Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Organizational Life Cycle Assessment: an approach for identification of relevant subcategories for wine production in Italy

  • SOCIETAL LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study proposes a systematic approach for identifying the relevant social issues of a sector or company to be integrated within the Social Organizational Life Cycle Assessment framework. The approach is implemented through the Pugh matrix analysis in a wine company located in Abruzzo, Italy.

Methods

The Pugh matrix is suitably modelled for social organizational life cycle assessment by considering the subcategories, i.e. social issues, and the stakeholder categories proposed by the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment UNEP/SETAC. The model is implemented by involving 31 consumers, 28 workers, 36 local community, and 7 value chain actors who were interviewed and asked to give a score by comparing pairwise the subcategories of each stakeholder, respectively.

Results

The results allowed the identification of the most relevant subcategories for the case under study. For example, the health and safety issue is evident as being relevant for different stakeholders (i.e. worker, local community and consumers). Furthermore, starting from the relevant subcategories, a set of indicators was identified. The indicators are allocated at two levels depending on the kind of data used for assessing the indicators (sites visit, consultation of reports or surveys and questionnaires).

Conclusions

This study proposes and implements a model within the Social Organizational Life Cycle Assessment framework as well as Social Life Cycle Assessment in order to support decision-makers in sustainability decisions, taking into account the entire value chain over time.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the S-LCA guidelines (2009), information gathered at first hand are called primary data and refer here usually to the site-specific subcategories and indicators assessed.

References

  • Ahmad S, Vedagiri P, Krishna Rao KV (2017) Prioritization of pavement maintenance sections using objective based analytic hierarchy process. Int J Pavement Res and Technol 10:158–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi K, Osuji O, Nnodim P (2008) Corporate social responsibility in supply chains of global brands: a boundaryless responsibility? Clarifications, exceptions and implications. J Bus Ethics 81(1):223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews E, Lesage P, Benoît C, Parent J, Norris G, Revéret JP (2009) Life cycle attribute assessment. Case study of Quebec greenhouse tomatoes. J Ind Ecol 13(4):565–578

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Massa I (2017) Modeling social life cycle assessment framework for the Italian wine sector. J Clean Prod 140:1027–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter CR, Rogers DS (2008) A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. Int J Phys Distr and Log Manag 38(5):360–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervone HF (2009) Applied digital library project management: using Pugh matrix in complex decision-making situations. OCLC Syst Serv 25(4):228–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvel AM (1993) Risolvere un problema. Editoriale Itaca, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Corona B, Bozhilova-Kisheva KP, Olsen SI, San MG (2017) Social life cycle assessment of a concentrated solar power plant in Spain. J Ind Ecol 21(6):1566–1577

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Council Regulation (EC) (2006) On the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. No 510/2006 20 March 2006

  • Craft RC, Leake C (2002) The Pareto principles in organizational decision making. Manag Decis 40(8):729–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz JM (2008) Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social responsibility through integrated environmental decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 184:1005–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Eusanio M, Lehmann A, Zamagni A, Finkbeiner M, Petti L (2018) How experiences and existing data of companies can be used to define the goal and scope in a social organisational life cycle assessment (SO-LCA). Pre-proceedings of the 6th Social Life Cycle Assessment Conference, People and Places for Partnership, 10-12th September, Pescara (Italy), pp. 208-214. ISBN: 978-9562141-1-3

  • D’Eusanio M, Zamagni A, Petti L (2019) Social sustainability and supply chain management: methods and tools. J Clean Prod 235:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, 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. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11(3):383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Leskinen P, Stillitano T, Falcone G (2017) Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for agricultural sustainability: insights from a systematic and critical review. Sci Total Environ 595:352–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fallahpour A, Olugu EU, Musa SN, Wong KY, Noori S (2017) A decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Comput Ind Eng 105:391–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontes J, Bolhuis A, Bogaers K, Saling P, van Gelder R, Traverso M, Das Gupta J, Bosch H, Morris D,Woodyard D, Bell L, van der Merwe R, Laubscher M, Jacobs M, Challis D (2014). Handbook of product social impact assessment. http://product-social-impactassessment.com

  • Fontes J, Tarne P, Traverso M, Bernstein P (2018) Product social impact assessment. Int J Cycle Assess 23:547–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forin S, Martínez-Blanco J, Finkbeiner M (2018, 2018) Facts and figures from road testing the guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1533-x

  • Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ, Mabee WE, Reed M, McAlpine P (2006) Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J Environ Manag 78:114–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, DD, Herder PM, Wijnia Y, Subrahmanian, E, Katsikopoulos, K, Clausing DP (2007) An evaluation of the Pugh controlled convergence method. Proceedings of ASME DETC: Design Engineering Technical Conference, 2007, Las Vegas

  • Frey DD, Herder PM, Wijnia Y, Subrahmanian E, Katsikopoulos K, Clausing DP (2009) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Design 20:41–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghadimi P, Dargi A, Heavey C (2017) Sustainable supplier performance scoring using audition check-list based fuzzy inference system: a casa application in automotive spare part industry. Resour Conserv Recy 105:12–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold S, Seuring S, Beske P (2010) Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: a literature review. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 17(4):230–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Halog A, Manik Y (2011) Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3(12):469–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honkala S, Hamalainen M, Salonen M (2007) Comparison of four existing concept selection methods. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED ‘07, 28–31 August 2007, Cite des sciences et de l’industrie, Paris, France

  • Hutchins MJ, Sutherland JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod 16(15):1688–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Organisation of Wine and Vine (OIV) (2018). OIV statistical report on world vitiviniculture, November 2018 http://wwwoivint/public/medias/6371/oiv-statistical-report-on-world-vitiviniculture-2018pdf Accessed 4 February 2019

  • Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Silveri F, Falcone G, Stilitano 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. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24(4):767–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a). Environmental management: life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization report. ISO 14040:2006(E)

  • ISO (2006b). Environmental management systems: life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization report.ISO 14044:2006(E)

  • ISO (2014) ISO/TS 14072: environmental management life cycle assessment requirements and guidelines for organizational life cycle assessment. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Istat (2017) Stima delle superfici e produzioni delle coltivazioni agrarie, floricole e delle piante intere da vaso. Abruzzo, Provincia Chieti. Dati I.stat http://dati.istat.it/. Accessed 4 February 2019

  • Istituto di Servizi per il Mercato Agricolo Alimentare - ISMEA (2018). Tendenze Vino Report, n.2/2018, Agosto 2018. http://www.ismeamercati.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/8852. Accessed 4 Febrary 2019

  • Jorgensen A, Finkbeiner M, Jorgensen MS, Hauschild MZ (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:376–384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karklina K, Slisane D, Romagnoli F, Blumberga D (2015) Social life cycle assessment of biomethane production and distribution in Latvia. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, 2:128-132, ISSN:2256-070X

  • Kühnen M, Hahn R (2017) Indicators in social life cycle assessment. A review of frameworks, theories and empirical experience. J Ind Ecol 21(6):1547–1565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann L, Motoshita M, Finkbeiner M (2018) How can social organizational LCA (SOLCA) benefit from existing and improve future sustainability reporting of companies? In: Proceedings of the 6th Social LCA Conference: Social LCA. People and Places for Partnership, Sept 10–12, 2018, Pescara, Italy. Cirad, ISBN: 978-2-9562141-1-3

