IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v8y2019i2p69-d223285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Aspects in the Wine Sector: Comparison between Social Life Cycle Assessment and VIVA Sustainable Wine Project Indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Olimpia Martucci

    (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Via Silvio D’Amico, 77-00145 Rome, Italy)

  • Gabriella Arcese

    (Faculty of Economics, Niccolò Cusano University, Via Don Carlo Gnocchi 3, 00166 Rome, Italy)

  • Chiara Montauti

    (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Via Silvio D’Amico, 77-00145 Rome, Italy)

  • Alessia Acampora

    (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Via Silvio D’Amico, 77-00145 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

When examining the triple bottom line approach (TBL) in regard to sustainability, social aspects are the less explored in the context of wine production. This paper analyzes the social sustainability assessment tools available for companies who need to consider their social impacts. For this purpose, we started from the analysis conducted in the work, which was the integration between the territory indicator of VIVA project “Sustainable Wine”, which is the sustainable wine project and social life cycle assessment analysis for the wine sector. In this study, the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodology was compared with the VIVA certification requirements for Italian wine production. The main research objective was to analyze differences and similarities between the two indicator sets for the evaluation of the social aspects related to this sector. Starting from a general introduction to the agri-food and wine sector, we provide an overview of the VIVA project and of the S-LCA for the assessment methodology. Subsequently, we focus on the wine sector and the main players involved, as well as the primary production phases. Finally, we compare the two tools—the S-LCA and the VIVA project—and discuss the main differences between the two instruments and the possibilities for future works to develop the integration of these indicators sets to broader the analyses of the socioeconomic impacts of the wine sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Olimpia Martucci & Gabriella Arcese & Chiara Montauti & Alessia Acampora, 2019. "Social Aspects in the Wine Sector: Comparison between Social Life Cycle Assessment and VIVA Sustainable Wine Project Indicators," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:69-:d:223285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/2/69/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/2/69/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmen Ferrara & Giovanni De Feo, 2018. "Life Cycle Assessment Application to the Wine Sector: A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Jie Jin & Jun Zhuang & Qiuhong Zhao, 2018. "Supervision after Certification: An Evolutionary Game Analysis for Chinese Environmental Labeled Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    3. Ruqun Wu & Dan Yang & Jiquan Chen, 2014. "Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-27, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Maider Gómez Palmero & Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Iñaki Mendioroz & David Zambrana-Vasquez, 2023. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Evaluate Sustainability: A Case Study of the Navarrese Wine Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-21, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Iris Gavish & Abraham Haim & Doron Kliger, 2021. "‘To LED or Not to LED?’: Using Color Priming for Influencing Consumers’ Preferences of Light Bulbs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Emmanouil Tziolas & Eleftherios Karapatzak & Ioannis Kalathas & Chris Lytridis & Spyridon Mamalis & Stefanos Koundouras & Theodore Pachidis & Vassilis G. Kaburlasos, 2023. "Comparative Assessment of Environmental/Energy Performance under Conventional Labor and Collaborative Robot Scenarios in Greek Viticulture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    4. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Angela Zinnai & Alberto Pardossi, 2018. "A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Agri-Food Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Romero, Pascual & Navarro, Josefa María & Ordaz, Pablo Botía, 2022. "Towards a sustainable viticulture: The combination of deficit irrigation strategies and agroecological practices in Mediterranean vineyards. A review and update," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    6. Merlina Missimer & Patricia Lagun Mesquita, 2022. "Social Sustainability in Business Organizations: A Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    7. Louisa Pollok & Sebastian Spierling & Hans-Josef Endres & Ulrike Grote, 2021. "Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.
    8. Najat Omran & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ahmad Hariza Hashim, 2021. "Visualization of the Sustainability Level of Crude Palm Oil Production: A Life Cycle Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Zhicheng Weng & Pinliang Luo, 2021. "Supervision of the Default Risk of Online Car-Hailing Platform from an Evolutionary Game Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Jörg Schweinle & Natalia Geng & Susanne Iost & Holger Weimar & Dominik Jochem, 2020. "Monitoring Sustainability Effects of the Bioeconomy: A Material Flow Based Approach Using the Example of Softwood Lumber and Its Core Product Epal 1 Pallet," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-27, March.
    11. Bartłomiej Kabaja & Magdalena Wojnarowska & Maria Chiara Cesarani & Erica Varese, 2022. "Recognizability of Ecolabels on E-Commerce Websites: The Case for Younger Consumers in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Juan Wang & Xin Wan & Ruide Tu, 2022. "Game Analysis of the Evolution of Local Government’s River Chief System Implementation Strategy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, February.
    13. Eleni Iacovidou & Jonathan Busch & John N. Hahladakis & Helen Baxter & Kok Siew Ng & Ben M. J. Herbert, 2017. "A Parameter Selection Framework for Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, August.
    14. Flávio Mattos & João Luiz Calmon, 2023. "Social Life Cycle Assessment in Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems with Contribution of Waste Pickers: Literature Review and Proposals for New Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    15. Malaquias Zildo António Tsambe & Cássio Florisbal de Almeida & Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya & Luiz Fernando de Abreu Cybis, 2021. "Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment to Used Lubricant Oil Management in South Brazilian Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Prisca Ayassamy & Robert Pellerin, 2023. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment in the Construction Industry: A Review of Characteristics, Limitations, and Challenges of S-LCA through Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Jichao Geng & Meiyu Ji & Li Yang, 2022. "Role of Enterprise Alliance in Carbon Emission Reduction Mechanism: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Solène Sureau & François Lohest & Joris Van Mol & Tom Bauler & Wouter M. J. Achten, 2019. "Participation in S-LCA: A Methodological Proposal Applied to Belgian Alternative Food Chains (Part 1)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-24, September.
    19. Paola Masotti & Andrea Zattera & Mario Malagoli & Paolo Bogoni, 2022. "Environmental Impacts of Organic and Biodynamic Wine Produced in Northeast Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Giuliana Vinci & Sabrina Antonia Prencipe & Ada Abbafati & Matteo Filippi, 2022. "Environmental Impact Assessment of an Organic Wine Production in Central Italy: Case Study from Lazio," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:69-:d:223285. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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