Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools

  • Review
  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of sustainability assessment tools in agriculture has been increasing rapidly. However, a common understanding of what should be assessed as sustainability or as a sustainable state of agriculture is still lacking, in particular for the social dimension. We performed a qualitative content analysis of 87 farm-related sustainability assessment tools to examine how these tools defined and operationalized the social dimension of sustainability. We further analysed a subset of tools on the used indicators. The results clearly showed that as the backgrounds and objectives of the tools differed, so did their understanding of which contents should be integrated into the social dimension and how the topics of the social dimension should be operationalized. As the geographical ranges of application varied, so did the perceptions of which standard should be utilized to evaluate what social sustainability means on a farm. Production systems differ strongly over the globe. Tools therefore often neglect to define social sustainability and lack stringent operationalization. Two major inconsistencies could be seen in the scope that was covered by the tools and the sustainability standard: Whereas, for example, some tools base their sustainability assessments on human rights and working rights according to the United Nations and International Labour Organization conventions, others assess farmer perceptions of life quality. Although recurring topics such as labour conditions, life quality and societal impacts were identified, a need exists to take a step back and clearly frame social sustainability in agriculture from a conceptual perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Social capital has been popularized in social sciences by Bourdieu (1986) and Putnam (1995).

  2. The well-being approach has been used by various (social) psychologists—the major schools are psychological well-being (Ryff 1989) and subjective well-being (Diener et al. 2003).

  3. Forty-nine indicator sets considered some kinds of impact on the local community, 6 consumers and 2 educational effects for society.

References

  • Anderson, M. W., Teisl, M. F., & Noblet, C. L. (2016). Whose values count: Is a theory of social choice for sustainability science possible? Sustainability Science,11, 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, E., Jahn, T., & Stieß, I. (1999). Exploring uncommon ground: Sustainability and the social sciences. In E. Becker & T. Jahn (Eds.), Sustainability and the social sciences. A cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation (pp. 1–22). London: ZED Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, C. R., & Feola, G. (2013). Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: A review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. In A. A. Marta-Costa & E. L. D. G. Soares da Silva (Eds.), Methods and procedures for building sustainable farming systems (pp. 33–46). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, C. R., Feola, G., & Steinberger, J. K. (2010). Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,80, 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bockstaller, C., Feschet, P., & Angevin, F. (2015). Issues in evaluating sustainability of farming systems with indicators. Oliseeds & fats Crops & lipids,22(1), D102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2012). Sustainability assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,30(1), 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M. (2012). A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy,8(1), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory of research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colantonio, A. (2007). Social sustainability: An exploratory analysis of its definition, assessment methods, metrics and tools. In EIBURS working paper series, measuring social sustainability: Best practice from Urban renewal in the EU 1. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

  • Coteur, I., Marchand, F., Debruyne, L., Bijttebier, J., Triste, L., & Lauwers, L. (2014). Development and evaluation of an on-demand sustainability tool in Flanders. In Farming systems facing global challenges: Capacities and strategies: Proceedings of the 11th European IFSA symposium, international farming systems association (IFSA) Europe (pp. 38–48). Müncheberg, Berlin: Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

  • De Olde, E. M., Moller, H., Marchand, F., McDowell, R. W., MacLeod, C., et al. (2017). When experts disagree: The need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture. Environment, Development and Sustainability,19, 1327–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Olde, E. M., Oudshoorn, F. W., Sørensen, C. A. G., Bokkers, E. A. M., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2016). Assessing sustainability at farm-level: Lessons learned from a comparison of tools in practice. Ecological Indicators,66, 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2010). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development,19(5), 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2016). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research,258(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Napa Scollon, C., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and Gerontology,15, 187–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijk, M., de Kraker, J., van Zeijl-Rozema, A., van Lente, H., Beumer, C., Beemsterboer, S., et al. (2017). Sustainability assessment as problem structuring: Three typical ways. Sustainability Science,12, 305–317.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, F., Mitchell, P. D., Knuteson, D., Wyman, J., Bussan, A. J., & Conley, S. (2015). Assessing sustainability and improvements in US Midwestern soybean production systems using a PCA–DEA approach. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,31(6), 524–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eizenberg, E., & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability,9(68), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Ed.). (2014). SAFA sustainability assessment of food and agricultural systems guidelines (3rd ed.). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasparatos, A., & Scolobig, A. (2012). Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecological Economics,80, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrard, C., Smith, L., Padel, S., Pearce, B., Hitchings, R., Measures, M., et al. (2011). OCIS public goods tool development. Berkshire: Organic Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development,10, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1988). Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne: Zwölf Vorlesungen (12th ed.). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayati, D., Ranjbar, Z., & Karam, E. (2010). Measuring agricultural sustainability. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews,5, 73–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugé, J., Waas, T., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N., & Block, T. (2013). A discourse-analytical perspective on sustainability assessment: Interpreting sustainable development in practice. Sustainability Science,8, 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ILO (Ed.). (1998). Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kajikawa, Y. (2008). Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustainability Science,3, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, A., & Sharma, P. C. (2017). Social sustainability in supply chain decisions: Indian manufacturers. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9961-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, N. (2016). Sustainability assessment of agricultural systems—Applicability testing in the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve, Germany. Master thesis. Berlin: Humboldt-University.