  • Loch CH, Wu Y (2008) Social preferences and supply chain performance: an experimental study. Manag Sci 54(11):1835–1849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mani V, Agarwal R, Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Dubey R, Childe SJ (2016) Social sustainability in the supply chain: construct development and measurement validation. Ecol Indic 71:270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1386–1392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang YJ, Finkbeiner M (2015a) Social organizational LCA (SOLCA): a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1586–1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Quiros A, Valdivia S, Milà-i-Canals L, Finkbeiner M (2015b) Organizational LCA: the new member of the LCA family—introducing the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative guidance document. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(8):1045–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Finkbeiner M (2015c) Scoping organizational LCA—challenges and solutions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(6):829–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Forin S, Finkbeiner M (2017) Launch of a new report: “road testing organizational life cycle assessment around the world: applications, experiences and lessons learned”. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathé S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assesst 19:1506–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathivathanan D, Kannan D, Haq AN (2017) Sustainable supply chain management practices in Indian automotive industry: a multi-stakeholder view. Resourc Conserv Recy 128:284–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza GA, Prabhu R (2000) Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. Forest Ecol Manag 131:107–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menghini S, Marinelli N (2011) Sostenibilità e mercati nelle teorie del benessere e del comportamento dei consumatori. Ital J Agron 6(2):55–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A (2018) Sustainability experiences in the wine sector: toward the development of an international indicators system. J Clean Prod 172:3791-3805

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh S (1981) Concept selection: a method that works. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design ICED, Rome, Italy

  • Pullman ME, Maloni MJ, Carter CR (2009) Food for thought: social versus environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes. J Supply Chain Manag 45(4):38–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raggi A, Arzoumanidis I, Petti L (2018) Life cycle thinking for sustainable tourism in online booking platforms. Chapter 7. In: Cantino V, Culasso F, Racca G (eds) Smart tourism. McGraw-Hill Education, Milan, pp 111–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudberget D (2010) The decision process in set-based concurrent engineering—an industrial case study. International Design Conference – Design 2010, May, 17-20, Dubrovnik – Croatia

  • Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:380–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Manzardo A, Mazzi A, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2015) Prioritization of bioethanol production pathways in China based on life cycle sustainability assessment and multi-criteria decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(6):842–853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sureau S, Mazijin B, Russo Garrido S, Achten WMJ (2018) Social life-cycle assessment frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:904–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Bell L, Saling P, Fontes J (2018) Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative product social impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:597–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1068-1079

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Life-Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (2015) Guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. Life-Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (2013) The methodological sheets of sub-categories of impact in a social life cycle assessment. Life-Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030. Resolution 25 September 2015 A/RES/70/1

  • Vachon S, Mao Z (2008) Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: a country-level analysis. J Clean Prod 16:1552–1560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente C, Brekke A, Modahl IA (2018) Testing environmental and social indicators for bio refineries: bioethanol and biochemical production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:581–596

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • WCED (1987) Our common future: the Bruntland Report. Oxford University Press from the World Commission on Environment and Development, New York, p 400

  • Weidema BP (2005) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White S, Pettit J (2004) Participatory approaches and the measurement of human well-being, WIDER Research Paper, No. 2004/57. The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNUWIDER), ISBN 9291906468, Helsinki

  • Yawar SA, Seuring S (2017) Management of social issues in supply chains: a literature review exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes. J Bus Ethics 141:621–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer K, Frohling M, Breum P, Schultmann F (2017) Assessing social risks of global supply chains: a quantitative analytical approach and its application to supplier selection in the German automotive industry. J Clean Prod 149:96–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful and would like to thank CODICE CITRA, Ortona (Italy), for having provided the necessary data and information for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economic Studies, University “G. d’Annunzio”, Viale Pindaro 42, 65127, Pescara, Italy

    Manuela D’Eusanio & Luigia Petti

  2. Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Annekatrin Lehmann & Matthias Finkbeiner

Authors
  1. Manuela D’Eusanio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annekatrin Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias Finkbeiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luigia Petti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuela D’Eusanio.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Julia Martínez-Blanco

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Eusanio, M., Lehmann, A., Finkbeiner, M. et al. Social Organizational Life Cycle Assessment: an approach for identification of relevant subcategories for wine production in Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 1119–1132 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01746-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01746-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation