Advertisement

A Social Footprint of Nations: A Comparative Study of the Social Impact of Work

  • Ali Alsamawi
  • Darian McBain
  • Joy Murray
  • Manfred Lenzen
  • Kirsten S. Wiebe
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes book series (EFEPP)

Abstract

Work is essential for most people to live a full and complete life. However, far from being an enjoyable pursuit, many people find work places them in vulnerable and even life threatening positions. More than half of the developing world’s workers (approximately 1.5 billion people) are classified as being in vulnerable employment, trapped in a cycle where low incomes limit the ability to invest in family and future generation’s health and education. No standard footprint methodology has yet been adopted to measure a nation’s social impact of work in a similar way to how environmental footprints measure a nation’s impact on the environment. Here we develop a method to measure the social footprint of nations by compiling eight indicators, ranging from employment to income to days lost due to accidents. We compare these data for the average worker across developed and developing nations. Our results demonstrate that as countries develop, work domestically has fewer negative social impacts and more benefits to individuals. However, as countries develop they also import more negative social impacts through global trade. This leads to developed nations having two very different social footprints of trade—one for domestic workers and one for international labour embedded in its imports. The development of a replicable and comparable social footprint methodology contributes to our understanding of issues surrounding inequality, the social impact of work, how to measure social impact and how we can communicate complex messages around embedded labour. More than half of the developing world’s workers are classified as being in vulnerable employment, trapped in a cycle where low incomes limit the ability to invest in family and future generations’ health and education. Empowering policy makers and business to make choices that mitigate some of these impacts through developing and communicating numerically sound information is a priority to address global inequality. Current measurement techniques vary and lessons learned from having divergent methodologies in environmental footprinting indicate that a robust social footprinting methodology is required. We introduce a methodology to create social footprints of nations measuring the social impact of work embedded in global trade. We show that as countries develop, problematic labour impacts are outsourced to developing countries.