  • Littig, B., & Grießler, E. (2005). Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development,8(1/2), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Ridaura, S., van Keulen, H., van Ittersum, M. K., & Leffelaar, P. A. (2005). Multiscale methodological framework to derive criteria and indicators doe sustainability evaluation of peasant natural resource management systems. Environment, Development and Sustainability,7, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, L., Scerri, A., James, P., Thom, J. A., Padgham, L., et al. (2013). Reframing social sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability,15, 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchand, F., Debruyne, L., & Lauwers, L. (2012). A comparison of complex expert-based assessment versus quickscan assessment. In: Proceedings of the 10th IFSA symposium: Producing and reproducing farming systems. New modes of organization for sustainable food systems of tomorrow. Aarhus: International Farming System Association.

  • Marchand, F., Debruyne, L., Triste, L., Gerrard, C., Padel, S., & Lauwer, L. (2014). Key characteristics for tool choice in indicator-based sustainability assessment at farm level. Ecology and Society,19(3), 46. (Special Feature).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 601–613). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: Towards some definitions. Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series, 27. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

  • Migliorini, P. (2013). The sustainability assessment of agro-food systems and diets. The comparison of IFOAM vs Slow Food Networks. Lyon: SARA-Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. (2012). The social pillar of sustainable development: A literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy,8(1), 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics,60, 498–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omann, I., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2002). Assessing social sustainability. The social dimension of sustainability in a socio-economic scenario. In 7th Biennial conference of the international society for ecological economics. Sousse: International Society for Ecological Economics.

  • Pacini, C., Lazzerini, G., Migliorini, P., & Vazzana, C. (2009). An indicator-based framework to evaluate sustainability of farming systems: Review of applications in Tuscany. Italian Journal of Agronomy,1, 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padel, S., Gerrard, C., Smith, L., Schader, C., Baumgart, L., Stolze, M., & Pearce, B. (2015). Further development of methodologies for sustainability assessment and monitoring in organic/ecological agriculture. Final project report, Berkshire & Frick: ORC & FiBL.

  • Pelzer, E., Fortino, G., Bockstaller, C., Angevin, F., Lamine, C., Moonen, C., et al. (2012). Assessing innovative cropping systems with DEXiPM, a qualitative multi-criteria assessment tool derived from DEXi. Ecological Indicators,18, 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy,6, 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57(6), 1069–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas-Zapata, W. A., Ríos-Osorio, L. A., & Cardona-Arias, J. A. (2017). Methodological characteristics of sustainability science: A systematic review. Environment, Development and Sustainability,19, 1127–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schader, C., Grenz, J., Meier, M. S., & Stolze, M. (2014). Scope and precision of sustainability assessment approaches to food systems. Ecology and Society,19(3), 42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, J., Graef, F., & König, H. J. (2015). Methods to assess farming sustainability in developing countries. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development,35(3), 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheate, W. (Ed.). (2010). Tools, techniques and approaches for sustainability: Collected writings in environmental assessment policy and management. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreck, A., Getz, C., & Feenstra, G. (2006). Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: Findings from an exploratory analysis. Agriculture and Human Values,23, 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J., & Bonniot, O. (1998). Sustainability indicators—A compass on the road towards sustainability. Wuppertal Paper 81. Wuppertal Institute.

  • Terrier, M., Gasselin, P., & Le Blanc, J. (2010). Evaluer la durabilité des systèmes d’activités des ménages agricoles pour accompagner les projets d’installation en agriculture. La méthode EDAMA. In H. Davautour, C.-T. Soulard, & B. Hubert (Eds.), ISDA 2010—Innovation et Développement Durable dans l’Agriculture et l’Agroalimentaire. Montpellier: INRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Textile Exchange (Ed.). (2014). Organic cotton sustainability assessment tool. Washington, DC: Textile Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (Ed.). (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (Ed.). (1966a). International covenant on civil and political rights. Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (Ed.). (1966b). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (Ed.). (1992). Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (Ed.). (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum,42, 342–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WCED (Ed.). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: World Commission on Environment and Development.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group Socioeconomics, Agroscope, Tänikon 1, 8356, Ettenhausen, Switzerland

    Judith Janker & Stefan Mann

  2. Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, 3012, Bern, Switzerland

    Judith Janker

Authors
  1. Judith Janker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Mann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Janker.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 184 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janker, J., Mann, S. Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools. Environ Dev Sustain 22, 1671–1691 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0282-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0282-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation