Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
17
Table 5. Indicators of Stakeholder group Local Community for generic data collection (own, referring to
UNEP/SETAC Methodological Sheets (2013))
Subcategories Indicators
Access to material resources Water stress
Improved sanitation facilities
Property rights
Access to immaterial resources Freedom of the press
FDI and technology transfer
Delocalization and migration Migration rate
Cultural heritage and indigenous
rights Human Rights
Evidence of racial discrimination
Safe and healthy living
conditions Burden of disease
Pollution levels
Secure living conditions Safety and security
Strength of public security
Local employment Unemployment rate
Local suppliers
Community engagement Transparency of Government policymaking
Public trust of politicians
Table 6. Indicators of Stakeholder group Society for generic data collection (own, referring to UNEP/SETAC
Methodological Sheets (2013))
Subcategory Indicators
Public commitment to
sustainability issues Existence of (legal) obligation on public sustainability reporting
Prevention and mitigation of
conflicts Ongoing conflicts
Contribution to economic
development Economic situation of the country
Corruption Risk of corruption
Technology development Company spending in Research and Development (R&D)
Collaborations in R&D
18
Table 7. Indicators of Stakeholder group Value Chain Actors for generic data collection (own, referring to
UNEP/SETAC Methodological Sheets (2013))
Subcategory Indicators
Fair competition Anti-monopoly
Respect of intellectual property
rights Intellectual property protection
4.1.1.6 Social Hotspot Assessment A generic analysis of data collected from in a country level are carried out to obtain an overview of
social hotspots in the areas of the processes and identify the most important issues of concern (Benoît
et al. 2010). Social hotspots are defined as organisations that are within a sector and region that has
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). Thus, social
hotspots may reveal opportunities for social improvements and identify potential risks of violations
(Ekener-Petersen 2013).
The indicators used are of different measurement units, resulting in inventory data of different
formats: qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative (UNEP/SETAC 2013). For impact assessment
of country data, inspiration were taken from Hannouf and Assefa (2018) who created assessment
intervals based on plausible assumption relative to the type of data. For qualitative data, indicators
are considered negative when the information are indicating a need for improvement. Semi-
quantitative data refer to country-rankings, and the country’s ranking is evaluated to check its
performance in relation to the total countries in the ranking. When a country’s rank are in the top
quarter of the ranking, the indicator are considered positive while a rank below the top quarter are
considered in need of more improvement, thus identified as negative (ibid.). For quantitative data, the
country-specific values are compared against other countries according to the distribution of values
following scales or indexes. In some cases the assessment of an indicator were performed by
identifying world maximum and world minimum values to evaluate the performance of the specific
country.
Appendix B presents the assessment sheet developed for the performance evaluation of this study,
followed by a technical description and sources for each indicator to ensure clarity and transparency.
As mentioned before, efforts have been made to create suitable for quantitative and semi-quantitative
indicators in order to make the assessment as objective as possible. However, some qualitative
indicators are included leading to some subjectivity of the assessment.
The assessment intervals are divided into: good-very good performance/no-low risk, satisfactory
performance/medium risk, inadequate performance/high risk and bad performance/very high risk
(Hannouf & Assefa 2018). Firstly, the inventory for each indicator are assessed and assigned a level
of performance or risk. For consistency, the assessment levels are transformed into the same scoring
system used in the SAM and each level and score are also color-coded for visualization purposes
(Table 8).
19
Table 8. Subcategory Assessment Method, modified from Ramirez et al (2014) and Hannouf & Assefa (2018)
Level
Good-very good
performance/
no-low risk
Satisfactory
performance/
medium risk
Inadequate
performance/
high risk
Bad performance/
very high risk
Score
4
3
2
1
Social indicator scores are then aggregated into subcategory results. The total sum of indicator scores
within the same subcategory are divided into the number of indicators in that subcategory. All
indicators are interpreted to have the same weight and decimals of five (0.5) are rounded down. As
taking an example, in a subcategory of two indicators, a country are assessed with inadequate
performance for one indicator and with satisfactory performance for the other. Applying the scores
from Table 8 gives indicator scores of 2 and 3 and a total indicator score of 5. Dividing the total
score of 5 with the number of indicators (2), gives an aggregated score of 2.5 and thereby the
subcategory is assessed with inadequate performance. The assessment for each country is presented
in an assessment table illustrated in Fig. 2 below.
Fig. 2. Scheme of Social Assessment table
4.1.1.7 SAM- Subcategory Assessment Method For evaluation and interpretation of the social performance of organisations in foreground processes,
the subcategory assessment method (SAM) was applied. As an reaction to the conviction that socio-
economic impacts mainly occurs due to organizational management, SAM is based on the conduct of
organisations responsible for the processes along the product value chain (Ramirez et al. 2014). As
mentioned before, the method is developed to include all stakeholders and subcategories outlined in
the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines (2009) and intends to assess organisations objectively through a four-
level scale (A, B, C or D), in relation to fulfilment of basic requirements (BR), reference points, for
each subcategory (Ramirez et al. 2014; 2016). The definitions of the BRs (Table 9) are based on the
indicators in the methodological sheets (UNEP/SETAC 2013) and may, for example, refer to
international agreements (Ramirez et al. 2014).
20
Table 9. Basic requirements for foreground processes (Ramirez et al. 2014)
Subcategory Basic requirements (BR)
Wo
rker
Freedom of association and
collective bargaining
In the organisation there is evidence of workers belonging to a labour union
Child labour There is a policy to avoid child labour and no evidence of child labour. (For
developed countries Minimum Age for Admission to Employment is 15. For
Developing and least developed countries, the Minimum Age for Admission to
Employment is 14.)
Forced labour The organisation has a policy against forced labour or there is no use of forced
labour
Fair salary The lowest salary is equal to or higher than the minimum wage in the
sector/country where the organisation is located
Working hours Average weekly hours worked do not exceed 8 in the day and 48 over the week
Equal
opportunities/discriminatio
n
The organisation has a management system , policy or actions to prevent
discrimination and promotes equal opportunities for workers
Health and safety The organisation has a policy/guidelines or programme related to health and
safety
Social benefits/social
security
The BR is that the organization provides more than two of the following benefits:
Social Security benefits, Retirement, Disability, Dependents, Survivors benefits,
Paid maternity and paternity leave (parental leave), Paid sick leave, Education and
training, for all countries and additionally, Medical insurance, Dental insurance,
Paramedical insurance, including preventive medicine, Medication insurance,
Wage insurance.
So
ciet
y
Public commitment to
sustainability issues
There is evidence of commitment or agreements related to sustainability that are
disseminated through the organisation’s website, promotional materials or other
means
Prevention and mitigation
of armed conflicts
There is evidence related to the prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts,
which is disseminated through the organisation’s website promotional materials or
other means
Contribution to economic
development
The organisation provides a contribution to the economy that is disseminated
through the organisation’s website, promotional material or other means
Corruption The organisation has implemented measures to prevent corruption that are
disseminated through the organisation’s website, promotional material or other
means
Technology development The organisation participates in joint research and development for efficient and
environmentally sound technologies, which is disseminated through the
organisation’s website, promotional materials or other means
Lo
cal
com
mu
nit
y Access to material
resources
There are internal management systems that ensure the sustainable use of natural
resources, the prevention of pollution and recycling of wastes
Access to immaterial
resources
There are internal management systems that promote (1) community services,
such as health care, education and lending programs; and/or (2) sharing
information and knowledge and transferring technology and skills to the
community
21
Delocalization and
migration
There is an internal management system that prevents involuntary resettlement
(where involuntary resettlement exists) or there is no evidence of resettlement
caused by the organisation
Cultural heritage Evidence that the organisation contributes to the preservation of cultural heritage
through contributions to cultural and artistic organisations, networks or internal
programs
Safe and healthy living
conditions
The organisation contributes to the health of local communities through
environmental risk management systems or participation with local organisations
in communicating the potential health and safety impacts of their operations on
surrounding communities
Respect of indigenous
rights
The organisation have an indigenous rights policy or a commitment to adopt free
prior informed consultation in their operations when its operations involve
indigenous lands
Community engagement There is evidence that the community's environment, health or welfare are of
importance to the organisation
Local employment There is evidence of equal employment opportunities for local workers
Secure living conditions There is no evidence of conflicts with the local community or organisational
actions that may put at risk their secure living condition
Co
nsu
mer
Health
and safety
The organisation has a procedure regarding consumer product health and safety
standards
Feedback mechanism The organisation has a customer feedback mechanism and practices related to
customer satisfaction
Consumer privacy The organisation has a privacy policy, through which it protects the consumer's
right to privacy as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Transparency The organisation has a report that communicates its social responsibilities
End-of-life responsibility There are internal management systems that provide clear information to
consumers regarding end-of-life options
Val
ue
chai
n a
cto
rs
Fair competition There is evidence that the organisation competes fairly and in compliance with
antitrust legislation or monopoly practices
Supplier relationship The organisation has a code of conduct with defined standards of ethical
behaviour that are expected from its suppliers and communicates these to them
Respect of intellectual
property rights
The organisation evidenced respect for intellectual property
The levels correspond the organisational performance in relation to each subcategory where B
indicates the fulfilment of the BR while level A indicates a proactive organisation where not only the
BR are fulfilled but continual improvement and good practices are promoted in the value chain.
Level C and D correspond to organisations not fulfilling the BR. C refers to organisations operating
in a negative context, such as countries where issues are not easily met while D refers to
organisations operating in countries with positive context, where compliance of international
agreements are stimulated (Ramirez et al. 2014). For full list of the method scale for used for the
assessment, including requirements for level C and D, see Appendix C.
22
In order to obtain a semi-quantitative assessment, the levels are translated into scores in accordance
with Table 10. Furthermore, for visualization purposes, the levels and scores are color-coded.
