IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i16p4419-d257886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Sustainability Assessment in Livestock Production: A Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Adriana Rivera-Huerta

    (Instituto de Ingenieria, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de Mexico 04510, Mexico)

  • María de la Salud Rubio Lozano

    (Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de Mexico 04510, Mexico)

  • Alejandro Padilla-Rivera

    (Instituto de Ingenieria, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de Mexico 04510, Mexico)

  • Leonor Patricia Güereca

    (Instituto de Ingenieria, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de Mexico 04510, Mexico)

Abstract

This study evaluates the social performance of monoculture (MC), intensive silvopastoral (ISP), and native silvopastoral (NSP) livestock production systems in the tropical region of southeastern Mexico through a social life cycle assessment (SCLA) approach. The methodological framework proposed by the United Nations Environmental Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) (2009) was employed based on a scoring approach with a performance scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to 4 (outstanding). Twelve livestock ranches for calf production were evaluated using 18 impact subcategories associated with the categories “human rights”, “working conditions”, “health and safety”, “socioeconomic repercussions”, and “governance”. The stakeholders evaluated were workers, the local community, society, and value chain actors. The ranches had performance scores between 1.78 (very poor) and 2.17 (poor). The overall average performance of the ranches by production system was 1.98, 1.96, and 1.97 for the MC, ISP, and NSP systems, respectively. The statistical analysis shows that there is no significant difference in the social performance of the livestock production systems. This assessment indicates that the cattle ranches analyzed in Mexico have poor or very poor social performance. The results show that socioeconomic and political contexts exert a greater influence on the social performance of livestock production systems than does their type of technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriana Rivera-Huerta & María de la Salud Rubio Lozano & Alejandro Padilla-Rivera & Leonor Patricia Güereca, 2019. "Social Sustainability Assessment in Livestock Production: A Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:16:p:4419-:d:257886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4419/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4419/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yunez-Naude, Antonio & Edward Taylor, J., 2001. "The Determinants of Nonfarm Activities and Incomes of Rural Households in Mexico, with Emphasis on Education," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 561-572, March.
    2. Shutaro Takeda & Alexander Ryota Keeley & Shigeki Sakurai & Shunsuke Managi & Catherine Benoît Norris, 2019. "Are Renewables as Friendly to Humans as to the Environment?: A Social Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Electricity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Gabriella Arcese & Maria Claudia Lucchetti & Roberto Merli, 2013. "Social Life Cycle Assessment as a Management Tool: Methodology for Application in Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Pelletier, Nathan & Pirog, Rich & Rasmussen, Rebecca, 2010. "Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 380-389, July.
    5. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert, 2018. "Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, March.
    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. Francisco Javier Flor-Montalvo & Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz & Agustín Sánchez-Toledo Ledesma & Leandro Álvarez-Kurogi, 2020. "Social-LCA. Methodological Proposal Applied to Physical Activity Program Implementation into Old People’s Routines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Luis Javier R. Barron & Aitor Andonegi & Gonzalo Gamboa & Eneko Garmendia & Oihana García & Noelia Aldai & Arantza Aldezabal, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Pasture-Based Dairy Sheep Systems: A Multidisciplinary and Multiscale Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Juan Aranda & David Zambrana-Vásquez & Felipe Del-Busto & Fernando Círez, 2021. "Social Impact Analysis of Products under a Holistic Approach: A Case Study in the Meat Product Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Mohammad Heydari & Kin Keung Lai & Victor Shi & Feng Xiao, 2023. "Public Health Risk Evaluation through Mathematical Optimization in the Process of PPPs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Jianing Wei & Jixiao Cui & Yinan Xu & Jinna Li & Xinyu Lei & Wangsheng Gao & Yuanquan Chen, 2022. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Major Staple Grain Crops in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, April.
    6. Daniela Figueroa & Patricia Ortega-Fernández & Thalita F. Abbruzzini & Anaitzi Rivero-Villlar & Francisco Galindo & Bruno Chavez-Vergara & Jorge D. Etchevers & Julio Campo, 2020. "Effects of Land Use Change from Natural Forest to Livestock on Soil C, N and P Dynamics along a Rainfall Gradient in Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Gonçalo Cardeal & Kristina Höse & Inês Ribeiro & Uwe Götze, 2020. "Sustainable Business Models–Canvas for Sustainability, Evaluation Method, and Their Application to Additive Manufacturing in Aircraft Maintenance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-22, November.
    8. Hannah Gosnell & Kelsey Emard & Elizabeth Hyde, 2021. "Taking Stock of Social Sustainability and the U.S. Beef Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, October.
    9. Daniela Figueroa & Leopoldo Galicia & Manuel Suárez Lastra, 2022. "Latin American Cattle Ranching Sustainability Debate: An Approach to Social-Ecological Systems and Spatial-Temporal Scales," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    2. Rebolledo-Leiva, Ricardo & Moreira, María Teresa & González-García, Sara, 2023. "Progress of social assessment in the framework of bioeconomy under a life cycle perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Pedro Henrique Presumido & Fernando Sousa & Artur Gonçalves & Tatiane Cristina Dal Bosco & Manuel Feliciano, 2018. "Environmental Impacts of the Beef Production Chain in the Northeast of Portugal Using Life Cycle Assessment," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Tianyuan Luo & Cesar L Escalante, 2017. "US farm workers: What drives their job retention and work time allocation decisions?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 270-293, June.
    5. Francesco Cappa & Fausto Del Sette & Darren Hayes & Federica Rosso, 2016. "How to Deliver Open Sustainable Innovation: An Integrated Approach for a Sustainable Marketable Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Gazzarin, Christian & Jan, Pierrick, 2024. "Sustainable intensification of grass-based beef production systems in alpine regions: How to increase economic efficiency while preserving biodiversity?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    8. Venkat, Kumar, 2012. "The Climate Change and Economic Impacts of Food Waste in the United States," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(4), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Radosław PASTUSIAK & Magdalena JASINIAK & Michał SOLIWODA & Joanna STAWSKA, 2017. "What may determine off-farm income? A review," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 63(8), pages 380-391.
    10. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Edgardo Sica, 2019. "Assessing the Opportunities and Challenges of Green Finance in Italy: An Analysis of the Biomass Production Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Linnea Laestadius & Roni Neff & Colleen Barry & Shannon Frattaroli, 2013. "Meat consumption and climate change: the role of non-governmental organizations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 25-38, September.
    12. Helen Harwatt & Joan Sabaté & Gidon Eshel & Sam Soret & William Ripple, 2017. "Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 261-270, July.
    13. Assed Haddad & Ahmed Hammad & Danielle Castro & Diego Vasco & Carlos Alberto Pereira Soares, 2021. "Framework for Assessing Urban Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-18, August.
    14. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    15. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    16. Ubertino, Simone & Mundler, Patrick & Tamini, Lota D., 2016. "The Adoption of Sustainable Management Practices by Mexican Coffee Producers," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(4).
    17. Padi, Richard Kingsley & Douglas, Sean & Murphy, Fionnuala, 2023. "Techno-economic potentials of integrating decentralised biomethane production systems into existing natural gas grids," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    18. Andrea Bragaglio & Ada Braghieri & Corrado Pacelli & Fabio Napolitano, 2020. "Environmental Impacts of Beef as Corrected for the Provision of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, May.
    19. González-Quintero, Ricardo & van Wijk, Mark T. & Ruden, Alejandro & Gómez, Manuel & Pantevez, Heiber & Castro-Llanos, Fabio & Notenbaert, An & Arango, Jacobo, 2022. "Yield gap analysis to identify attainable milk and meat productivities and the potential for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in cattle systems of Colombia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    20. Bonnin, Dennis & Tabacco, Ernesto & Borreani, Giorgio, 2021. "Variability of greenhouse gas emissions and economic performances on 10 Piedmontese beef farms in North Italy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:16:p:4419-:d:257886. 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.