IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1601-d146723.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Sustainability Assessment of Canadian Egg Production Facilities: Methods, Analysis, and Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan Pelletier

    (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)/Egg Farmers of Canada (EFC) Industrial Research Chair in Sustainability, Department of Biology/Faculty of Management, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada)

Abstract

A detailed assessment of the “gate-to-gate” social risks and benefits of Canadian egg production facilities was undertaken based on the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment. Data were collected via survey from a representative subset of Canadian egg farms, and evaluated against a novel suite of indicators and performance reference points developed for relevance in the Canadian context. The evaluation focused on interactions with four stakeholder groups (Workers; Local Communities; Value Chain Partners; and Society) in eighteen thematic areas. This assessment resulted in a rich and highly nuanced characterization of the potential social risks and benefits attributable to contemporary egg production facilities in Canada. Overall, risks were low and benefits were identified for Local Communities, Value Chain Partners, and Society stakeholder groups, but mixed for the Workers stakeholder group. With respect to the latter, identified areas of higher risk are related, in particular, to a subset of indicators for Working Hours, Equal Opportunities and Fair Salary. As such, the results suggest opportunities and strategies for the Canadian egg industry both to capitalize on its current successes as well as to proactively engage in improving its social sustainability profile. The study also contributes a novel set of social sustainability metrics for use and continued development in the Canadian egg sector as well as other agri-food sectors in Canada and beyond. The inevitable challenge in social life cycle assessment (LCA) of developing non-arbitrary performance reference points for social indicators for which clear norms do not exist, and similarly for establishing non-arbitrary scales and thresholds for differentiating between performance levels, is underscored. A necessary next step with respect to the methods presented herein is for stakeholder groups to carefully consider and refine the performance reference points and characterization thresholds that have been developed, in order to assess their alignment with context-specific social sustainability priorities for this industry, and also to extend the analysis to encompass other value chain stages to enable a full social life cycle assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan Pelletier, 2018. "Social Sustainability Assessment of Canadian Egg Production Facilities: Methods, Analysis, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1601-:d:146723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1601/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1601/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandra Zamagni & Pauline Feschet & Anna Irene de Luca & Nathalie Iofrida & Patrizia Buttol, 2015. "Social Life Cycle Assessment," Post-Print hal-01547551, HAL.
    2. Ruqun Wu & Dan Yang & Jiquan Chen, 2014. "Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-27, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ricardo J. Bonilla-Alicea & Katherine Fu, 2019. "Systematic Map of the Social Impact Assessment Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-30, July.
    2. Somayeh Rezaei Kalvani & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ibrahim Kabir Abdullahi, 2021. "Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis, 2022. "Type I Social Life Cycle Assessments: Methodological Challenges in the Study of a Plant in the Context of Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Ilkka Leinonen, 2019. "Achieving Environmentally Sustainable Livestock Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-5, January.
    5. Rubee Singh & Shahbaz Khan & Piera Centobelli, 2022. "Investigating the Interplay between Social Performance and Organisational Factors Supporting Circular Economy Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Irene Huertas-Valdivia & Anna Maria Ferrari & Davide Settembre-Blundo & Fernando E. García-Muiña, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, August.
    7. Samuel Le Féon & Théo Dubois & Christophe Jaeger & Aurélie Wilfart & Nouraya Akkal-Corfini & Jacopo Bacenetti & Michele Costantini & Joël Aubin, 2021. "DEXiAqua, a Model to Assess the Sustainability of Aquaculture Systems: Methodological Development and Application to a French Salmon Farm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-28, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    2. Mariana Oliveira & Mécia Miguel & Sven Kevin Langen & Amos Ncube & Amalia Zucaro & Gabriella Fiorentino & Renato Passaro & Remo Santagata & Nick Coleman & Benjamin H. Lowe & Sergio Ulgiati & Andrea Ge, 2021. "Circular Economy and the Transition to a Sustainable Society: Integrated Assessment Methods for a New Paradigm," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    3. Flávio Mattos & João Luiz Calmon, 2023. "Social Life Cycle Assessment in Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems with Contribution of Waste Pickers: Literature Review and Proposals for New Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Zaman Sajid & Nicholas Lynch, 2018. "Financial Modelling Strategies for Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Project Appraisal of Biodiesel Production and Sustainability in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Solène Sureau & François Lohest & Joris Van Mol & Tom Bauler & Wouter M. J. Achten, 2019. "Participation in S-LCA: A Methodological Proposal Applied to Belgian Alternative Food Chains (Part 1)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-24, September.
    6. Yijiao Wang & Guoguang Zhou & Ting Li & Xiao Wei, 2019. "Comprehensive Evaluation of the Sustainable Development of Battery Electric Vehicles in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Catherine Benoit Norris & Gregory A. Norris & Lina Azuero & John Pflueger, 2019. "Creating Social Handprints: Method and Case Study in the Electronic Computer Manufacturing Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, November.
    8. T.E.T Dantas & S.R Soares, 2022. "Systematic literature review on the application of life cycle sustainability assessment in the energy sector," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1583-1615, February.
    9. Ahmad Nadim Azimi & Sébastien M. R. Dente & Seiji Hashimoto, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment of Household Waste Management System in Kabul City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-26, April.
    10. Somayeh Rezaei Kalvani & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ibrahim Kabir Abdullahi, 2021. "Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Fernando E. Garcia-Muiña & Rocío González-Sánchez & Anna Maria Ferrari & Davide Settembre-Blundo, 2018. "The Paradigms of Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy as Enabling Drivers for the Competitiveness of Businesses and Territories: The Case of an Italian Ceramic Tiles Manufacturing Company," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-31, December.
    12. Patricia Lagun Mesquita & Merlina Missimer, 2021. "Social Sustainability Work in Product Development Organizations: An Empirical Study of Three Sweden-Based Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Aldona Kluczek, 2017. "Quick Green Scan: A Methodology for Improving Green Performance in Terms of Manufacturing Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, January.
    14. María Jesús Muñoz-Torres & María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo & Juana M. Rivera-Lirio & Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero & Elena Escrig-Olmedo & José Vicente Gisbert-Navarro & María Chiara Marullo, 2018. "An Assessment Tool to Integrate Sustainability Principles into the Global Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Olimpia Martucci & Gabriella Arcese & Chiara Montauti & Alessia Acampora, 2019. "Social Aspects in the Wine Sector: Comparison between Social Life Cycle Assessment and VIVA Sustainable Wine Project Indicators," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, April.
    16. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Sanjuan Delmás, D. & Thomassen, G. & Dewulf, J., 2021. "The path to sustainable energy supply systems: Proposal of an integrative sustainability assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    17. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Thomassen, G. & Taelman, S.E. & Dewulf, J., 2022. "Exploring the global and local social sustainability of wind energy technologies: An application of a social impact assessment framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    18. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Sara González García & Enrica Imbert & Lucía Lijó & María Teresa Moreira & Almona Tani & Valentina Elena Tartiu & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2019. "Transitioning towards the bio‐economy: Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1135-1153, September.
    19. Merlina Missimer & Patricia Lagun Mesquita, 2022. "Social Sustainability in Business Organizations: A Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    20. Louisa Pollok & Sebastian Spierling & Hans-Josef Endres & Ulrike Grote, 2021. "Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1601-:d:146723. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.