues of concern.
5 Case Studies 5.1 Dairy Farm in Irish The greater part of manageability investigations of dairy farms concentrated on natural execution and yield; in any case, social viewpoint has been scarcely surveyed. It is currently all around perceived that maintainability assessment needs to consider three interfacing columns: Environment, Society and Economy. The dairy segment assumes a critical job in agrarian economy of Europe and numerous ELCA considers have been distributed enumerating the huge natural effects of the generation chain.
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry
67
Much research has concentrated on assessing and enhancing the natural execution and financial yield of dairy farms, yet there have been few endeavours to examine the social effects of dairy farming. There are substantial contrasts in dairy farming worldwide. In Ireland, the dairy production framework is a minimal effort, rotational grazing framework, which is unique in relation to the control frameworks working in other European nations. It has been the most productive cultivating undertaking in Ireland throughout the previous 40 years and assumes a major job in the rural economy. With the abolishment of the EU milk quantity, the yield of the Irish dairy industry is relied upon to increment by half by 2020. Irish dairy farming is ruled by family cultivates, customarily reliant on family work. The Irish dairy segment was inspired by an approach, which intended to expand profitability. Indeed, even with methodological and information weaknesses, a SLCA of current Irish grass-based dairy creation is required to set up the gauge against which future SLCA observing examinations can be thought about. The social data for the procedures involved was included into the model. The framework was from support to cultivate entryway. Farm framework expect the fertilizer storage, cultivate and draining apparatus, refrigerant for milk cooling, pesticides, and transfer of silage plastic were excluded because of absence of action information. All compost was thought to be spread on the grazing and silage territories of the farm. All procedures were assembled into five units inside the limit: • Feed unit—including land arrangement, development and supplement administration for grass creation, generation and transportation of manufactured composts and concentrated feed. • Vitality unit—generation of power and diesel and on cultivate utilize, including cultivating movement and milking procedures. • Domesticated animals unit—creature lodging, water for drinking and cleaning purposes, grazing of animals, milking and cooling. • Excrement Management—slurry accumulation, storage of compost, fertilizer spreading on lands. • Transportation—for acquired feed and manure. The social impact classifications were partitioned into three gatherings: class 1, quantitative and relatable to the practical unit; class 2, quantitative classes however not relatable to the practical unit; and class 3, semi-quantitative. Subcategories in class 1 were type II impact classes, while the ones in class 2 and 3 were type II impact classifications. For class 1, the Life Cycle Working Environment (LCWE) database was utilized to compute wellbeing and security and working hours. It is substantial just for nations holding comparative financial and financial conditions. It contains sectoral foundation data about working time and deadly and non-deadly word related injuries. The closer view data about accidents and working time on dairy farms was determined. For this investigation, just the cost estimation of ecological effects on human prosperity was utilized to survey the social marker sheltered and solid working conditions. For class 1 markers, the standardization was figured in light of the commitment of effects from on-cultivate exercises.
68
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
For class 2, two markers employing and terminating practices and flexibility of affiliation and aggregate dealing were assessed to estimate the advantage. They were obtained from the aggressiveness file of the World Economic Forum (WEF) at nation level. All exhibitions were scored from worst to best indicated by numbers from 1 to 7. The esteem scope of 1–7 from WEF was standardized into scope of significant worth from −1 (most noticeably awful) to 1(best). Six semi-quantitative pointers were incorporated into class 3. The social execution was surveyed by whether the social plan come to or exists. Just two qualities were accessible after standardization: 1 representing positivity or −1 indicating negativity. For innovation advancement, the assessment reference was Economic Breeding Index (EBI), which is a benefit record for helping farmers to distinguish the most productive bulls and cows for rearing dairy crowd substitutions. EBI can be expanded by enhancing administration or hereditary innovation, so creation effectiveness can be accomplished by expanding EBI. Training openings and a green plan for dairy items were utilized for evaluating proficient advancement and advancing social authority markers. Irish dairy farm is very well may be reasoned that the farmers in this part make a positive social commitment. There were various pointers that were just barely positive. Keeping in mind the end goal to keep up its positive social impact, these social issues will require cautious administration with dairy development targets over the coming decade. The most negative social commitment was found in wellbeing and security markers, trailed by general wellbeing and safe living conditions, approach opportunity, and working hours. Disaggregated impacts on working time and wellbeing and security demonstrated that farm occupation additionally represented an extensive piece of wellbeing and protection impact. The predominance of social impact pointers for specialist shareholders was certain. A reasonable wage, social advantages, and security can ensure the privileges of dairy farm labourers and diminish the quantity of dairy specialists leaving the segment. New participant dairy agriculturists can all the more effectively embrace enhancing innovation and farm economy administration. This work structure will expand the likelihood of new innovations being received on dairy farms. The extension of Irish dairy farming could worsen the wellbeing and security execution, particularly for huge dairy farms except if proper administration is set up. Considering the high on-cultivate injury rate, essentially being more alert and including wellbeing measures might be insufficient to overcome the issue. Dairy farming is a tedious segment with the exercises on the farm representing the greater part of working time. Neighbourhood community shareholders seem to accomplish a constructive social effect from dairy farming. Only few SCLA are available for milk production, and the past research has utilized type I impact type for the evaluation strategy. The pointers can’t be identified with the useful unit in a quantitative way, which can prompt issues when incorporating the outcomes into LCSA with indistinguishable practical unit from the natural and financial segments. This investigation utilized blended system to assess the social execution of the normal Irish dairy cultivate, with an emphasis on type II impact markers. These markers have a quantitative causal association with the useful unit and can be effectively coordinated into LCSA. The outcomes incorporate a few
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry
69
new markers for assessing social execution of dairy frameworks and have likewise affirmed a portion of the subjective discoveries that dairy farms could confront social issues in connection to working hours and wellbeing and security. Because of the points of confinement of current SLCA approach and accessible databases, it is hard to interface every social pointer to the practical unit quantitatively. The larger part of markers in this examination was in class 2 and class 3, and for semi-quantitative pointers, the valuation procedure is like life cycle trait evaluation. The sectoral level semi-quantitative markers could be supplanted by more particular pointers in a SLCA investigation of individual farms for future work. It may be presumed that the normal Irish dairy cultivating was having a positive social effect for shareholders. Solid positive social effects were found for esteem chain on-screen characters and society, dominatingly positive effects for neighbourhood network and for the most part positive qualities for the labourer. There were three exceptionally negative effects: wellbeing and security and equivalent chance/separation for labourers and sheltered and solid living conditions for the neighbourhood network. It may be normal that these negative social hotspots may be exacerbated with development of the Irish dairy segment except if focused on strategy is set up to lessen their effect (Chen and Holden 2016).
5.2 Cheese Production in New Zealand Production of cheese in New Zealand was chosen for deciding its social life cycle assessment. This dairy item was picked for the most part for two reasons: first as it supplements the ecological evaluation of horticultural items with an assessment of the social execution of rural items over their entire life cycle. Secondly, the E-LCA gives a decent foundation to start pondering how to approach S-LCA contextual investigation. This strategy is perfect with the improvement of a technique to think about the effect of New Zealand cheese production with comparable cheese production forms in different nations. As an outcome, those using S-LCA should apply a standard practical unit. Nonetheless, the practical unit may expect adaption well in the utilization stage and with a specific end goal to make correlations between various items at that stage. Connections between exercises related with the generation procedure and organizations particular exercises with various social effects were built up. The principle standard for choosing social markers was pertinence to the zone of protection; human poise and prosperity. The following phase of the S-LCA process for cheese production in New Zealand would include applying the social effect evaluation system to the procedures and organizations at each phase of the life cycle of cheese production. At this phase of advancement of S-LCA, an agenda approach is the most realistic when procedure is additionally formalized and appropriate database tools exist to help with stock examinations (Paragahawewa et al. 2009).
70
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
• S-LCA Quantification Standardization in S-LCA could possibly be performed in a comparable way to its application in E-LCA. This estimation is identified with the social destinations, for e.g. the basic level or regularizing standard characterized by society, of the effect classification being surveyed. To direct a measured social effect assessment of cheese production in New Zealand, one would at first assess the structure and endeavour to evaluate the accompanying recipe for every life cycle phase of the cheese production (Labuschagne and Brent 2006). SII QxCcNcSc SII—Social effect marker Qx—social effects because of the creation procedure or organization action CC—Characterisation factor for an effect classification Nc—a standardization factor computed as the opposite of the objective state of the impact type Sc—impact classification’s relative significance estimated as a proportion of current and target social state.
5.3 Milk Production in Canada Aside from ecological effects, there has been a developing mindfulness that farm exercises similarly instigate significant social and financial effects over an extensive variety of shareholders. The primary expectations incorporate an ecological profile of the normal kilogram of milk generated in Canada, and an assessment of the financial execution of the Canadian dairy segment. It exhibits the methodological decisions made, for example, joining a specific investigation and a PHA (potential hotspots analysis) for two sections of the framework under investigation. Canadian dairy agriculturists are likewise corporate nationals whose practices either individually or in a group affect their partners. This SLCA gives an in-depth pictorial representation of this financial execution. It shows up from this evaluation that the Canadian dairy farms perform emphatically. The dairy agriculturists’ commitment towards their neighbourhood networks is significant, with most by far engaged with their networks in a wide range of ways. In spite of the fact that dairy farms give in general working conditions to which they are not lawfully subjected, there is opportunity to get better with respect to different issues, for example, proficient preparing and correspondence of working conditions. Similar situations remain constant as for their providers and colleagues, given that maximum dairy manufacturers don’t think about their providers’ execution concerning social obligation in their acquisition choices. International Dairy Federation (IDF) advances the supportable milk production and milk based items through its Dairy Sustainability Framework and the generation of a procedure for the life cycle assessment for the dairy division. Numerous relation-
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry
71
ships of milk producers and governments have effectively detailed the consequences of LCAs of milk production, including the European Dairy Association. Very less or no literatures have been found with respect to social or socioeconomic sustainabilities in dairy. On account of the assembling of the Canadian milk creation division, which includes around 13,000 dairy cultivates crosswise over Canada that are commonly and broadly composed, the assessment tends to all the more specifically the financial execution of the segment at three distinct levels since the practices experienced at each level don’t really influence the shareholders similarly or don’t identify with similar issues of concern. The three assessment levels are: • Dairy farm level: The dairy farms are at the focal point of the evaluation. Their conduct and practices influence generally the farm workers, the nearby networks where they are found, and their providers. • Dairy board level: All over Canada, dairy farms are sorted out in regional dairy boards playing out the authoritative, advertising and informative errands allocated by the dairy agriculturists. By fulfilling these undertakings, those associations initiate impacts on various shareholders. • Sector level: Milk generation happens in a lawful and institutional system that shapes a large portion of the segment’s qualities, which thusly have significant suggestions on the total sector’s shareholders. Though this specific system isn’t really specific to the milk production part, or dairy makers specifically responsible for it, its suggestions still must be evaluated as generators can follow up on it together. It is mandatory to specify that the SLCA approach, and the Specific Analysis, solely addresses the connections between a business/association and its shareholders, the previous being the one initiating the financial effects either positive or negative on the encompassing gatherings of people. The evaluation system surveys how much the Canadian dairy farms and dairy board act in a socially mindful way towards their shareholders. The issues of concern conceivably influencing customers have rather been surveyed in connection with the esteem chain characters type, since raw milk is the fundamental information utilized by dairy processors to expand the dairy items sold to purchasers. Given that the Specific Analysis was only led on the dairy farms and their boards, the classes have been adjusted just to the people affected by dairy practises. The effect evaluation period of a SLCA includes making an interpretation of stock information into estimated impacts by collecting stock markers inside subcategories and looking at them against called PRP (Performance Reference Point). Despite the fact that the Guidelines don’t give a specific signs or recommendations in regards to the impact assessment strategy to use in a SLCA, this issue is widely talked about in the financial impact assessment writing. Most social evaluation techniques, including the SLCA procedure, depend on financial pointers to gauge and survey the social and monetary effects initiated on shareholders by a specific movement. Leading a Specific Analysis requires a significant measure of information and data to archive the PRPs and the associations’ practices. Shockingly, there are not very many databases that cover and record, on a customary and efficient premise, the social and financial
72
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
issues at the segment or association level. Essential information, i.e., information gathered from the interest organizations and associations are in this way for the most part expected to attempt such an examination. Because of the extent of the Specific Analysis performed in this venture, the information accumulation process was testing. This test was first met through the PRPs. The absence of information and relevant documentation on the majority of the related issues under evaluation made it hard to survey these issues, as well as to choose institutionalized PRPs suited for the milk production setting in every territory. Essential information was utilized to evaluate dairy farm practices and practices. The information gathered at the regional level have been pooled and weighted at a national level to evaluate the normal Canadian dairy agriculturists’ financial execution. Weighting was vital on the grounds that the common examples were not of relative identical size, and the Canadian normal score has been dictated by assembling, for every producer’s or agriculturists’ individual answers. Whenever accessible, information on potential practices in a specific area situated in a specific nation have been gathered from national and global measurable databases, nation specific human rights reports, and from an assortment of different sources identified through a Web look and a writing survey. While information gathered at the division level is pertinent to archive practices of specific organizations. To fill in this hole, another intermediary was utilized; it included recording practices of a little example of organizations having a place with the segment and restricted in the nation under evaluation. Tests were worked by distinguishing the real organizations working in the division/nation under evaluation by utilizing, for instance, the Canadian Industry Statistic database. Data on those organizations’ conduct was likewise gathered from human rights writing and different sources. Ultimately, when no information was accessible, either at the division level or by alluding to the example of organizations, the social execution of the nation was utilized as an intermediary. The financial execution of the Canadian milk generation part will examined in two different ways: (1) at a specific level (by portraying the dairy farm level of social commitment from one viewpoint) and (2) at a non specific level (by giving a starter review of the social dangers (potential hotspots) identified with the area’s supply chains). Canadian dairy farms have a positive financial execution. That is the situation, for example, for the agro natural practices, regardless of whether it concerns water source insurance or soil preservation. In the event that this responsibility is evident from an ecological perspective, it is additionally significant in a financial point of view, as it likewise meets the Canadian culture’s desires. The dairy farm commitment towards their nearby network is likewise significant, with engaged with their networks in a wide range of ways. The normal execution of the Canadian dairy farms, as observed previously, can shroud some inconstancy inside the segment. For a given issue of concern, a few producers may have a proactive or submitted conduct where others will just follow the normal social standards. This changeability proposes that there is dependably space for enhancements, since the normal financial execution can be moved forward. While changeability in cultivate practices and results were examined at each phase of the life cycle steps, and for the diverse financial markers, it is imperative to remind
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry
73
that such fluctuation was assessed just between the common midpoints, and, all things considered, does not verge on assessing and understanding the inconstancy between different farms. Therefore, the present investigation gives a comprehension of how different situations and areas influence the natural profile of milk having the capacity to survey the potential by which best practices inside one kind of administration can add to diminishing the general weights. Regarding the assessment of the normal financial execution of Canadian milk production, the investigation assessed the Canadian dairy farms and their boards at a national level, in light of their level of social commitment, and was not expected to survey the execution at an individual level. It is obvious from this evaluation that Canadian dairy farms have a general positive execution. It is additionally self-evident, as for the agro natural practices, in the case of concerning water source security or soil preservation. The commitment of dairy agriculturists with their neighbourhood network is likewise significant. In spite of the fact that the Canadian dairy segment has little capacity to influencing these on-screen characters situated far upstream, in a life cycle point of view, it falls under the duty of dairy farms and their relationship to get included. This evaluation can be viewed as a beginning stage toward this path. This SLCA and the natural LCA were the first venture towards connecting all shareholders in an exhaustive practical advancement system. This evaluation furnishes the Canadian dairy division with an imaginative, far reaching and significant guide to move toward a more supportable milk generation in Canada (Reveret et al. 2015).
5.4 Milk Production in Queensland Australian dairy ranchers are proficient by world norms and normal farm generation has extended fundamentally as of late. This has been accomplished through expanded utilization of land for better field and healthful administration, expanded utilization of hardware, grazing, rural synthetic substances, and water system. Quantity of milk produced per cow has expanded generously. With the development of increased milk production, there has been expanding weight on nature encompassing dairy farms. Moreover, farms are regularly situated in territories with tasteful conditions that are visited by non-cultivating individuals from the network and farms might be situated in watershed that feed water into capacity zones for consumable water supplies for urban zones. Dairy cultivates hence rate exceedingly as far as natural concern inside the network. Social Life cycle investigation has been utilized broadly in Europe, the United States, and Japan for evaluation of mechanical generation frameworks and there has been a developing enthusiasm for ongoing years in the use of SLCA for farming creation to survey natural effect and maintainability. In the event that Australian dairy agriculturists are to keep up productive cultivating methods, and do as such in a feasible way, they should guarantee that ecological effects are limited through better natural administration. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an idea and strategy created to assess the social effects of an item, process or movement for the duration of its life cycle (Hamilton et al. 2000).
74
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
6 S-LCA Limitations S-LCA is another procedure with few S-LCA examines having been led that are very constrained in objective and scope and have utilized an order of various methodologies. There is much discussion with respect to the proper approach. Definitive and precise rules have just barely been distributed and these concede that extensive future work is as yet required both methodologically and as far as apparatuses and databases to encourage the procedure. At present, leading a thorough S-LCA would be restrictively costly and even-mindedly troublesome because of the absence of database instruments and the detachment of much-required information. Different impediments exist because of the idea of social marvels and impacts, human qualities are fundamentally included, evaluation can be troublesome, the conglomeration of information in a social setting isn’t surely known—especially for subjective information—which is probably going to be regular in S-LCA. Normal communities, a basic part of LCA are regularly not surely known in the social domain. The consideration of partners in the process is not the same as E-LCA and may result in trouble in acquiring support and also presenting extra components of inclination, and additional cost overheads as far as both time and cash. Professionals require aptitudes in LCA as well as in sociology, Corporate Social Responsibility, social effects assessment. Nobody has yet endeavoured to incorporate the utilization stage in S-LCA, but then definitely, the utilization stage is the essential purpose behind the presence of an item or administration. To disregard this stage would appear to be a terrific oversight. Nonetheless, most S-LCA specialists concur that the utilization stage is especially hard to address. As to the utilization stage, the Guidelines state that assessing the utilization stage speaks to a noteworthy test. The modulation in technological advancement so far was set on creation, appropriation and end-of-life perspectives; hence, utilize organize viewpoints require to promote improvement. In this way, concerning the assessment of the ease of use and fulfilment of the people, it might be better evaluated through different instruments or turn into a future field of research for S-LCA (UNEP 2005).
7 Future Contemplations The real driver for the S-LCA improvement has been to make a social impact assessment strategy that emulates as nearly as conceivable the standards of LCA with a perspective for a conceivable incorporation of the two and furthermore recognizing that a life cycle point of view is pertinent for social effects similar to ecological effects. A basic issue in the social variant of the LCA system is that focal contrasts between the ecological and social issues might be disregarded. It appears that future advancement of S-LCA may take after two ways. One is to proceed with the present slant and completely deplete the LCA cloning approach, which may include more research inside territories, for example, marker improvement, and characterization
Case Study on Social Life Cycle Assessment of the Dairy Industry
75
demonstrating in S-LCA, setting up and approving effect pathways, collection strategies, standardization references, and valuation techniques. Another way would be more completely recognizing existing sociology examine, which would bring up essential issues about the establishments of the procedure. Despite whether S-LCA will prevail with regards to incorporating vital exercises from the sociologies, S-LCA can’t get away from its motivation of being a procedure that is (1) life cycle situated and (2) going for social assessment. S-LCA studies will likely keep on being constrained to one or a couple of organizations.
8 Conclusion The conventional LCA display, construct just with respect to a utilitarian unit, takes a gander at a specific item chain and slights other unit forms that happen in a similar organization, while SLCA propels the fields to incorporate social effects. Social effects are specifically identified with the conduct of an organization rather than the capacity conveyed by a given item. One answer for evaluating social effect is to figure out the effect pathway, however, the improvement of effect pathway can acquaint some inclination with the LCA in light of the fact that the normal connections in social effect pathway depend on the objective SLCA. In the meantime, SLCA is flexible in light of the fact that it is an apparatus for those who make decisions or pick their concerned effects or issues as indicated by their business procedures and objectives. Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) incorporates conventional life cycle evaluation methodological advances while having social effects as a core interest. Connecting the assessment of ecological and financial issues may reinforce more farreaching maintainabssility evaluation of effects, benefits, and related exchange offs. Concerning S-LCA, the fundamental thought is that, past natural effects, likewise social effects could be epitomized in items and related supply chains so a comparative structure of examination could be taken after. Social Life Cycle Assessment may speak to an extremely important methodology for representing social effects related to generation and utilization along supply ties and also to help decision making people in various settings.
References Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M., & Merli, R. (2013). Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: Methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability, 5(8), 3275–3287. Benoit-Norris, C. (2012). Social life cycle assessment: a technique providing a new wealth of information to inform sustainability-related decision making. In M. A. Curran (Ed.), Life cycle assessment handbook: A guide for environmentally sustainable products (pp. 433–450). Hoboken: Wiley.
76
P. Senthil Kumar and P. R. Yaashikaa
Berlin, J., Sonesson, U., & Tillman, A. M. (2007). A life cycle based method to minimize environmental impact on dairy production through product sequencing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 347–356. Brien, M., Doig, A., & Clift, R. (1996). Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). International Journal of Lifecycle Assessment, 1(4), 231–237. Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1995). Social impact assessment: State of the art. Impact Assessment, 14(1), 57–86. Chaudhary, B., & Upadhyaya, M. (2013). Socio-economic impacts of dairy cooperative. Economic Journal of Development Issues, 15, 16(1–2). Chen, W., & Holden, N. M. (2016). Social life cycle assessment of average Irish dairy farm. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1250-2. Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M., & Schierbeck, J. (2006). A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 88–97. Feschet, P., Macombe, C., Garrabé, M., et al. (2013). Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(2), 490–503. Freudenburg, W. R. (1986). Social impact assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 451–478. Gauthier, C. (2005). Measuring corporate social and environmental performance: The extended life-cycle assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 199–206. Hamilton, A., Wegener, M., Dart, P., & Silvey, B. (2000). Life cycle assessment of milk production systems in south Queensland. In Annual Conference, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, University of Sydney (pp. 23–25). Hunkeler, D. (2006). Societal LCA methodology and case study. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(6), 371–382. Jorgensen, A., Bocq, A. L., Nazarkina, L., & Hauschild, M. (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 96–103. Labuschagne, C., & Brent, A. C. (2006). Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(1), 3–15. Paragahawewa, U., Blackett, P., & Small, B. (2009). Social life cycle analysis (S-LCA): Some methodological issues and potential application to cheese production in New Zealand. Report prepared by Agresearch. Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C., & Revéret, J. P. (2012). Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–11. Reveret, J.-P., Couture, J.-M., & Parent, J. (2015). Socioeconomic LCA of milk production in Canada. In Social life cycle assessment, environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes (pp. 25–69). Springer. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., et al. (2009). A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering, 90, 1–10. Smith, J., & Barling, D. (2014). Social impacts and life cycle assessment: Proposals for methodological development for SMEs in the European food and drink sector. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(4), 944–949. UNEP. (2005). Life cycle approaches from analysis to practice. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Zamagni, A., Feschet, P., Luca, A. I., Iofrida, N., & Buttol, P. (2016). Social life cycle assessment: Methodologies and practice. In Sustainability assessment of renewables-based products: Methods and case studies (1st ed.). Wiley.