An Italian tomato “Cuore di Bue” case study:

challenges and benefits using subcategory assessment

method for social life cycle assessment
Luigia Petti
Department of Economic Studies, University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara,
Pescara, Italy

Paola Karina Sanchez Ramirez

Department of Economic Studies, University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara,
Pescara, Italy

Marzia Traverso
Erzgiesserei Strasse, Erzgiesserei Strasse16, 80335, Munich, Germany

Cassia Maria Lie Ugaya

Graduate School of Mechanical Engineering and Materials (PPGEM), Federal University of Technology –
Parana, Avenida Sete de Setembro, 3165, Rebouças Curitiba, Brazil

Accepted version
Licence Publisher's Bespoke License
Please cite as:
Petti, L., Sanchez Ramirez, P.K., Traverso, M. and Ugaya, C.M.L. (2018), "An Italian tomato “Cuore
di Bue” case study: challenges and benefits using subcategory assessment method for social life
cycle assessment", The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 23, pp. 569-580.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1175-9

This is a PDF file of an unedited version of the manuscript that has been accepted for publication. The manuscript will
undergo copyediting and typesetting before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production
process errors may be discovered which could affect the content.
 SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS
1
2
3
4
5 An Italian tomato “Cuore di Bue” case study: challenges and benefits using subcategory assessment
6 method for social life cycle assessment
7
8
9
1 Luigia Petti1 • Paola Karina Sanchez Ramirez1 • Marzia Traverso2 • Cassia Maria Lie Ugaya3
11
12
13 Received: 3 August 2015 / Accepted: 18 July 2016
14 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
15
16
17
Responsible editor: Catherine Macombe
18
19
20 1
Department of Economic Studies (DEc), "Gabriele d'Annunzio" University, Pescara, Viale della Pindaro 47,
2
22 Pescara, 65127, Italy
23 2
Erzgiesserei Strasse, 16, 80335 Munich, Germany
2
25 3
Graduate School of Mechanical Engineering and Materials (PPGEM), Federal University of Technology –
26
27 Parana, Avenida Sete de Setembro, 3165, Rebouças Curitiba, Brazil
28
29
30
31  Luigia Petti
32
33 [email protected]
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 Abstract:
2 Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to present an implementation of the Subcategory Assessment
3
4 Method (SAM) to the life cycle of an Italian variety of tomato called "Cuore di Bue" produced by an Italian
5 cooperative. The case study was used to use the methodology proposed in compliance with the guidelines of
6
7 Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) in order to highlight issues for the improvement of SAM.
8 A summary of strengths and weaknesses of the methodology as well as the social performance of the considered
9
10 Italian tomato is an important result of this case-study.
11 Methods: The methodology used is based on SAM. The UNEP/SETAC guidelines of S-LCA and the
12
13 complementary Methodological Sheets were used as main references to carry out SAM and it was used to assess
14 the social performances of "Cuore di Bue". The focus was on the assessment of three out of five stakeholder
15
16 groups presented in the guidelines: Workers, Local Community and Consumers. Specific questionnaires have
17 been developed to collect the inventory data related to each stakeholder group and along the product life cycle.
18
19 Results and discussion: SAM of "Cuore di Bue" showed a range of values: between 2-3 (C-B) for consumers
20 stakeholder group, and mainly 3 (B) for the local community and worker stakeholders. Because the best
21
22 performance (A) is related to a numerical value of 4 better performances were not identified, owing to no
23 propagation of actions in the value chain. The collective bargaining, transparency, feedback mechanism and
2
25 privacy are the subcategories with the worst performance, but at the same time with more potential for
26 improvements.
2
28 Conclusions: The implementation of SAM on "Cuore di Bue" allowed us to demonstrate how SAM transforms
29 qualitative data into semi-quantitative information through a score scale that can help a decision maker achieve a
3
31 product overview. SAM has been implemented on "Cuore di Bue": the product assessment, the strengths and
32
33 weaknesses of the methodology are identified and discussed as well. It has been possible to present the best and
34 worst performance in product life cycle, by identifying the phase or the subcategories with good or bad
35
36 performance. However, in this case study, as the same company owns most of the product life cycle taken into
37 account, the majority of social performances are identical and this may represent a limit of the methodology or
38
39 that more organizations along the life cycle must be taken into account (for example, energy, distribution).
40
41
42 Keywords Subcategory assessment method • Social life cycle assessment • Social impact assessment •
43 stakeholders • Characterization model • Case study
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 Introduction
1 The Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) has, as its main target, the assessment of the social performance of a
2
3 product along its life cycle. A great amount of literature has been written in the last ten years to identify a set of
4 valid and commonly accepted indicators and its relative characterization factors for the impact assessment
5
6 (Weidema 2006; Dreyer et al. 2006; Jørgensen et al. 2010; Benoit et al. 2011; Traverso et al. 2012a; Traverso et
7 al. 2012b; Jørgensen 2013; Benoit et al. 2013; Neugebauer et al. 2014; Neugebauer et al. 2015). Although a
8
9 standard set of indicators has not yet been defined, a framework for the implementation of the methodology has
10 already been developed. The scientific community and users of S-LCA commonly accept the following main
11
12 points:
13 • The assessment path should follow the ISO 14040 (ISO 14040, 2006) scheme to be a complementary
14
15 approach of environmental LCA in assessing the social impact of products (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
16
1 • The main topic related to the ILO standards (ILO 1930, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1957, 1958, 1973, 1999),
18 such as child labour, forced labour and so on (Dreyer et al. 2010) need to be considered in the assessment
19 of the workers stakeholder group.
2
21 • The indicators are different and depend on the impact categories and the stakeholder groups (e.g.
22
23 Human Health should be measured with different indicators if it is related to workers, consumers or local
24 communities).
25
26 • A possible path to allocate social impacts is to use the quantity of labour hours for each unit process
27 (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
28
29
30
UNEP and SETAC (2009) highlighted the importance of developing methods and case studies to improve S-
31
32 LCA. In a former study, Ramirez et al. (2014, 2016) presented a Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) based
33 on UNEP and SETAC (2009).
34
35 SAM is able to transform qualitative information into quantitative data (1 to 4; 1 being the worst and 4 being the
36 best), thereby acquiring a semi-qualitative feature. In some cases, the method proves to be consistent by
37
38 analysing the organizational social behaviour of the product life cycle. In addition, SAM allows for managing
39 different issues in the context of S-LCA, e.g. ranging from a simple to a complex product, and also when the
40
41 assessment comprises different contexts/countries across the whole value chain. This is owing to basic
42 requirements based on international references, which enables a systematic application.
4
44 It was noted that not all elements of regionalization and contextualization of particular situations are considered
45 by the method, especially in small organizations. This is due to the fact that SAM is based on the evaluation of
4
47 organizational practices in relation to international agreements. The choice of using international agreements is
48 related to the indications given by the UNEP/SETAC methodology. It relies on measures implemented by large
4
50 organizations having the resources and capacity to acquire social and environmental actions, as was identified by
51
52 Dreyer et al. (2010).
53 SAM has been applied to a cosmetic product in Brazil (Ramirez et al. 2016). The current paper aims to use SAM
54
55 in another context and for another type of product: a specific variety of Italian tomato called “Cuore di Bue” and
56 to assess social performances of its value chain (cradle to gate) from the cultivation of the plants until it is put on
57
58 the market and sold to the consumers.
59 The tomato is one of the most diffused horticultural products and one of the most incisive on the fruit and
60
61 vegetable sector. According to FAO, Italy is the first tomato producing country in EU-27 with approximately 51
62
63
64
65
 tonnes in 2012. However, there has been a structural decrease in the cultivation of the table tomato from 30,000
1 hectares at the beginning of the millennium to 22,000 hectares in 2012, whereas the quantity of greenhouse table
2
3 tomato production has grown in the same period from 36 % to almost 50 %.(FAOSTAT | © FAO Statistics
4 Division 2014 | 16 July 2014)
5
6
7 2 Goal, scope and system boundaries
8
9 2.1 Functional unit
10 The Functional Unit (FU) chosen in this case study is 1 kg of tomato “Cuore di Bue”, which meet the nutritional
11
12 needs of an individual, thus represents an excellent source of antioxidants, dietary fiber, minerals and vitamins
13 (Ciusa 1979).
14
15
16
2.2 Product system
17
18 Because the social indicators collected have been related to the product by considering the labour hours, the cut-
19 off criteria are related to the amount of labour hours (Hunkeler 2006) of each process unit. An analysis of all
20
21 company sites involved in the product life cycle is necessary. The company with the most steps of the product
22 life cycle, is defined as Company A. In order to produce the product it interacts with the other companies of the
23
24 supply chain. All process units related to company A are considered in the assessment. The other companies in
25 the supply chain are compared to each other in terms of interaction, expressed in percentage of labour hours,
2
27 with Company A. All process units of the others companies which have an interaction higher than 1 %, are
28 included in the system boundary. Table 1 shows the process units for each considered company.
2
30 The calculation of the labour hours of each unit process (minutes or hours) is estimated according to Ugaya et al.
31 (2011) based on the number of employees of the company (workers), the number of working hours per week of
3
33 each employee, the number of working weeks in a year, and the entire yearly production of the product as shown
34
35 in Equation (1). The labour hours are calculated by the following equation:
36
37
38 Wh = W*h*n / p (1)
39 where:
40
41 • Wh is the amount of labour hours
42 • W represents the number of workers involved in the process unit
43
44 • h represents working hours per week
45 • n represents number of working weeks per year
4
47 • p represents total production (kg) per year
48
49
50 The amount of Working hours referred to the FU (WFU) for each unit process is given by:
51
52
53 WFU = Wh * c (2)
54
55 Where ”c” is the amount of all materials necessary to produce one FU of tomato “Cuore di Bue”.
56
57
58 The analysis of labour hours was applied to the entire production phase (from cradle to market) (Fig. 1) and
59 included:
60
61 • All phases of the tomato production from seedling through cultivation to the harvesting phases and
62
63
64
65
 packaging
1 • The production and supply phases of packaging products such as: plastic and paper boxes
2
3 • Production of coconut slabs necessary as underlay where the tomato plants are positioned
4 • All transport phases related to tomato “Cuore di Bue” supply chain: from transport of the intermediate
5
6 and auxiliary materials to the delivery of the final product.
7 To assess the labour hours of each unit process to produce a FU of tomato “Cuore di Bue”, it is necessary to
8
9 know all material and energy inputs data related to the tomato production in a year. The relative primary inputs
10 data were collected from the companies involved in the “Cuore di Bue” life cycle.
11
12 For each unit process the company production site and the relative number of workers involved per year were
13 considered. Furthermore, all data related to the equation (1) were collected together with the relative input
1
15 production. The production of a tomato plant and the relative data collected from Company C is an example. All
16 data related to the time (minutes) necessary for each treatment of tomatoes plant is reported in Table 2. The time
1
18 for each process of annual production was divided by the time for the entire production of one tomato plant.
19 The production of one tomato plant requires 1.17 minutes. Company C delivers 70,000 “Cuore di Bue” plants to
2
21 Company A annualy. The yearly tomato production of Company A requires 81,900 minutes or 1,365 hours to
22
23 produce the original plants. The same process was used to calculate the labour hours of each unit process.
24 A summary of the labour hours for each unit process is reported in Table 3.
25
26 The next step is to identify those unit processes/companies that are part of the system boundary according to the
27 fixed cut-off criteria: a contribution of labour hours higher than 1 %.
28
29 The contribution (in percentage) of each unit process in term of labour hours is reported in Table 4.
30 According to the cut-off criteria the cardboard box production process and the final transport can be excluded
31
32 from the system boundary because they present a percentage of labour hours smaller that 0.15 %.
33 Together with the cut-off criteria, a Social Hotspot analysis is necessary to identify if there are cases of child
34
35 labour or forced labour that are considered knock-out criteria and whose assessment is needed also when the
36 specific unit process has a bearing of labour hours lower than 1 %. Each single minute of child labour must be
37
38 considered.
39 The final system boundaries of the S-LCA of tomato “Cuore di Bue” are reported in Fig. 2.
40
41
42
2.3 Selection of stakeholders
43
44 According to the definition of S-LCA (UNEP/ SETAC 2013; UNEP/SETAC 2009) the assessment should be
45 related to five stakeholder groups: workers, consumers, local communities, global and national society and value
4
47 chain actors. We decided to focus the attention on the first three stakeholder groups because, according to a first
48 screening on the data availability and the priorities of the company with whom the case study was made
4
50 (UNEP/SETAC 2009). The screening process was carried out by considering the company strategy and the data
51 available at the time of the study. The method, although not perfect, is effective. It was important to guarantee
5
53 the viability of the methodology in this first implementation. It would be interesting to further develop its
54
55 application in small companies.
56 In fact, topics such as public commitments to sustainability issues and contribution to economic development
57
58 related to the neglected stakeholder groups are not easily measurable for the dimension of the company
59 considered, according to UNEP and SETAC (2009).
60
61
62
63
64
65
 2.4 Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM)
1 SAM allows the evaluation of organizations by a subcategory, which can later on be linked either to stakeholders
2
3 or to impacts. As this study aims to performe a case study using SAM, further linkages have not been performed.
4 In order to use SAM, data needs to be collected and compared to Basic Requirements (BR) which were defined
5
6 according to legislation or organisational practices and country context which results in different levels (Ramirez
7 et al. 2014). An example for the subcategory Forced Labour, is shown in Table 5. If the organization simply
8
9 fulfills the BR, it is evaluated as B. In the case in which the organization multiplies the BR along the supply
10 chain, an A is given. The difference between C and D depends on the context: e.g. in the case of forced labour, it
11
12 is related to the country practice. All the remaining description for the other subcategories related to the
13 stakeholders selected, is available in Ramirez et al. (2014).
14
15
16
3 Life cycle inventory
17
18 Life cycle inventory was carried out according to ISO 14040/44 (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006) to be
19 consistent with the UNEP/SETAC guidelines and a comprehensive sustainability assessment.
20
21 Because many S-LCA case studies have not been carried out till now (Petti et al. 2014), we developed a specific
22 questionnaire for social data collection along the product life cycle based on the Methodological sheets
23
24 (UNEP/SETAC 2010). The questions are proposed to facilitate the use of SAM and were developed consistently
25 with the UNEP/SETAC guidelines framework in terms of stakeholder and subcategory groups (see Electronic
2
27 Supplementary Material).
28
29
30 3.1 Workers
31 The first considered stakeholder group for the data collection is workers, including labourers and office workers.
3
33 Three different questionnaires were developed and each was used for different groups:
34
35 • questionnaire for the company administration (office workers);
36 • questionnaire to collect data from the employees directly involved in the tomato production (labourers);
37
38 • questionnaire to interview delegates of trade union.
39
40
41 The aim of interviewing different people is to allow triangulation, that is, to compare data among different
42 sources of information to validate data of the inventory analysis (Table 6). The questions were proposed in such
43
44 a way so as to confirm (or not) the answers given from the other two interviewed groups. In this case study, only
45 the first two questionnaires listed above were used, as the workers are not members of any trade union.
4
47 To further validate the given answers, the national laws and norms and the National Collective Worker
48 Agreement (CCNL) in the agricultural and floriculture sector (Parti sociali 2010), were analysed.
4
50 A random sample of 72 employees in the tomato “Cuore di Bue” production were interviewed, representing
51 95 % of the original population of 93 workers (Corbetta 2003):
5
53
54
5 n= t2 * P * (1-P)/ D2
56 where:
57
58 n is the sample dimension
59 t represents the distribution
60
61 P is the estimated prevalence of the population
62
63
64
65
 D is the absolute precision.
1
2
3 From the interviewed sample, the following was identified:
4 • 51 men and 21 women
5
6 • 5 people aged 16 to18 years, 34 aged 18 to 30, 23 aged 30 to 40, 9 aged 40 to 50, and only 1 over 60
7 years of age.
8
9 A summary of subcategories and number of questions used to assess the social performance of tomato “Cuore di
10 Bue” on the workers is shown in Table 7. For example, to assess the subcategory working hours, 6 questions
11
12 were asked directly to the workers and 13 to the organization representative. The first question of the workers
13 questionnaire is: How many hours do you usually work per day? Three answer types were identified: a= 8 hours
14
15 a day, b= more than 8 hours a day and c= less than 8 hours a day. The results were: a = 44 %, b = 37 % and c =
16 19 %. The assessment of all questions was made in order to respond to the indicator weekly number of average
118
working hours compliant with the law of the sector. If one single answer suggested the non-compliance of this
19 indicator, the processes in the impact assessment (using SAM) would not fulfill the basic requirement (BR) for
2
21 the subcategory.
22
23
24 3.2 Local community
25
26 A summary of topics and number of questions used to assess the social performance of tomato “Cuore di Bue”
27 on the local communities is shown in Table 8. The results were related to the questionnaire for the company. A
28
29 second questionnaire was developed for the person in charge of the local community to check the company
30 answers.
31
32 For example, to assess the subcategory delocalization and migration, 6 questions were asked to the organization
33 representative and 5 questions to the community representative. The first question of both questionnaires
34
35 (organization and community representative) is the following: Is there any situation that resulted in the
36 delocation of the local community for reasons caused by the organization? The assessment of all the questions
37
38 was made in order to answer the indicator evidence of resettlement caused by the organization. If one single
39 answer suggested the evidence of this indicator in any processes, the impact assessment (using SAM) would be
40
41 evaluated as not achieving of the basic requirement (BR) for the subcategory.
42
43
44 3.3 Consumers
45 The stakeholder consumer plays a meaningful role for the success of the product. Tomato consumers are not
46
47 only represented by the local inhabitants, but also by inhabitants in surrounding large cities. In fact, the
48 company distributes its products to the general markets and supermarkets of the largest cities in Northern Italy,
49
50 such as Turin and Milan. The carried out questionnaire, totalling 17 questions, is made up of open questions and
51 focuses on consumer health and safety, consumer privacy, end of life responsibility, feedback mechanism and
5
53 transparency, as shown in Table 9. For example, to assess the health and safety subcategory, the objective was to
54 investigate whether the organization delivered a healthy and safe product to the consumer. For this subcategory,
5
56 6 questions were asked. The first checked for any complaint regarding consumers’ health and safety. The
57 remaining questions aimed to identify the procedures used in the organization to deliver a healthy and safe
5
59 product to the consumer.
60
61 The head of marketing answered the questionnaire for primary data. Triangulation, according to the
62
63
64
65
 methodology, is desirable and may occur through consumer organizations. In the case of any reported problem
1 regarding the health and safety of the consumers, due to the consumption of the product, such as intoxication, it
2
3
4 4 Results of the Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM)
5
6 For the social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA) and its interpretation, the authors used the Subcategory
7 Assessment Method (SAM) (Ramirez et al. 2014). This case study is one of the first comprehensive
8
9 implementations of SAM. It allows translating qualitative into quantitative indicators throughout a scale
10 definition.
11
12 The reference is the basic requirement (BR) that is defined according to the International Labour and Human
13 Rights standard (refer to chapter 2.4).
14
15 The life cycle inventory data were then analysed and assessed according to SAM criteria and for each one, the
16 relative score was assigned. The obtained results are discussed and reported in the next chapter (Figs. 3, 4 and 5).
17
18 For the Worker stakeholder, the results of eight subcategories are reported: freedom of association and collective
19 bargaining, child labour, forced labour, fair wage, working hours, equal opportunities and discrimination, health
20
21 and safety, social benefit and social security (Sanchez Ramirez et al. 2012).
22 According to SAM, B is assigned to the freedom of association and collective bargaining subcategory because
23
24 no workers were associated to a labour union, they were grouped into a Cooperative, respecting their right to
25 freedom of association.
2
27 The other subcategories of the stakeholder workers are all at level B. In fact, all the other subcategories met the
28 minimum standard defined by the relative ILO Conventions. Children no younger than 15 worked in the
2
30 assessed unit process, which is why the subcategory child labour was evaluated with level B.
31 For the subcategory fair wage, no minimum standard has been established at the national level. In Italy as well
3
33 as in other European Countries (e.g. Germany), the minimum salary is sector specific and is defined by an
34
35 agreement between labour union organization, government and companies. For example, the minimum wage for
36 the administrative sector in Italy is 965.12 euro per month, for the production sector 6.00 euro/hour for the head
37
38 of department and 5.20 euro/hour for worker (Parti sociali, 2010), 965.12 euro by month for agriculture sector
39 (FLAI 2008). The company addresses the BR, obtaining B.
40
41 The equal opportunity & discrimination subcategory was also defined at level B as the company established a
42 management system to avoid, prevent and eventually manage discrimination (Ramirez et al. 2014).
43
44 Level B was also assigned to the social benefit and social security subcategory; the company recognizes social
45 benefits such as: family leave, sick leave, disability, individual retirement account and health insurance to all its
46
47 employees. An overview of the results of the stakeholder worker evaluation is reported in Fig. 3.
48 Five subcategories were considered and assessed for the Consumers stakeholder: health and safety, feedback
49
50 mechanism, consumers privacy, transparency and end of life responsibility (Ramirez et al. 2012). The basic
51 requirements were established in compliance with the following International norms and guidelines: ISO 26000
52
53 (Corporate Social Resonsibility – CSR), Global Reporting Iniative (GRI), and Consumer Protection Act (1987).
54 An overview of the results is shown in Fig. 4, where three out of five subcategories are at level C and the
55
56 remaining two at B. The health & safety and end of life responsibility subcategories are evaluated at level B,
57 being as they meet the requirements of the Italian national norms on workers’ health & safety of the CSR and of
5
59 GRI standards.
60 The other three subcategories do not meet the minimum standard, thus they were evaluated at level C.
6
62
63
64
65
 According to SAM, two different levels can be assigned (C and D), when the company does not meet the
1 minimum standard. With regard to consumer privacy, the reference is no longer the company´s behaviour but the
2
3 country where it is located. The evaluation of the country is given in accordance with the International Privacy
4 Ranking (Privacy International 2007). Consequently, C is assigned if the country, where the company is situated,
5
6 has a Privacy International Ranking score from 1.1 to 3 and level D if the country score is between 3.1 to 5.
7 Level C was assigned to the feedback mechanism subcategory, since no system to trace complaints or consumer
8
9 satisfation was established in the company.
10 According to the S-LCA guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009), all subcategories for the local community
11
12 stakeholder group have been assessed: delocalization and migration, community engagement, cultural heritage,
13 respect of indigenous rights, local employment, access to the material resources, access to immaterial resources,
14
15 safe and healthy living condition, secure living conditions. The results (Fig. 5) show that only one subcategory
16 (access to material resources) meets the standard and is evaluated at B. In order for the criteria of these
17
18 subcategories to be verified, company audits and inspection of the company code of conduct were carried out.
19 The access to immaterial resources was evaluated at level D, as no activity, in terms of education and
20
21 information for the local community, has been identified.
22
23
24 5 Discussion and conclusions
25 The present study shows the feasibility of the SAM method for the evaluation and the interpretion of the
2
27 inventory data of the S-LCA. The inventory data were collected by considering the framework presented by the
28 Guidelines and the Methodological Sheets of UNEP/SETAC (Benoit et al. 2011, Benoit et al. 2009). Some
2
30 phases had to be excluded from the case study because no primary data were available and no secondary data for
31 the social indicators chosen could be used. The data collection of this case study shows how detailed and time-
3
33 consuming this can be for S-LCA. However, it highlingts how elaborate data collection is and how it can better
34
35 contribute to the understanding and interpretation of the real social status of the processes. Bearing in mind that
36 the primary data for S-LCA is usually qualitative, the more information that is obtained, the more veritable the
37
38 reality is represented. This occurrs in the Workers stakeholder as it was possible to interview almost 100 % of
39 the workers of the organization. The direct interview enabled the interviewer to better understand the real
40
41 situation and link it to the assessment. This kind of sensitivity is always more important when performing an S-
42 LCA.
43
44 Moreover, this case study represents one of the first implementations of the S-LCA using SAM and also
45 represents the first assessment of an Italian tomato.
46
47 In the tomato “Cuore di Bue” case study, 77.27 % of the assessed subcategories achieved the basic requirements.
48 In this case study, the method does not allow for outlining a difference between the worst and the best social
49
50 performance. This is due to the fact that the product phases assessed are performed by the same organization and
51 consequentely present an identical social performance. However, it is still possible to differentiate the worst
52
53 social performance in relation to each subcategory (Table 10). Table 11 shows a summary of the results: for each
54 SAM result and related evidence a measurement was suggested to the company for improving its social
55
56 performance.
57 For example, the “access to immaterial resources” subcategory from local community stakeholder presented the
5
59 worst performance. The organization neither offers services to the local community nor creates educational
60 initiatives to the community members with the purpose of sharing information and knowledge. This can be
6
62
63
64
65
 attributed to the small size of the company, which has insufficient resources to perform such activities. In
1 addition, the analysis highlights a lack of proactive actions towards suppliers and other actors in the value chain.
2
3 More specifically, the company reveals a weak customer satisfaction management system: the creation of a
4 website providing a direct contact with the customer, could represent a significant improvement.
5
6 However, company A, along with the environmental certification, implemented the present S-LCA to improve
7 its social performance. Since the company has already offered high quality products in compliance with the
8
9 norms for consumer health and safety, it could improve its visibility and engagement of the local community.
10 The results of the SAM assessment has led the company to draw up the following action plan (Table 11):
11
12 • Related to the stakeholder consumers:
13 o Offer a health and safety product according to the sectorial and national norms.
14
15 o Tracebility of consumer satisfation
16 o Assessment and electronic storage of consumers’ complaints.
17
18 • Safeguard of the workers:
19 o Use of safety tools during the distribution phase of fertilizers and pesticides
2
21 o Use of safety and properly managed equipment
22 o Training and education of the employees.
2
24 • Safeguard of the local community:
25
26 o Increase of the local community´s awareness of social and environmental topics
27 o Iniatives to improve awareness of the social and environmental topics of the local community.
28
29
30 In conclusion, SAM proves to offer a transparent analysis of the organizational social behaviour of the tomato
31
32 “Cuore di bue” in a gate-to-gate perspective.
33 In this study, we deliberately consider all criteria with the same relevancy, but a case study with a ranking of the
34
35 proposed criteria should be carried out for verifying if the criteria are all relevant for the tomato sector.
36
37
38 References
39 Benoît Norris C (2014) Data for social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):261–265
40
41 Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011)
42 Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle
43
44 Assess 2011-05-31, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, ISSN: 0948-3349, pag. 1- 9, May 2011
45 Benoît-Norris C, Traverso M, Valdivia S, Vickery-Niederman G, Franze J, Azuero L, Ciroth A, Mazijn B,
4
47 Aulisio D (2013) The Methodological Sheets for Social Life Cycle Assessment - A practical support to
48 implement S-LCA of Product. Oral Presentation and proceedings of SETAC Europe 19th LCA Case Study
4
50 Symposium in Rome, Italy, 11-13 November 2013. ISSN
51 Ciusa W (1979) Trattato di Merceologia, UTET
5
53 Consumer Protection Act (1987)
54
55 Corbetta P (2003) La ricerca sociale: metodologia e tecniche. IV. L'analisi dei dati. Collana "Itinerari". pp 288,
56 978-88-15-09477-3
57
58 Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life
59 Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97
60
61 Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA Part 1: Development
62
63
64
65
 of indicators for labour rights. 15:247-259
1 Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and framework (ISO 14040) (2006) ISO:
2
3 Genova, Switzerland
4 Federazione lavoratori dell’agroindustria (FLAI) (2008) Contratto collettivo nazionale di lavoro per i quadri e gli
5
6 impiegati agricoli. Roma. Acessed: 11/05/2015 Available:
7 https://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http
8
9 %3A%2F%2Fwww.lazio.cgil.it%2Fflai%2Ffilelist_download.asp%3Fid%3D32&ei=qPxQVbzsDoz1gwT6
10 qIDQBQ&usg=AFQjCNEl6kdo5wkUlLbs4wXY0WI3RAjNJQ&sig2=Q_Qt8ybBlSrB-R6g0rOTbg
11
12 Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382
13 ISO (UNI EN) 14040 (2006) Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
14
15 framework (ISO 14040); ISO: Genova, Switzerland
16 ISO 14040 (2006) ISO (International Organization for Standardization), Geneve, Switzerland
17
18 Jørgensen A, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen M, Hauschild M (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle
19 assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:376-384
20
21 Jørgensen A (2013) Social LCA—a way ahead? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):296–299
22 Neugebauer S, Blanco JM, Scheumann R, Finkbeiner M (2015) Enhancing the practical implementation of life
23
24 cycle sustainability assessment - proposal of a Tiered approach. J Clean Prod 102:165-176
25 Neugebauer S, Traverso M, Scheumann R, Chang Y-J, Wolf K, Finkbeiner M (2014) Impact Pathways to
2
27 Address Social Well-Being and Social Justice in S-LCA—Fair Wage and Level of Education.
28 Sustainability 6:4839-4857
2
30 Parti sociali (2010) 30 luglio 2010, Contratto provinciale di lavoro degli operai agricoli e florovivaisti della
31 provincia di Cuneo
3
33 Petti L, Ugaya CML, Di Cesare S (2014) Systematic review of Social-Life Cycle Assessment ( S-LCA ) case
34
35 studies Impact Assessment method. In: Macombe C, Loeillet D (eds) Pre-proceedings of the 4th
36 International Seminar in Social LCA. FruiTrop Thema, pp 34–41
37
38 Privacy International (2007) Privacy International https://www.privacyinternationalorg/survey/
39 rankings2007/phrcomp_sort.pdf. Accessed 18 November 2011
40
41 Ramirez P et al (2014) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological
42 framework. Int J of Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1515–1523
43
44 Traverso M, Asdrubali F et al (2012b) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to
45 photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1068–1079
46
47 Traverso M, Finkbeiner M et al (2012°) Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16(5):680–688
48 Ugaya C, Brones F, Corrêa S (2011) S-LCA: Preliminary results of Natura's Cocoa soap bar”, Proceedings of
49
50 Life Cycle Mangement Conference 2011, Berlin
51 UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. United Nations Environment
52
53 Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment Programme
54 UNEP/SETAC (2013,) The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA).
55
56 United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment
57 Programme.
5
59 Vicoli R (2012) La metodologia della social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Applicazioni preliminari della
60 metodologia al “pomodoro “Cuore di Bue”” dell’azienda Ortogranda, Master’s Thesis, Fac. Economia,
6
62
63
64
65
 CLEAM, “G. d’Annunzio” Univ. Pescara, Italy
1 Weidema B (2006) The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life
2
3 Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Figures

Fig. 1 System boundary of all the production phases considered in the labour hours analysis
Fig. 2 Flowchart of the all the considered production phases considered in the case study
Fig. 3 Overview of the results of the workers subcategories´assessment evaluation
 Stakeholder Consumers
3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Health and Feedback Consumers Transparency End of life
safety mechanism Privacy responsibility

Fig. 4 Results of consumers stakeholder subcategories evaluation

 Stakeholder Local Community
3.5
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
1
0.5
0

Fig. 5 Results of local community stakeholder subcategories evaluation

Tables

Table 1. Companies involved and relative unit processes of tomato “Cuore di Bue” production
Phytosanitary Plant Coconuts layers Packaging & Plantation, Final
Products & Production & & Trasportation Harvest & Trasportation to
Trasnportation Trasportation Transportation packing the seller

Company B Company C Company D Company E Company A Company F

Company G

Company A
Table 2 Labour hours (minutes) for the production of a tomato plant
Production phase of a plant Labour Minutes

Seeding 0.03

Relocation in Greenhouse 0.0075

Plantation post seeding and post-graft 0.015

Logistic pre- and post-graft 0.12

Transplanting 0.15

Trimming 0.10

Monitoring 0.3

Selection 0.03

Placement and hydration of cubes 0.04

Spacing of the cubes 0.375

Total Time needed to produce a plant 1.17

Table 3 Summary of labour hours for each process unit

Process Company Transportation Labour Minutes

Phytosanitary Company B Company B 1.725,5

Distribution
Plants Production Company C Company C 1.465

Coconuts slab Company D Company D 4.653

Production
Plantation, Harvest Company A 98.988
and Packing
Cardboard boxes Company E Company E 120
Production
Final Delivery Company F 70,2
(Transport)
Company G 147,6

Company A 360

Total 107.529,3
Table 4 Summary of process unit labour hours contribution
Process Labour Hours (h) Percentage of hour
Phytosanitary Distribution 0,00088 1,61%
Plants Production 0,00075 1,37%
Coconuts slab Production 0,00237 4,32%
Plantation, Harvest and 0,05038 92,03%
Packing
Cardboard boxes Production 0,00006 0,11%
Final Delivery – Company F 0,00004 0,15%
Final Delivery – Company G 0,00008 0,14%
Final Delivery – Company A 0,00018 0,33%
Table 5 Organization level of SAM for forced labour
Level A B C D
Description Multiplies BR The organization has a policy There is evidence in the There is evidence in the
practices along the against forced labour, in organization of the use of organization of the use of
life cycle compliance with ILO forced labour as well as in forced labour but there is no
Conventions No.29 and the country where the evidence of forced labour in
No.105 (ILOLEX 2012) or organization is located. the country where the
there is no use of forced organization is located.
labour

Source: Based on Ramirez et al. (2014b)

Table 6 Triangulation data by stakeholder

Stakeholder Primary data Triangulation

Business owner of the Workers of the organization

organization (72 interviewed)
Workers

Web sites (as Istituto

nazionale di statistica (Istat),
Marketing responsible of the www.agricolturanotizie.com)
organization and local health authority (as
azienda sanitaria locale (ASL)
in Italy)

Consumers
Marketing and human
District responsible identified
resources responsable of the
directly by the organization
Local Community organization
Table 7 Questionnaire relative to the workers stakeholder group

Subcategory No. of Questions Results of the inventory questionnaire

3 Questions to the workers /

No workers were members of a union, but
Freedom of Association 11 Questions to the
members of the cooperative company
organization representative

2 Questions to the worker /

Child labour 7 Questions to the Presence of policy against child labour.
organization representative

4 Questions to the workers /

The lowest salary is equal or higher than the
Fair Salary 10 Questions to the
minimum wage of the Italian agriculture sector
organization representative

6 Questions to the worker / 4

Weekly number of average working hours is
Working hours Question to the organization
compliant with the law of the sector
representative

3 Questions to the worker /5

Forced labour Questions to the organization Presence of policy against forced labour.
representative

Equal 9 Questions to the worker / 4

The organization promotes equal opportunities
opportunities/Discriminatio Questions to the organization
for workers
n representative

12 Questions to the workers / The organization invests in and trains its

Health & Safety 13 to the organization employees with relation to accident prevention
representative programs

2 Questions to the worker / 3

Social Benefit / Social The organization provides more than two social
Questions to the organization
Security benefits listed in the basic requirement
representative

Source: Vicoli R. 2012

Table 8 Questionnaire relative to the Local Community stakeholder group

Subcategory Num. Questions Results of the inventory questionnaire

Access to 6 Questions to the organization / 5
material Questions to the local community Certificate Global Gap e Lotta Integrata
resources representative
Access to 3 Questions to the organization / 2
No evidence of the promotion of community services
immaterial Questions to the local community
(health / education / information sharing in)
resources representative
6 Questions to the organization / 5
Delocalization
Questions to the local community No evidence of resettlement caused by the organization
and migration
representative
4 Questions to the organization / 3
Cultural Community and its subsistence is considered an activity
Questions to the local community
heritage of cultural heritage preservation
representative
Safe and 5 Questions to the organization / 4
healthy living Questions to the local community Certificate Global Gap e Lotta Integrata
conditions representative
Respect of 3 Questions to the organization / 2 Communities and the regions were already occupied by
indigenous Questions to the local community similar activities and there is no conflict with the local
rights representative community
6 Questions to the organization / 5
Community The organization actively participates in events of the
Questions to the local community
engagement local community (“sagras and banco alimentar”)
representative
3 Questions to the organization / 2
Local
Questions to the local community It uses local employees
employment
representative
3 Questions to the organization / 2 The organization does not reveal any conflicts or
Secure living
Questions to the local community problems with the local community proven by the
conditions
representative absence of judicial appeals to the organization
Table 9 Results of the questionnaire relative to the consumers stakeholder group

Subcategory Num. Questions Results of the inventory questionnaire

The company doesn´t receive any complaints on health

Health & and safety issues form its consumes; but the company
6 questions
Safety doesn´t promote healthy and safety practices and
policies with its own business partners.

No feedback mechanism are available but the

Feedback
3 questions consumers can still reach the company by telephone or
Mechanism
by email.

No policy to guaranty consumers´ privacy.

Privacy 3 Questions No protection of consumers data supplied by internet

No policy or actions to protect the suppliers´ privacy

The company doesn´t communicate its social corporate

responsibility but implement environmental and social
Transparency 3 Questions
tool for the impact assessment such as water footprint
and LCA
The company gives clear information for consumers on
End of Life
2 Questions the end of life treatment of its product. But it doesn´t
responsibility
promote policy and practices with its business
Table 10 SAM: Scale for the interpretation of the qualitative indicators into quantitative ones (Sanchez Ramirez
et al. 2014)
Scale of levels A B C D
Numerical scale 4 3 2 1
Table 11 Summary of the SAM assessment results and relative action plan measures

Stakeholder groups Subcategory Results of SAM Evidence Measurement

Setting of the contract with
its suppliers to act
The organization invests according to the to sectorial
Health and and trains its employees and national norms/ And
B
safety product in relation to accident continue to offer a health
prevention programs and safety product
according the to sectorial
and national norms.
There is not measures
which enable the
consumer to make Tracebility of consumer
Feedback complaints, such as satisfation / Assessment
Consumer C
mechanism providing a suggestion and electronic storage of
box on the help desk or consumers’ complaints.
a customer care section
on the website
there is no formal policy Provide a formal policy on
Consumer
C on privacy within the privacy within the
privacy
organization organization
The organization has no
formal report on social Provide formal report on
Transparency C responsibility, but social responsibility with
demonstrate practices to access to consumers
its suppliers
Use of safety tools during
the distribution phase of
The organization invests
fertilizers and pesticides
Health and and trains its employees
Workers B Use of safety and properly
safety product in relation to accident
managed equipment
prevention programs
Training and education of
the employees.
stablish by contract with its
suppliers to act properly
Safe and according to law regarding
Certificate Global Gap
Local Community healthy living B safety and health of
and "Lotta Integrata"
conditions workers/ And Continue to
offer: Increase of the local
community´s awareness of
 social and environmental
topics
Iniatives to improve
awareness of the social and
environmental topics of the
local community.
Not evidence of the
Access to promotion of Offer education and
immaterial D community services information to the local
resource (health / education / community
information sharing in)
* The suggestions for na action plan are provide mainly were the results does not meets the basic requirement or
na small effort of the organization is sufficient to prove the preformance