Keywords

Supply Chain Social Impact International Labour Organisation Sustainability Assessment Secure Supply Chain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alsamawi, A., Murray, J., & Lenzen, M. (2014). The employment footprints of nations uncovering master-servant relationships. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(1), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsamawi, A., Murray, J., & Lenzen, M. (2016). The working conditions footprints of nations. Journal of Cleaner Production (submitted).Google Scholar
  3. Bangladesh All Party Parliamentary Group. (2013). After Rana Plaza: A report into the readymade garment industry in Bangladesh (p. 60). Parliamentary, UK Parliament, London: Parlimentary Liaison Office.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, A. (1910). How to live on twenty-four hours a day: Project Gutenburg.Google Scholar
  5. 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, 4, 1946–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benoit-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. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(7), 682–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, D. C. (2012). Work, health and wellbeing. Safety and Health at Work, 3(4), 241–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blomqvist, L., Brook, B. W., Ellis, E. C., Kareiva, P. M., Nordhaus, T., & Shellenberger, M. (2013). Does the shoe fit? Real versus imagined ecological footprints. PLoS Biology, 11(11), e1001700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bravo, G. (2014). The Human Sustainable Development Index: New calculations and a first critical analysis. Ecological Indicators, 37, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton, A. C., Huggard, D., Bayne, E., Schieck, J., Solymos, P., Muhly, T., et al. (2014). A framework for adaptive monitoring of the cumulative effects of human footprint on biodiversity. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(6), 3605–3617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coalition, B. (2014). Trade for growth a new trade regime for the 21st century.Google Scholar
  12. Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K. E., et al. (2014). Time to leave GDP behind. Nature, 505(16 January), 283–285.Google Scholar
  13. Čuček, L., Klemeš, J. J., & Kravanja, Z. (2012). A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 34, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Marco, M., Rondinini, C., Boitani, L., & Murray, K. A. (2013). Comparing multiple species distribution proxies and different quantifications of the human footprint map, implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 165, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dreher, A., & Gaston, N. (2008). Has globalisation increased inequality? Review of International Economics, 16(3), 516–536.Google Scholar
  16. Duchin, F., & Levine, S. H. (2011). Sectors may use multiple technologies simultaneously: The rectangular choice-of-technology model with binding factor constraints. Economic Systems Research, 23(3), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Earles, J. M., & Halog, A. (2011). Consequential life cycle assessment: A review. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eora. (2012). The Eora global multi-region input-output tables. www.worldmrio.com. Sydney, Australia: ISA, The University of Sydney.
  19. Fairphone. (2014). Manufacturing—Putting employee wellbeing at front and centre. https://www.fairphone.com/roadmap/manufacturing/. Accessed August 10, 2014.
  20. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., et al. (2009). Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frech, A., & Damaske, S. (2012). The Relationships between mothers’ work pathways and physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(4), 396–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friend, C. (2004). Social contract theory. www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#H4. Accessed July 10, 2014.
  23. Fuentes-Nieva, R., & Galasso, N. (2014). Working for the few: Political capture and economic inequality. Oxford, UK: Oxfam International.Google Scholar
  24. Galli, A., Weinzettel, J., Cranston, G., & Ercin, E. (2013). A footprint family extended MRIO model to support Europe’s transition to a one planet economy. Science of the Total Environment, 461–462, 813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2012). Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 16, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. GFN. (2014). Footprint basics—Overview. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/. Accessed August 6, 2014.
  27. Gómez-Paredes, J., Yamasue, E., Okumura, H., & Ishihara, K. N. (2014). The labour footprint: An input–output based framework to assess labour dimensions of economic activity (submitted).Google Scholar
  28. Hobbes, T. (1651a). LEVIATHAN. In C. B. Macpherson (Ed.). London: Penguin Books (1985).Google Scholar
  29. ILO. (2012). LABORSTA—Main statistics (annual): Employment general level, by economic activity, by occupation, by status in employment. http://laborsta.ilo.org. Genève, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.
  30. International Labour Organisation. (2014a). Forced trafficking, human labour and slavery. http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/lang–en/index.htm Accessed June 13, 2014.
  31. International Labour Organisation. (2014b). World of work report 2014: Developing with jobs. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  32. International Monetary Fund. (2007). World Economic Outlook: Globalization and inequality. Washington, DC, USA: International Monetary Fund, Publication Services.Google Scholar
  33. Jackson, T., Jager, W., & Stagl, S. (2004) Beyond insatiability; Needs theory, consumption and sustainability. Working Paper Series Number 2004/2. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
  34. King, I. (2014). The conflict over conflict-free minerals. Accessed, 20(07/14), 2014.Google Scholar
  35. Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson, T., et al. (2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecological Economics, 93, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lenzen, M., Kanemoto, K., Moran, D., & Geschke, A. (2012b). Mapping the structure of the world economy. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(15), 8374–8381. http://dx.doi.org/8310.1021/es300171x
  37. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., & Geschke, A. (2012a). Building Eora: A global multi-region input-output database at high country and sector resolution. Economic Systems Research (submitted).Google Scholar
  38. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., & Geschke, A. (2013). Building Eora: A global multi-region input-output database at high country and sector resolution. Economic Systems Research, 25(1), 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mason, R. (2014). Companies not asked to report slavery in supply chains under new laws. The Guardian [online], section.Google Scholar
  40. McBain, D., & Alsamawi, A. (2014). Quantitative accounting for social economic indicators. Natural Resources Forum (n/a-n/a).Google Scholar
  41. McBain, D., Wiedmann, T., & Lenzen, M. (2014). The contribution of input-output analysis to understanding impacts of consumption—A review update. Journal of Industrial Ecology (submitted).Google Scholar
  42. McElroy, M. W., & van Engelen, J. M. L. (2012). Corporate sustainability management: The art and science of managing non-financial performance. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2010). Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Minnaert, T. (2014). Footprint or fingerprint: international cultural policy as identity policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(1), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moran, D., McBain, D., Kanemoto, K., Lenzen, M., & Geschke, A. (2014). Global supply chains of Coltan: A hybrid LCA study using a social indicator. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Accepted May 2014.Google Scholar
  46. Murray, J., & Wood, R. (Eds.). (2010). The sustainability practicioner’s guide to input-output analysis (1st ed., 1 vols.). New York: Common Ground Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  47. Pelletier, N., Ustaoglu, E., Benoit, C., & Norris, G. (2013). Sustainability in trade and development policy. In Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability (Eds.), A life cycle approach to understanding and managing social risk attributable to production and consumption in the EU-27. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union European Commission.Google Scholar
  48. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st century (Trans.: A. Goldhammer). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Prell, C., Feng, K., Sun, L., Geores, M., & Hubacek, K. (2014). The economic gains and environmental losses of US consumption: A world-systems and input-output approach. Social Forces.Google Scholar
  50. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rees, W., & Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4), 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rose, A. (1995). Input-output economics and computable general equilibrium models. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 6(3), 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rugani, B., Panasiuk, D., & Benetto, E. (2012). An input–output based framework to evaluate human labour in life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(6), 795–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Solt, F. (2009). Standardizing the world income inequality database. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 231–242. SWIID Version 3.1, December 2011.Google Scholar
  55. Tukker, A., & Dietzenbacher, E. (2013). Global multiregional input-output frameworks: An introduction and outlook. Economic Systems Research, 25(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. United Nations. (2012). The future we want. www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288andLang=E. Accessed August 4, 2014.
  57. United Nations Environment Program. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Milan: United Nations.Google Scholar
  58. United Nations Statistics Division. (2008). The System of National Accounts (SNA). New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  59. United Nations Statistics Division. (2009). System of National Accounts 2008. New York.Google Scholar
  60. UNSD. (2011). National Accounts Official Data. data.un.org/Browse.aspx?d=SNA. New York, USA: United Nations Statistics Division.
  61. Ura, K., Alkire, S., Zangmo, T., & Wangdi, K. (2012). A short guide to gross national happiness index. Bhutan: The Centre for Bhutan Studies.Google Scholar
  62. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Grazi, F. (2014). Ecological footprint policy? Land use as an environmental indicator. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(1), 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  64. Waring, M. (1988). If women counted: A new feminist economics. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  65. Weidema, B. P. (1993). Market aspects in product life cycle inventory methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1(3–4), 161–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. World Bank. (2014). Global economic prospects. In Shifting priorities, building for the future. http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEP2014b/GEP2014b.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2014.
  67. Zheng, H., & Land, K. C. (2012). Composition and decomposition in US gender-specific self-reported health disparities, 1984–2007. Social Science Research, 41(2), 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Alsamawi
    • 1
  • Darian McBain
    • 2
  • Joy Murray
    • 1
  • Manfred Lenzen
    • 1
  • Kirsten S. Wiebe
    • 3
  1. 1.School of PhysicsUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Sustainable DevelopmentThai Union GroupBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Department of Energy and Process EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations