Social impacts and life cycle assessment: proposals for methodological development for SMEs in the European food and drink sector

SOCIETAL LCA

Abstract

Purpose

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) account for 99 % of companies operating in the European food and drink industry and, often, are part of highly fragmented and complex food chains. The article focuses on the development of a social impact assessment methodology for SMEs in selected food and drink products as part of the EU-FP7 SENSE research project. The proposed methodology employs a top-down and bottom-up approach and focuses on labour rights/working conditions along the product supply chain as the key social impact indicator, limiting key stakeholder classification to workers/employees and local communities impacted by the production process. Problems related to this emerging field are discussed, and questions for further research are expounded.

Methods

The article reviews both academic and ‘grey’ literature on life cycle assessment (LCA) and its relationship to social LCA (S-LCA) and SMEs at the beginning of 2013 and includes case study evidence from the food sector. A pilot questionnaire survey sent to European food and drink sector SMEs and trade associations (as partners in the research project) about their knowledge, experience and engagement with social impacts is presented. Proposals are elaborated for a social impact assessment methodology that identifies the key data for SMEs to collect.

Results and discussion

The literature reveals the complexity of the S-LCA approach as it aims to unite disparate and often conflicting interests. Findings from the pilot questionnaire are discussed. Using a top-down and bottom-up approach, the proposed methodology assesses data from SMEs along the supply chain in order to gauge social improvements in the management of labour-related issues for different product sectors. Issues relating to the ‘attributional’ choice of a social impact indicator and key stakeholder categories are discussed. How ‘scoring’ is interpreted and reported and what the intended effect of its use will be are also elaborated upon.

Conclusions

Whilst recognising the difficulty of devising a robust social impact assessment for SMEs in the food and drink sector, it is argued that the proposed methodology makes a useful contribution in this fast-emerging field.

Keywords

Europe Food and drink sector Life cycle assessment Methodologies S-LCA SMEs Social impacts 

References

  1. Aquaculture Stewardship Council (2012) ASC farm certification and accreditation requirements. Version 1.0. UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrientos S, Gereffi G, Rossi A (2008) What are the challenges and opportunities for economic and social upgrading? Concept note ‘Capturing the gains’ workshop. University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S et al (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Camillis C, Blighy JC, Pennington D, Palyi B (2012) Outcomes of the second workshop of the Food Sustainable Consumption and Production Round Table Working Group 1: deriving scientifically sound rules for a sector-specific environmental assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:511–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox T, Vorley B (2004) Corporate accountability in the UK supermarket sector. Final report of the race to the top project. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Freidberg S (2009) Hotspots in a cold chain: a life-cycle assessment of Loki fish. Environmental studies paper, Dartmouth College http://www.lokifish.com/freidbergpaper.pdf. Accessed 5 Sep 2013
  9. Griesshammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC et al. (2006) Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=512499&fileOId=633083. Accessed 28 Oct 2013
  10. Henriques A (2012) Standards for change? ISO 26000 and sustainable development. IIED, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Jørgensen A (2010) Developing the social life cycle assessment: addressing issues of validity and usability. Dissertation, DTU Management EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  12. Jørgensen A (2012) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jørgensen A, Dreyer LC, Wangel A (2012) Addressing the effect of social life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:828–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kissinger G (2012) Corporate social responsibility and supply agreements in the agricultural sector: Decreasing land and climate pressures. CCAFS working paper no. 14. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. Klopffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kruse SA, Flysjo A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz AJ (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macombe C, Feschet P, Garrabe M, Loeillet D (2011) 2nd International seminar in social life cycle assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD (2009) Overview of selected initiatives and instruments relevant to corporate social responsibility. Annual report on the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises 2008. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Reveret J (2013) Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1642–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework of impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steering Committee of the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue (2012) Final standards for responsible salmon aquaculture, June 2012. http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/433/files/original/SAD_Standard_Final_Draft.pdf?1346188051. Accessed 7 Nov 2013
  22. Valdivia S, Ugaya C, Sonnemann G, Hildenbrand J (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. Making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Food Policy, School of Arts and Social SciencesCity University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations