Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2019/7
Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling
Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Textile Industry: a case study in a small company
Sofia Grönkvist
DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES
I N S T I T U T I O N E N F Ö R G E O V E T E N S K A P E R
Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2019/7
Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling
Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Textile Industry: a case study in a small company
Sofia Grönkvist
Supervisor: Thomas Zobel
Subject Reviewer: Raine Isaksson
Copyright © Sofia Grönkvist and the Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University
Published at Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University (www.geo.uu.se), Uppsala, 2019
Content
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1. Aim and Research Question ... 3
2. Theoretical background ... 4
2.1 Sustainable development ... 4
2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility ... 5
2.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment Methodology... 6
2.3.1 Goal and scope ... 6
2.3.2 Life Cycle Inventory ... 7
2.3.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment ... 8
2.3.4 Life Cycle Interpretation ... 9
3. Research Methods ... 9
3.1 Case study approach ... 9
3.2 Research methods ... 10
3.2.1 Assessment methods ... 10
3.2.2 Data collection ... 11
3.2.3 Data analysis ... 12
3.3 Limitations ... 12
4. Results ... 13
4.1 The S-LCA ... 13
4.1.1 Goal and Scope ... 13
4.1.1.1 Functional unit ... 13
4.1.1.2 Product system ... 13
4.1.1.3 System boundaries... 14
4.1.1.4 Stakeholders and subcategories ... 14
4.1.1.5 Indicators ... 16
4.1.1.6 Social Hotspot Assessment ... 18
4.1.1.7 SAM- Subcategory Assessment Method ... 19
4.1.1.8 Data requirements ... 22
Data types... 22
Time reference ... 22
Geography ... 22
Data sources ... 22
4.1.2 Social Life Cycle Inventory ... 23
4.1.2.1 Generic country-level data ... 23
Cotton from California, United States ... 23
Fabric manufacturing, Italy ... 24
Thread from Romania ... 24
Thread from Hungary ... 25
Buttons and product manufacturing, Portugal... 26
Distribution, Sweden ... 27
4.1.2.2 Organisation specific data ... 28
4.1.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment ... 32
4.1.3.1 Social Hotspot Assessment ... 32
4.1.3.2 Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) ... 33
4.1.4 Life Cycle Interpretation ... 35
4.1.4.1 Social Hotspot Interpretation ... 35
4.1.4.2 Interpretation of Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) ... 36
4.2 Application issues and problem analysis... 38
4.2.1 Defining the product system ... 38
4.2.2 Indicator selection ... 38
4.2.3 Data Quality and Availability ... 39
4.2.4 Assessment and Interpretation ... 40
4.2.4.1 Social Hotspot Assessment ... 40
4.2.4.2 Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) ... 40
5. Discussion ... 41
5.1 Practical application issues ... 41
5.1.1 Methodological issues – SAM ... 43
5.2 Social Life Cycle Assessment contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals ... 44
5.3 Applicability and feasibility ... 45
6. Conclusion ... 46
7. Acknowledgement ... 47
8. References ... 48
Appendix A - Questionnaires ... 59
Appendix B – Social Hotspot Assessment sheet and technical notes ... 72
Appendix C – SAM evaluation table ... 85
Appendix D – Inventory generic data ... 91
Appendix E – Social Hotspot Assessment ... 101
Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Textile Industry: a case study in a small company
SOFIA GRÖNKVIST
Grönkvist, S., 2019: Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Textile Industry: a case study in a small company. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2019/7, 106 pp, 30 ECTS/
hp Abstract:
Investigations of the textile industry and apparel sector often reveal unethical behaviours towards workers and lack of transparency in the value chain. As consumers are getting more conscious and the external pressure and demand for more sustainable clothing increases, companies need to implement management systems to control their operations and ensure actions are socially responsible. The Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) methodology published by the United Nations Environment Programme in 2009 are suggested to measure positive and negative social impacts on stakeholders along a products entire life cycle, from cradle to grave. The methodology is still under development and no methods have yet been standardized or internationally recognized.
To contribute to the development of the S-LCA and its practical use in real world situations, the present study aims to evaluate the applicability of existing methodologies and tools by applying them to a cotton shirt from a small company in Sweden. The case study was performed by conducting an S-LCA following the four phases: Goal and scope; Life Cycle Inventory; Life Cycle Impact Assessment and; Life Cycle Interpretation. Generic country-level data and organisation specific data were collected through
questionnaires, document review and desktop screening, while two different assessment tools were tested for the different data types. For generic country-level data, a Social Hotspot Assessment framework developed for this study, was applied and evaluated. For organisation specific data the existing Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) was subject for feasibility evaluation.
The S-LCA conduction involved several application issues that affect the perceived applicability and feasibility of the methods. Problems identified relate to the definition of system boundaries and uncertainties in the choice of appropriate and relevant indicators. The major problems refer to data collection both in terms of availability and quality issues both with regards to the inventory and
assessment phase. Further, in the assessment and interpretation phase uncertainties regarding assessment criteria’s and aggregation of results evolved when using the framework for identifying hotspots, affecting the reliability of the results.
Despite the identified issues, it is evident that it is possible to conduct and finalise a Social Hotspot Assessment using the methodology. However, based on the reliability issues of the results and the effort it requires, it is concluded that the applied framework is not feasible for smaller clothing companies with limited resources. The assessment of organisation specific data by applying SAM, is considered incomplete and identified issues reflect the incompatibility of the method and are thus not considered applicable or feasible for smaller companies.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, Textile industry, Value chain, Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), Social Hotspot Assessment, Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM)
Sofia Grönkvist, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Textile Industry: a case study in a small company
SOFIA GRÖNKVIST
Grönkvist, S., 2019: Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Textile Industry: a case study in a small company. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2019/7, 106 pp, 30 ECTS/
hp
Summary:
The textile and apparel industry is often associated with unethical behaviours towards workers and negative exploitation of vulnerable stakeholders along the value chains. As consumers are getting more conscious and the demand for sustainable, fair and ethical products increases, companies are forced to implement measures to manage and control their supply chains and protect all people affected by their operations. The Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) methodology published by the United Nations Environment Programme in 2009 are suggested to measure positive and negative social impacts on stakeholders along a products entire life cycle, from raw material to disposal. The methodology is still under development and no methods have yet been standardized or internationally recognized.
To contribute to the development of the S-LCA the aim of the present study was to test the applicability of existing methodologies and tools and evaluate its practical use in real world situations. The study was performed by systematically follow the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products published by United Nations and applying two different assessment methods, an Social Hotspot Assessment method and a Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM), that were subject for the evaluation. Country-specific and organisation specific data was collected for the different methods distinctly, through questionnaires, reviewing public documents and web search.
Several issues were encountered during the S-LCA conduction that affects the perceived suitability of the methods. Application problems occurred in the process of modelling the value chain and involved organisations, as well as when determining the appropriate indicators for measuring the social
performance and risks. The major problems relates to difficulties in obtaining relevant data and data of good quality, both for data collection and for assessment purposes. Further, uncertainties evolved when determining assessment intervals in the developed Hotspot Assessment framework, thus, determining what can be considered good and bad behaviour. Issues of uncertainties also occurred when translating and interpret the results, affecting the results accuracy.
It is evident that it is possible to conduct and finalise a Social Hotspot Assessment using the S-LCA methodology. However, due to uncertainties in the results plausibility and the effort required, it is not considered a reasonable method for a smaller clothing company with limited resources. The assessment of organisation specific data was not possible to complete due to data limitations and assessment issues and are therefore not considered to apply on smaller companies.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, Textile industry, Value chain, Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), Social Hotspot Assessment, Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM)
Sofia Grönkvist, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
1
1. Introduction
The textile sector has in previous years started a transformation to obtain a more sustainable industry.
There are a vast number of sustainable incentives offered at the market and it seems to be a growing field for research. Through research programs such as Ellen MacArthur Foundation1 and Mistra Future Fashion2, the textile sector aims for reducing the environmental footprint by material inventions, circular business models and PSS (product- service systems) focusing on service offers rather than the product itself. Although, among all those promising alternatives for a more
sustainable production and consumption in the clothing sector, an important and fundamental part of sustainable development seems to have lost its attention, the social dimension.
Textile and apparel industries are a crucial part of the world economy, providing jobs to over 45 million people, making labour vital to the competitiveness and long-term capability of the sector (Annapoorani 2017). Adding resource intensive processes and complex supply chains, reckoning the textile sector to be entangled with environmental, social and economic issues worldwide (Retail Forum for Sustainability 2013). The textile industry has on several occasions been examined for exerting unfair working conditions and lack of transparency related to working environment and labour in manufacturing countries (Ander 2016; Kärnstrand & Andersson-Åkerblom 2016;
Annapoorani 2017). Apparel are reported to be the second largest category where products are at risk of being made by victims of modern slavery, an umbrella term for practices that are in violation with human rights and justice (Walk Free Foundation 2018).
The textile industry is up against huge challenges in terms of social impacts (Muthu 2017), with growing pressures from consumers, NGOs and trade unions (Clifford 2013). As an attempt to reduce the negative consequences, a number of initiatives has been developed for the industry, such as the Fair Wear Foundation (FWF)3, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC)4 and the Nordic Initiative Clean and Ethical (NICE) by Nordic Fashion Association5 (Zamani, Sandin, Svanström, & Peters 2018). Despite those voluntary initiatives, there is a general lack of social related research within the textile sector (Köksal, Stähle, Müller & Freise 2017; Köksal, Strähle & Müller 2018), and very few studies are referring to social aspects of clothing products, and the textile supply chain (Muthu 2017;
Köksal et al. 2017; Lenzo, Traverso, Salomone & Ioppolo 2017).
Since, the dimensions of sustainable development are interlinked, the understanding of a company’s societal effects along with environmental and economic aspect are vital in order to achieve and compete for sustainability (Henriques 2012; Annapoorani 2017), and evaluation of the social impact is a cornerstone for product sustainability (Arcese, Lucchetti & Martucci 2015). Social impacts from unsustainable consumption of goods and services are considered an important aspect in people’s daily life (Ekener-Petersen 2013), and has been acknowledged since the Earth Summit of Rio in 1992 (Parent, Cucuzzella & Revéret 2013). As a reaction, the concept of Sustainable Production and Consumption (SPC) has been put forward through different means (Ekener-Petersen 2013) such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goal 12 aiming for a transaction to sustainable consumption and production patterns (UN General Assembly 2015) There is always a supply chain involved when addressing SPC upon which a life cycle perspective is required to avoid moving negative impacts to other parts of the supply chain (Ekener-Petersen 2013), to other stakeholders or to other dimensions of sustainability (Parent et al. 2013).
1 https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
2 http://mistrafuturefashion.com/sv/hem/
3 https://www.fairwear.org/
4 https://apparelcoalition.org/
5 http://nordicfashionassociation.com/
2
Adoption of a life cycle perspective, when considering products and services, may bring powerful insights and increased knowledge on the three pillars of sustainable development, environment, economy and society (United Nations Environmental Programme/Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) 2009). In order to avoid and mitigate negative impacts, the international standard for social responsibility, ISO 26000, advocates due diligence, a process to identify the actual and potential impact in all sustainability dimensions that can occur from decisions and operations throughout the whole life cycle of a project or activity (SIS 2010). Life cycle thinking aims for reducing resources and emissions related to a product while improving the social and economic performance in each stage of the life cycle, which requires involvement of all the important stakeholders, internal and external, in order to succeed (Remmen, Astrup-Jensen, Frydendal 2007).
A combination of assessments of the sustainability pillars is seen as crucial in order to provide relevant results of a company’s holistic performance on sustainable development (Muthu 2017), and to avoid the risk of trade-offs and externalities (UNEP/SETAC 2011). Several tools and frameworks have been developed to assess impacts and evaluate performance along the whole supply chain, from raw material to disposal.
Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), the umbrella term that accounts for the environmental, economic and social impacts from a life cycle perspective (Muthu 2017), has become an important concept in research and corporate practice (Kühnen & Hahn 2017). The most known assessment within LCSA is LCA (Life Cycle Assessment), often called E-LCA (Environmental Life Cycle Assessment) due to its main focus on impacts in the natural environment (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
Assessment of the economy dimension of sustainable development may be performed by Life Cycle Costing (LCC,) focusing on direct costs and benefits of activities (ibid.). The social pillar of
sustainability does also have the possibility to be evaluated from a life cycle perspective by S-LCA (Social Life Cycle Assessment), which assesses both positive and negative social and socio- economic aspects along the life cycle (Muthu 2017; UNEP/SETAC 2009). Even though the social dimension in the context of Sustainable Production and Consumption are rarely discussed, S-LCA can support the associated goal of improving enterprises´ behaviours and thereby also improve stakeholders’ social conditions (Parent et al. 2013). The S-LCA methodology, allows companies and organisations to do observations of the social impacts of a product (Benoît et al. 2010), to inform incremental improvements and gain control to avoid future risks in the supply chain. The importance of integrating the social aspects into the life cycle assessment (LCA) in order to promote
sustainability has been recognized for more than a decade (Petti, Serreli & Di Cesare 2018), but the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) still lacks international harmonization and standardisation (Lenzo et al. 2017).
A social and socio-economical Life cycle assessment (S-LCA) is suggested to be a useful method in comparison of products or materials and / or to improve the social effects of a product’s or material’s life cycle (Petti, Serreli & Di Cesare 2018). United Nations Environment Programme and Society of Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) defines S-LCA as:
“a social impact (and potential impact) assessment technique that aims to assess the social and socio-economic aspects of products and their potential positive and negative impacts along their life cycle encompassing extraction and processing of raw materials; manufacturing; distribution; use;
re-use; maintenance; recycling; and final disposal.” (2009, p. 37).
The purpose of the information provided by an S-LCA is to assist product-related decision making activities of an organization, in order to improve the overall social performance and the well-being of stakeholders (Life Cycle Initiative n.a). S-LCA assess the social and socio-economic positive or negative effects a product may have on stakeholders throughout its life cycle. It accounts for the direct and indirect impacts on people along the supply chain as well as stakeholders identified in use- phase and end of life (UNEP/SETAC 2009); reuse, recycle and disposal (Muthu 2017).
3
The Guidelines for social life-cycle assessment of products (from here on: Guidelines) developed by UNEP/SETAC (2009) follows the framework of ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 for environmental management and life cycle assessment. The methodology are quite similar to E-LCA, but
complement physical quantified data with additional information on related aspects along the value chain to establish a more comprehensive knowledge of the impacts in a products life cycle (ibid.).The Guidelines present a four step framework for systematically performing an S-LCA; goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life cycle impact assessment, and life cycle interpretation following a stakeholder-based classification scheme, including the five main stakeholder groups:
workers; local community; society; consumers; and value chain actors (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
However, the Guidelines are under development and do not include any specific assessment method used for the assessment phase. Instead, based on the methodology of the Guidelines, researchers have proposed assessment frameworks and methods based on experience and interpretation (see for example: Dreyer, Hauschild and Schierbeck 2006; Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden 2013; Ramirez, Petti, Haberland & Ugaya 2014; Hannouf & Assefa 2018). Although, the development of the S- LCA seems to have slowed down and no method has not yet been international recognized or standardised.
Zamani et al. (2018) express an urgent need to evaluate the impacts of affected stakeholders along the textile life cycle, and Kühnen and Hahn (2017), states that an empirical foundation are desired as a complement to theoretical S-LCA studies. In 2009, Jørgensen, Hauschild, Jørgensen and Wangel, declared the limitations of literature addressing the relevance and feasibility of S-LCA in a company context, and in 2018, Subramanian, Chau and Yung (2018) made an explorative study of the existing literature to analyse the relevance and feasibility from a decision-making perspective. The authors classified drawbacks with the usefulness of S-LCA as a tool for decision-making concerning the methodological framework, boundary scoping, data inventories and practices. They found that different studies use different methods and emphasise such practice makes standardization of developed methods difficult or impossible, and draws the conclusion that the best way to reach improvement is to apply and discuss existing tools.
1.1. Aim and Research Question
Due to increasing pressure from external actors calling for sustainable products and social control along the value chain, there is a need for an S-LCA suitable for all kinds and sizes of companies and organisations. In order to promote the standardization and make the method internationally accepted, the practical use needs to be evaluated.
The aim of this thesis is therefore to evaluate the feasibility of the S-LCA methodology by applying it to a smaller company in the apparel sector. Thus, evaluate the applicability by identify practical application issues and challenges for smaller companies when working with the methodology and existing tools, by answering the following research question:
How applicable is S-LCA to assess the social impacts and social performance of a product from a small clothing company?
4
2. Theoretical background
The theoretical background comprises a literature review of the sustainable development concept, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and S-LCA including a systematic description of its four phases.
2.1 Sustainable development
Since the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987, sustainable development has been aiming for improvement of the quality of life for everyone without expanding outside the planetary boundaries.
(Remmen, Astrup-Jensen & Frydendal 2007). In 1994, Elkington coined the term ‘the triple bottom line’ to lift the importance of including the three dimensions of sustainability, economic, social and environmental, if sustainability in a business should be achieved (ibid.). Also the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasizes the importance of a harmonized integration of all dimension for the sake of individuals and societies well-being (United Nations n.a).
The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development where adopted by world leaders in 2015 (UN General Assembly 2015), and entered into force 2016. The agenda includes 169 targets divided into the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Tab. 1), seeking action for people, planet, and prosperity, strengthening peace and eradicating poverty in the next 15 years. Six of the goals (1, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11) has a direct linkage to social aspects (Sala, Vasta, Mancini, Dewulf, & Rosenbaum 2015).
Table 1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN General Assembly 2015)
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere Goal 2. Zero Hunger
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages Goal 4. Quality Education
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls Goal 6. Ensure access to water and sanitation for all
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy
Goal 8. Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Goal 11. Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources
Goal 15. Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reserve land degradation, halt biodiversity loss Goal 16. Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies
Goal 17. Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
5
Businesses are recognised as a key player in the realisation of the goals (World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) 2016). Even though governments have the fundamental
responsibility to implement the SDGs in operation at a national level, the goals are not considered achievable without meaningful action by business due to their important role in terms of economic growth and employment as well as a source of finance, technology and innovation (ibid.). Thus, companies are being called upon to align their business practices with the goals (Sachs 2019).
However, the shape of companies’ contribution to SDGs are unclear and challenges on how to deal with interlinkages between different goals remains (MVO Platform 2018). SDG Goal 8, 9 and 12, with their direct relation to business in terms of economic growth, employment, sustainable
industrialization, innovation and sustainable production (EY Global 2017), may be considered a too simple approach since the outcome of business activities can also be negative impacts (MVO
Platform 2018). Thus, it is crucial to consider how business is done and broaden the focus to account the impact on several goals in order to determine the true contribution to the SDGs.
Many sectors in the world economy are working in global value chains (Sachs 2019), which raise many questions with regards to the SDGs. For instance, potential risks in supply chains are aligned with the goals 12, 13, 14 and 15 since they are often exposed to effects of climate change and depletion of natural resources. Some regions in which the business operates may suffer from
geopolitical instability and inequality which align with SDG 16 and 10 while lack of development in some regions suffocates the goals 1, 2, 3 and 4 (EY Global 2017). Thus, it is important that
companies align the SDGs with a holistic approach and not just focus on the goals to which they already make substantial contribution, such as with goal 8 about economic growth, while significant negative impacts on other goals are left unaddressed (MVO Platform 2018).
Contributions to one SDG can also have positive effect on other goals. Through fostering economic activity, companies may contribute to Goal 1, in the fight against poverty through, for example, creation of decent sustainable jobs and by contribution of basic services thorough tax revenues (United Nations (UN) Global Compact n.aa). However, to ensure equity, social progress and to eliminate poverty, economic growth is not enough but decent working conditions should be the right for all employees around the world (UN Global Compact n.ab).
2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility
The basic goal of S-LCA is to promote social improvement throughout a products life cycle (UNEP/SETAC 2009). In the field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), there are different policy frameworks and guidelines, such as the Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) directed to business and organisations to improve the social sustainability. Also the ISO 26000 (SIS 2010), may serve as a guidance to social responsibility actions and practices for all types of organisations (Ekener-Petersen 2013). The UN Global Compact have announced a set of principles that can be used to by corporations to promote sustainable development, act responsibly and to deal with challenges related to globalization (Remmen, Astrup-Jensen & Frydendal 2007). They state that all companies, regardless size or industry, can contribute to meet the SDGs by running a responsible business but also seek opportunities for improvement through business innovation and collaboration (UN Global Compact n.ac). The principles set out the expectation of business to respect and support human rights, but elaborates that corporations must not just avoid negative impacts but should also endeavour positive development for the society as well (UN Global Compact 2014).
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), endorsed in 2011, is an attempt to spread an international standard of corporate responsibility in order to ensure that companies and governments respect human rights within the internal operations and through stakeholder
relationship. The framework contains a collection of guidelines on how corporations shall prevent
6
and manage risks related to human rights, referring to the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 2011).
In parallel with the human rights principles of the UN Global Compact (2014), World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2018) explains that corporations respect to human rights should not just be to avoid harm but also deliver positive outputs to societies affected by business operations, for example by the contribution of freedom and hope. The 2018 United Nation Forum on Business and Human Rights, with a focus on corporate responsibility, highlighted the importance of meaningful human rights due diligence in order to achieve sustainable development and contribute to the global agenda (Cerri 2018). A recurring recognition throughout the forum was the importance of collaborations, engagement and dialogue with communities and stakeholders if business are to drive change on human rights issues (ibid.).
The definition of social responsibility is not carved in stone, but is a voluntary initiative that extends beyond legal compliance (Grafström, Göthberg & Windell 2015). The European Commission (2011) describes Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as the responsibility companies take for their impact on society and believes it to be an important strategy to adopt in order to pursue sustainability, competitiveness and innovation, beneficial for companies, society and the EU
economy. The commission advocates that corporations should embrace CSR as a long-term strategy, with a particular focus on human rights and their responsibility to create value for stakeholders and society (Grafström, Göthberg & Windell 2015).
The ISO 26000 Guidance in social responsibility (SIS 2010) defines social responsibility as the
“Responsibility of an organization for the impacts of decisions and activities on society and the environment, through ethical behaviour that
contributes to sustainable development, including health and the welfare of society;
takes into account the expectations of stakeholders;
is in compliance with appliance law and consistent with international norms of behaviour;and
is integrated throughout the organization and practised in its relationships” (p. 3)
The demands on companies and the ideas of what corporate responsibility means, are constantly changing (Grafström, Göthberg & Windell 2015). Early perception was that it concerned philanthropic activity, such as charity (SIS 2010). Even though philanthropy may have positive impacts on the society, it should not be used as a substitute for integrated responsibility (ibid.). This perspective is well in line with the concept of creating shared value (CSV) coined by Michael E.
Porter and Mark Kramer (2011), which advocates for incorporation of the societal needs within the business strategy. The foundation of the concept is to add the social dimension into the value proposition, to be able to create economic value in a way that also creates value for the society.
2.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment Methodology
CSR is of great importance as a concept and movement in the socio-economic context, and S-LCA is suggested to influence the future understandings of the concept by providing information and a life cycle perspective to corporate social responsibility (UNEP/SETAC 2009). The Guidelines presents four phases for conducting an S-LCA of a product including goal and scope; life cycle inventory; life cycle assessment and; life cycle interpretation (ibid.).
2.3.1 Goal and scope
The first step is to clearly define the goal by explaining the reason and intentions of the S-LCA and its results, and to define the scope including a description of the object that will be studied, its
7
function and functional unit, i.e. the role it plays for its consumers. The scope defines the depth of the study and should determine what unit processes that will be included and which stakeholders and subcategories that are related (UNEP/SETAC 2009). Subcategories represent the social and socio- economic issues of interest (ibid.) or “what we want to protect” (UNEP/SETAC 2013, p. 7).
With the goal and scope as a foundation, the product system is defined through identification of processes and activities in the products life cycle, necessary for obtaining the products function (Parent, Cucuzzella & Revéret 2010). The product’s system includes the whole system, where all aspects of the life cycle, from resource to disposal, which may be in conflict with sustainability issues are considered (UNEP/SETAC 2009). Since Social Life Cycle Assessment is about the impact on people, the focus should be on the activities which affect people. The product system must also include the geographic locations of different processes to enable recognition of social concerns within the system.
The Guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009), suggests five main categories of stakeholders as subject of observation; workers, local community, society, consumers, and value chain actors. Each stakeholder group is comprised with 31 subcategories, socially significant themes or attributes that are
recommended as a minimum of issues that should be assessed. The suggested subcategories are considered to provide a basis to validate issues that should not be overlooked during an S-LCA (Benoît-Norris et al. 2011). When stakeholder categories and subcategories are defined, indicators needs to be set in order to enable the data collection (Benoît et al. 2010). Inventory indicators may be of qualitative or quantitative characteristics with a unit of measurement (UNEP/SETAC 2009) and examples of suitable inventory indicators for each subcategory are set out in The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (from here on: Methodological sheets) developed by UNEP/SETAC (2013) as a compliment to the Guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
2.3.2 Life Cycle Inventory
In the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase, data collection take place, which allows the assessment of social impacts through the life cycle (Parent, Cucuzzella & Revéret 2010). Since a number of individual companies are involved in the product life cycle, the inventory analysis should be focused on the behaviour of those companies towards their stakeholders (Dreyer, Hauschild & Schierbeck 2006). Hence, social and socio-economic impacts on stakeholders on each geographic location in the life cycle may be observed.
Data collection methods depend on the scope and goal of the study. In the case of assessment of a generic product chain, the general purpose is to identify social hotspots and international, national and/or sector data are often sufficient. For assessment of a specific product, site-specific data are desired as a main source (Ekener-Petersen 2013). While generic data on country or regional level as well as branch-specific data may be useful for some processes in the assessment, S-LCA requires site-specific data for the most important companies in the product chain (Dreyer, Hauschild &
Schierbeck 2006). Due to the origin of social impacts, the company’s conduct towards its
stakeholders, generic data may be misleading (Jørgensen, Le Bocq, Nazarkina, & Hauschild, 2008).
For example, two companies producing the same product, in the same region of a country, and possibly even the same facilities, may have different social impact due do different management and behaviour (Dreyer, Hauschild & Schierbeck 2006). However, collection of site-specific data are both costly and time consuming (UNEP/SETAC 2009), and are not necessary or relevant for every organisation involved in a product life cycle (Benoît et al. 2010). Therefore, it is beneficial to combine the approaches and decide where primary data are needed and where generic data are feasible (ibid.). Prioritizing data collection may benefit from taking into account the organisation’s sphere of influence (UNEP/SETAC 2009), the further upstream and downstream the supply chain the weaker and more indirect the influence becomes (Dreyer, Hauschild & Schierbeck 2006).
A hotspot assessment is a generic analysis that provides more information on where, in the product life cycle, the most important issues of concern may be located (Benoît et al. 2010). Social hotspots
8
are organisations that are within a sector and region with high risks of negative impact or high opportunities for positive impact, in relation to a theme of interest, such as human rights, political conflict etc. (ibid; UNEP/SETAC 2009). Social hotspots may be assessed by the use of Social Hotspot Data Base (SHDB) (UNEP/SETAC 2013), or through a desktop screening based on web searches, literature and/or interviews (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
2.3.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Following the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines (2009), the third phase of S-LCA constitute the Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (sLCIA), with the purpose to evaluate the inventory data by creating an aggregated value for the social impacts. The assessment is needed to make the results from the inventory useful and interpretable (Ekener-Petersen 2013).
However, the Guidelines and the Methodological sheets do not provide any straightforward method or guidance for aggregation and impacts assessment (ibid.; Benoît-Norris et al. 2011), but presents three mandatory steps adopted from ISO 14044 for Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (UNEP/SETAC 2009). The first step consists of identifying the impacts categories, indicators and characterization models that represent the relevant social issues and is consistent with the goal and scope (ibid.). The second step is the classification, where the results from the inventory phase are assigned to a stakeholder category. The third and last step continues with the characterization (UNEP/SETAC 2009), the aggregation of indicator results within the same subcategory, which results may be used for interpretation of the overall assessment (Benoît-Norris et al. 2011).
Two main approaches of characterization models can be distinguished (Parent, Cucuzzella & Revéret 2010). The first approach, Type 1, are carried out over two steps. First, inventory data needs to be related to subcategories, which can be made by the use of performance reference points
(UNEP/SETAC 2009) such as internationally set thresholds (Ekener-Petersen 2013), to understand and evaluate the collected data (UNEP/SETAC 2009; Parent, Cucuzzella & Revéret 2010).
Thereafter, the subcategories can be grouped under stakeholder categories and/or the six
internationally recognised impact categories suggested in the Guidelines (Ramirez, Petti, Haberland
& Ugaya 2014). Impact categories are logical groupings of results, based on stakeholder categories and subcategories (UNEP/SETAC 2009). The social and socio-economic subcategories can be arranged according to impact categories representing themes of stakeholder interests (UNEP/SETAC 2013), such as human rights or autonomy (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
In Type 2 assessment approach, impacts are evaluated according to the use of impact pathways, where causal-effect chains translates inventory indicators into a midpoint and/or endpoint indicators (Parent, Cucuzzella & Revéret 2010; Benoît et al. 2010; Ramirez et al. 2014). A study has shown that the choice of approach is reflecting the results of the assessment and suggests that Type 1 assess the social performance along the life cycle, while Type 2 assess the social impact (Parent, Cucuzzella &
Revéret 2010).
There are a few methods for sLCIA following the Type 1 or Type 2 approach available, but according to Ramirez, Petti, Haberland and Ugaya (2014) they either fail to include all the
subcategories set out in the Guidelines or the assessment are too subjective. Instead, they suggest the subcategory assessment method (SAM), which was developed to include all subcategories and related stakeholders presented in the Guidelines. The method is declared to be applicable for evaluation of all organisations in the life cycle of a product or service and to provide a more objective assessment of the social behaviour of organisations. SAM is of semi-qualitative character since it enables the transformation of qualitative data into quantitative data using a four-level scale for each subcategory, contributing to its objectivity. The levels are related to basic requirements, defined for each subcategory, based on the indicators suggested by the UNEP/SETAC (2013) Methodological sheets (Ramirez et al. 2014).
9
2.3.4 Life Cycle Interpretation
The final phase of an S-LCA is to, through identification and evaluation, assess the results in order to draw conclusions. Identification of significant issues from the study and evaluating the completeness and consistency, validity, data quality and sensitivity analysis, ends up in a conclusion including eventual limitations and recommendation (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
3. Research Methods
The chapter presents the chosen case study approach, including the choice of case and its limitations.
Further, the research methods are described, including impact assessment methods that are tested, data collection methods used and how the data analysis were proceeded.
3.1 Case study approach
The research approach of this study takes form as a case study, a method that seeks to obtain an in- depth explanation of a circumstance (Yin 2014). Case study research is suggested to provide a vicarious experience and might be used to expand and enrich the repertoire of available social constructions though the contribution of forming questions rather than finding answers (Donmoyer 2000).
A case study approach seemed appropriate as the overall aim of the study is to evaluate the applicability of the S-LCA methodology and existing assessment tools. Involvement of companies are suggested to facilitate a practical implementation of S-CLA on products, while case studies can support the development of general guidelines by pushing companies, NGOs and research institutes to collect and distribute data necessary for a valid and meaningful assessment of social performance (Traverso, Bell, Saling & Fontes 2018). Case studies conducted with S-LCA are also suggested to build knowledge and illustrate educational material necessary to communicate the best practices in S- LCA (UNEP/SETAC 2009), case studies from different sectors and on different products could promote the practical use and contribute to the development of an internationally accepted S-LCA (Grießhammer et al. 2006). In order for S-LCA to become widely used, developed tools need to be easy to implement and use while allowing possibilities for social reporting (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
The chosen case is a product from a Swedish made-to-measure company offering customized shirts for men, as an affordable alternative to tailoring. The customer are free to choose from a selection of fabrics, models, design attributes and accessories and will have the shirt delivered with personal measures. The company, founded in 2014, is based in Stockholm with a web-shop as their main distribution channel. With three persons in the board of directors and one employee, the company are categorized as micro, in the European Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. However, when considering the factor of turn over, they are defined as small.
The case covers a number of additional organisations and processes included in the value chain of the product including cotton cultivation, fabric manufacturing, product manufacturing, and
manufacturing of thread, buttons and labels. The cotton cultivation process is located in United States, California, and the organisation has grown cotton in the West and Southwest of America since 1954. It is mainly operated by family farms with almost 600 farmers connected to the organisation.
Fabrics origin from an Italian family company founded 1876. They considered themselves to be the leading European manufacturer of shirting fabrics with customers in over 80 countries. The
organisation has seven production sites located in Italy, Egypt and Czech Republic consisting of 1400 employees. The company handles the whole production chain from raw material to final
10
product, including spinning of yarn, dying of yarn and fabric, weaving and finishing. The assembling of the shirt are made in Portugal which offers a cutting, manufacturing and trims basis. The
organisation started in 1987 and are specialized in manufacturing shirt of high standard. Sewing threads for the assembling are from a company based in United Kingdom with a workforce of 18000 in 50 countries around the world. The thread used in the product of the study, origins from
production sites of Hungary or Romania. Buttons are sourced from a Portuguese company are recognized as highly technical developed with innovative manufacturing systems. They started out with polyester products in 1966 and are today offering a wide range of materials, including eco- friendly products made from natural components. The identified organisations and processes are outlined in Table 2.
Table 2. Organisations in the products supply chain included in the case study
Process/Organisation Site
Cotton cultivation California, United States
Fabric manufacturing Italy
Thread manufacturing Romania/Hungary
Button manufacturing Portugal
Product manufacturing Portugal
Distribution (Brand supplier) Sweden
Through a systematically and empirically examination of the effectiveness of existing tools, by careful data collection and thoughtful analysis, the thesis are engaged in evaluation research (Quinn Patton 1999). Distinguishing from basic academic research, evaluation is applied research with the purpose to inform, enhance and apply knowledge to solve societal issues, rather than develop theory and disclose truth (ibid.).
The chosen case are deemed relevant for the aim of the study and appropriate to answer the research question. It is considered to enable a complete S-LCA and provide an identification of practical issues and challenges for smaller companies when applying the methodology.
3.2 Research methods
The S-LCA methodology are tested by conducting an S-LCA on the case following the four phases suggested in the Guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009): goal and scope; inventory; assessment; and interpretation. The modelled system, i.e. the product system, to be evaluated were developed in collaboration with the case study company and the system boundaries were redefined after the inventory phase due to issues with data availability.
3.2.1 Assessment methods
Two different assessment tools were used. Firstly, an assessment framework was developed for evaluation and hotspot identification of generic data for all organisations. The framework covers four stakeholder groups including 22 subcategories suggested in the Methodological Sheets
(UNEP/SETAC 2013). For each subcategory the Methodological Sheets proposes indicators for the assessment of the subcategories. However, due to lack of data for some of the proposed indicators new ones were developed based on the aim and approach for each subcategory presented by
UNEP/SETAC (2013). Of a total of 41 indicators in the developed assessment framework, 21 are not included in the Methodological Sheets (ibid.).
The evaluation framework was developed as an alternative for smaller enterprises to identify potential hotspots in the life cycle. Existing databases such as SHDB (Social Hotspot Database) and PSILCA (Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment database) serve the same objective, but involves high license fees not considered suitable for smaller companies.
11
The second assessment tool to be tested and evaluated is the Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) developed by Ramirez et al. (2014), which are constructed by basic requirements based on international agreements and standards (ibid.). The SAM method was applied and tested on a sample of organisations in the supply chain. The initial plan was to apply SAM to the organisations
perceived responsible for the major processes in the value chain including the fabric manufacturer in Italy, the product manufacturer in Portugal and the Swedish company which are the main subject of the study. However, due to absence participation with primary data and lack of secondary data regarding the Portuguese organisation, the thread manufacturer in Hungary and Romania were added to the Sam evaluation to get a wider sample for evaluation. For a more detailed explanation of the different assessment methods and how they are used in this study, see subchapters 4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7.
3.2.2 Data collection
Within the frame of the case study approach, mainly qualitative methods are used with elements of quantitative data. For the hotspot analysis, secondary, country-level data from all geographic locations of processes included in the value chain was collected through different online sources based on suggestions presented in the Methodological Sheets (UNEP/SETAC 2013) for generic data.
As for the indicators, the data sources suggested are lacking data, and for 35 of a total of 41 indicators, new data sources were used. The aim was to use indicators of quantitative and semi- quantitative characteristics, but qualitative data occurs to some extent. The generic data comprises country rankings, index values and statistics from sources such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from where country specific data were extracted.
Using existing data, such as public statistics, mitigate problems related to reactivity, a possible effect when people know they are studied (Bryman 2017). Secondary data, also saves time and money, and provides an opportunity for cross-cultural analysis, as public statistics from different countries can be compared. Although, public statistics may not reflect the complete picture. For example,
unemployment rates only include those who have reported themselves as unemployed to the authorities, and manipulation of statistics may also occur (ibid.).
The SAM requires qualitative data and collection was obtained from written documents including official publications and reports and written responses from open-ended questionnaires (Quinn Patton 1999). The questionnaires used are a slight modification of the questionnaires developed by Petti, Ramirez, Traverso and Ugaya (2018), with the objective to evaluate their adaptability thus, probability to serve as standardised questionnaires for S-LCA and SAM. The questionnaires
presented in Appendix A, are based on the subcategories and indicators in the Methodological Sheets (UNEP/SETAC 2013) and are developed to facilitate the use of Subcategory Assessment Method (Petti et al. 2018). Since the questionnaires proposed only covers three stakeholder groups, two additional questionnaires for the stakeholders society and value chain actors were prepared in the frame of this study, using those developed by Petti et al. (2018) as a source of ideas. Using existing questions means that they have already been tested, and a pilot study are then not necessary (Bryman 2017).
The questions are open-ended with the objective to counteract reduction of relevant data (Harboe 2013). Some questions are formulated as closed yes/no questions but are kept open to give the respondent the opportunity to develop their answers and thus increase the possibility of getting nuanced answers (ibid.). However, open-ended questions requires more from the respondent and may lower the response rate (Bryman 2017).
The five questionnaires, one for each stakeholder group, were sent to three organisations in the foreground system including the company of the case study, the fabric manufacturer and the product
12
manufacturer based on the assumption of willingness to participation and collaboration due to their direct relation with the studied company. The questionnaires were sent in an initial state of the study but, of the three companies receiving the questionnaires, only the Swedish company responded. The Portuguese product manufacturer continually expressed lack of time while the Italian fabric
manufacturer did not respond at all.
Due to lack of response and limited documentation on the organisations websites, the product system was refined to include one more organisation subject for the SAM evaluation. Since organisational data could not be collected from some organisations that originally was subjects for SAM, data from public documents of the thread manufacturing organisation, were added to enable a more
comprehensive evaluation of the SAM method. The majority of the data used in SAM are obtained from organisation specific documents available for the public, such as web sites, sustainability- and annual reports.
3.2.3 Data analysis
Firstly, the S-LCA results are analysed within the frame of the methodology and in relation to the goal and scope of the S-LCA through the interpretation phase (4.1.4). It comprise an analysation of the completeness and consistency of the S-LCA conduction and methods used in the study and presents summary of identified risks and impacts.
To reconnect to the aim of the study, the second analysis is based on experiences from the conduction of the S-LCA, through identification of barriers and difficulties experienced in
application of the methodology, and troubles and weakness with the usage of the different methods (4.2).
The discussion takes place in the context of sustainable development and S-LCAs connection and possible contribution to the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals and Corporate Social Responsibility are analysed. As there is a limited number of S-LCA in the textile and clothing sector in the literature, the results are compared with studies from other sectors as well.
3.3 Limitations
Qualitative research provide an in-depth understanding of a specific case or sample, limiting the generalizability (Watkins & Gioia 2015). However, generalizability from a schema theory
perspective, when the role of research is not primarily to find the correct interpretation but to expand the range of available interpretations, uniqueness is seen as an advantage rather than liability
(Donmoyer 2000).
Findings of the study are based on one product from a small company in the apparel sector, and may not be applicable on larger companies or companies in other sectors. The choice of case are simply based on availability, and are not considered to be the most appropriate from a research perspective, as a case with a more complex value chain operating in more vulnerable countries and regions had been preferred, as that is a more common picture of the sector. A more complex product with a more complex value chain including organisations outside Europe could result in more hotspots. Requests to participate in the case study were sent to several companies but the response were not enthusiastic.
However, as the aim is to test and evaluate the applicability of a methodology still under
development in a real case scenario, the choice of a more simple case are deemed as an appropriate first step for evaluation. It is assumed that an S-LCA conduction of a product with a simpler value chain increases the opportunities to finalise the assessment and thus, provide a foundation for evaluating the applicability of the methodology. In contrast, it is assumed that a more complex value chain could implicate risk for an incomplete assessment through issues early in the S-LCA
conduction, for example already in the scope phase as the product system could be difficult to define.
As the chosen case are deemed appropriate to identify practical issues and challenges when applying S-LCA, one may assume that implementation problems that occurs in a less complex value chain probably occurs is more complex cases as well.
13
Further, limitations in data in the case of SAM may have affected the results as many subcategory assessments are based on secondary context data at a country level that may not reflect the
organisations social performance appropriately. If more primary data were obtained the results might have been different, as organisations social behaviour can be better or worse than what is general for the country. Additionally, the SAM results would probably been different if it was applied to a larger and more established clothing company, having more resources and implemented sustainability programmes and documentation.
4. Results
The results chapter are divided in to two parts. The first presents the S-LCA conduction step by step, from goal definition to interpretation, and the second part present issues and challenges that appeared during the S-LCA conduction.
4.1 The S-LCA
The first part of the results presents the systematic S-LCA conduction of the product following the four phases presented in the UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines: Goal and scope including assessment methods and data requirements; Life cycle inventory; Life Cycle Assessment; and Life Interpretation.
4.1.1 Goal and Scope
The goal has been to identify the positive and negative impacts in the life cycle of a cotton shirt through the application of Social Life Cycle Assessment tools. By assessing the social profile of organisations involved in products life cycle, the company of the study are provided with information on socio-economic aspects to inform incremental improvements. A Social Life Cycle Assessment is an opportunity for the organisation gain control and to avoid future risks in the supply chain and may be used for the prioritizing future investments for promotion of corporate social responsibility.
4.1.1.1 Functional unit
The object of the S-LCA study is a long-sleeve shirt, in one of the company’s best-selling qualities, white pinpoint weave of 100% cotton with twelve buttons. The fabric delivers a classical aesthetics for a wide area of use, from formal to casual, with soft tactile and wrinkle resistance. The shirt is suitable for style sensitive men who want to take control over the design as well as men who have trouble find shirts off the rack due to measure preferences. As additional service, the customers can visit the company’s showroom for taking their measures, feel the fabrics and get consultation from experts.
Relevant market segment is classical men’s shirts while relevant product alternatives are made-to- measure shirts from other companies.
4.1.1.2 Product system
The product system for the cotton shirt is outlined in Fig.1. The shirt is produced in Portugal while the fabric is produced in Italy with cotton from California, United States. The facility for fabric production includes yarn spinning, dyeing and weaving. Buttons are produced in Portugal, the thread are manufactured in Romania and Hungary and labels are from a Swedish based company. Packaging of the final product is firstly done at the facility for shirt manufacturing in Portugal and are sent to the company in Sweden once to twice a week where the shirts are re-packed in accordance with
customer orders. Further, the product design, marketing and sales are aggregated in the assessment since they all occur in the company based in Stockholm.
14 4.1.1.3 System boundaries
By reason of time-frame and data availability, system boundaries have been set to the product system as suggested in the Guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009. Due to the use-phases direct relation to the product use and not to a company’s behaviour (Dreyer Hauschild & Schierbeck 2006), and the inapplicability of indicators proposed in UNEP/SETAC Guidelines to the use-phase (Ciroth &
Franze 2011), it will not be included in the assessment. Also the end-of-life/disposal phase are excluded. Due to the vast number of organisations collecting clothes and textiles for reuse and recycling in Sweden at the time being and the absence of “take-back” program in the studied company, affected organisations and stakeholders are difficult to identify. The label company are based in Sweden but are having several productions sites over the world. As information about in which country the labels are produced for the specific product could not be identified, this process are excluded from the study.
Further, social impacts from energy generation, water consumption and transportation are not included in the scope of the study. Other processes relevant to the social life cycle impact of the product, for example supporting inputs necessary for the function on the unit processes, such as process of pesticides for cotton cultivation, production of dyes or packaging material and beyond, are not considered in the study.
The product system are divided into foreground and background systems. The foreground system represent organisations considered to be within the company's’ sphere of influence. Those
organisations are in the first tier from the studied company which have some ability to influence, thus it is assumed the possibilities to receive relevant information are increased. Processes in the
background system includes organisations further down the value chain and are thereby not considered to be under the control of the company of the case study.
Fig. 1. Product system of the cotton shirt
4.1.1.4 Stakeholders and subcategories
As already mentioned, UNEP/SETAC (2009) proposes five main stakeholder groups potentially exposed for social impacts along the life cycle of a product. The stakeholder groups are workers,
15
local community, society, consumers and value chain actors and are all considered in this study. For each stakeholder group there are related subcategories adopted from the Guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009) are outlined in Table 3, with some modifications. The modification are due to data types and assessment methods. For example, as noted by Ciroth and Franze (2011) the subcategories of the consumer stakeholder group focus on the behaviour of individual companies, and is therefore not considered applicable for a hotspot analysis based on generic country-level data. The same has been noted for the subcategories promoting social responsibility and supplier relationship within the context of value chain actors, therefore, those subcategories will be excluded from the hotspot analysis. In addition, the subcategories cultural heritage and indigenous rights are merged as one category, due to difficulties in finding available and suitable indicators to handle them separately.
For assessment of organisational specific data through SAM, the subcategory promoting social responsibility will not be handled separately since its essence will be included in the impact assessment phase (Ramirez et al. 2014) (see chapter 4.1.1.7). Finally, the stakeholder group consumers will also consider business-to-business activates to not only be applicable to the organisation delivering the final product but to provide a life cycle vision along the value chain, as recommended by Ramirez, Petti, Brones and Ugaya (2016).
Table 3. Stakeholder groups and related subcategories as suggested in the Guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009)
Stakeholder groups Subcategories (UNEP/SETAC 2009)
Worker Freedom of association and collective bargaining Child labour
Fair salary Working hours Forced labour
Equal opportunities/discrimination Health and safety
Social benefits/social security
Society Public commitments to sustainability issues Contribution to economic development Prevention & mitigation of armed conflicts Technology development
Corruption
Local community Access to material resources Access to immaterial resources Delocalization and migration Cultural heritage
Safe & healthy living conditions Respect to indigenous rights Community engagement Local employment Secure living conditions
Consumer Health & safety
Feedback mechanism Consumer privacy Transparency
End of life responsibility Value chain
actors
Fair competition Supplier relationships
Respect of intellectual property rights Promoting social sustainability
16
4.1.1.5 Indicators
For each subcategory, the Methodological sheets (UNEP/SETAC 2013) suggests a number of indicators and data sources as guidance for the data collection. For the hotspot analysis, the
Methodological sheets has served as guideline for indicator identification and data collection sources for generic data. However, as also noted by Ekener-Petersen and Finnveden (2013), the suggested sources do not always contain relevant data or were invalid. Therefore, other sources, and sometime new indicators, have been used in order to enable the data collection and the make the inventory as complete as possible. Of a total of 41 indicators, 21 new indicators have been developed and
additional 35 new data sources have been used. All efforts have been made to formulate indicators of quantitative and semi-quantitative characteristics to enable an objective assessment, but for
subcategories where no quantitative or semi-quantitative indicator could be identified, qualitative measures are used. Indicators used for the generic data collection presented in Table 4 to 7, are assumed to reflect the subcategories appropriately and give an overview of the country performance and identify potential hotspots.
For assessment of organisational data, indicators are integrated into basic requirements developed for the Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) (Ramirez et al. 2014), used as a guideline for data collection and are further explained in chapter 4.1.1.7.
Table 4. Indicators of Stakeholder group Workers for generic data collection (own, referring to UNEP/SETAC Methodological Sheets (2013))
Subcategories Indicators
Freedom of Association and collective bargaining
Corroboration of International Conventions and Agreements
Trade union density
Collective bargain coverage
Workers’ Rights
Child labour Corroboration of International Conventions
Evidence of child labour in the country
Forced labour Risk of forced labour
Evidence of forced labour in the country
Fair salary Living wage and Minimum wage
Working poverty
Working time Excessive working time
Working time conditions Equal opportunities/
Discrimination
Female participation in labour force
Economic participation and opportunity Health and safety Occupational safety and health Social benefits and social
security
Social security expenditures