Table 10. Subcategory assessment Method (Ramirez et al. 2014)
Level A B C D
Score
4
3
2
1
4.1.1.8 Data requirements
Data types
For this social life cycle assessment study, data is collected for foreground processes and hotspot
analysis distinctly. The basic requirements for each subcategory in the SAM approach is mainly
based on indicators related to organisational management and only 3.33% and 20% are based on
national statistic and international agreements respectively (Ramirez et al. 2014). This characteristics
requires organisational specific data. Thus, for foreground processes, primary- and site-specific data
are desired as far as possible to represent impacts of the particular supply chain (UNEP/SETAC
2009), and to determine if the basic requirements are achieved or not.
Primary data refers to organisational data collected during the study while site-specific data are
specific for the organisation but published prior the study (ibid.). Organisational data may be
secondary in terms of reviews of company documentation or primary through auditing, interviews or
questionnaires (UNEP/SETAC 2009). For the hotspot analysis, generic data on a country- or regional
level are sufficient (ibid.). International, national and/or sector data of quantitative, qualitative or
semi-quantitative character, are generally collected for this purpose (Ekener-Petersen 2013).
Time reference
Social conditions of a country or organisation can change fast, therefore the data should be as current
as possible (Ciroth & Franze 2011). Although, since the main objective of the study is to test and
evaluate the feasibility of different S-LCA tools and not to perform an S-LCA per se, the time-frames
are less strict than what is preferable for an Social Life Cycle Assessment. The aim is to use generic
data no older than five years and more recent for foreground processes. Site-specific data from
organisations website are assumed to be updated and accurate, while organisational documents
should not be older than two years.
Geography
For the hotspot analysis, data should be collected from the country in which the specific organisation
operates. In the assessment of foreground processes, country data are used to some extent as context
data for evaluation. In those cases, data should be collected on the specific country of the process.
Data sources
The data for background processes are mainly country specific, collected through a web screening
and the use of sources and databases such as The International Labor Organization (ILO), The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Economic Forum
(WEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The primary data for foreground processes are
collected through elaboration of questionnaires sent to the specific organisation, while site-specific
data collection includes review of organisational documents such annual reports and the
organisations website.
23
4.1.2 Social Life Cycle Inventory
The chapter presents the results of the indicator inventory of generic data collected on a country-level
basis and organisational data collected from organisations.
4.1.2.1 Generic country-level data Inventory status are presented in a summary for each process covering the most significant
indicators. More specific inventory results for each indicator are presented in Appendix D.
Cotton from California, United States
United States has not ratified any of the ILO conventions related to freedom of association and
collective bargaining (ILO 2017a). Workers’ rights are systematically violated (ITUC 2018), which
could be a result of a trade union density of only 10.3% (OECD 2019a) and collective bargaining
coverage of only 15% (OECD 2019b). The Minimum Age Standards for Agricultural Employment
accepts youths from the age of 16 to work in any farm. Youths are allowed to work in farms from the
age of 16, and earlier if their parents runs the farm, as long as it does not interfere with their
education or health (Department of Labor 2016). The agricultural sector is vulnerable for forced
labour and up to thirty percent of farmworker families are living below the poverty line (Global
Slavery Index 2018). The minimum wage could be adequate for a single person to meet their basic
needs, however, a typical family of four would need to have nearly four full-time jobs to earn a living
wage (Nadeau, & Glasmeier 2019). There are no limitations in overtime hours for workers over 16
years, and farmworkers are exempted from monetary compensation for working hours exceeding 40
hours a week (Department of Labor 2008a; b). There are a relatively good proportion of females
participating in the labour force (WEF 2018a) but the gender gap is not yet closed (WEF 2018b).
Spending on social expenditures is below the world average (OECD 2019c) and employees are
suffering insecurity due to regulations allowing flexibility in hiring and firing practices (WEF
2018a).
Everyone have access to at least basic sanitation facilities (WHO/UNICEF 2015), and property rights
as well as press freedom are fairly protected (WEF 2018a; Reporters without Borders (RSF) 2018a).
Evidence of interest and engagement in protection of cultural heritage and indigenous rights are
absent, with few related ratifications or acknowledgement. The minority status of the United States
are diversified and complex with seven key minority groups including Latinos, African Americans,
Asian Pacific Americans, Arab and other Middle Eastern Americans, Native Americans, Native
Hawaiians and Inuit and Alaska Natives (Minority Rights Group International 2018a). Racial
discrimination is evident in the sphere of criminal justice and racial profiling are widespread in the
country and have been expanding since the 9/11 attacks (ibid.). Traditional ways of life and native
language of the Alaska Natives are gradually disappearing due to lack of recognition (Minority
Rights Group International 2009) and both Alaska Natives and American Indians are victims of
violence, discrimination and abuse due to legislations denial of equality (Indian Law Resource
Center n.a; Omish-Lucero 2018).
The burden of disease due to environmental attributes are quite low in comparison to other countries
(WHO 2016), which may be a result of lower population exposure to the particulate matter PM2.5
(OECD 2019d). There are a fear of violence in the country (Institute for Economics & Peace IEP
2018), but at the same time, the public security are considered reliable (WEF 2018a). The
unemployment rates are quite low, which could be a result of companies’ high utilization of local
suppliers. Community engagement looks positive in the country, with government transparency in
policy making and public trust of politicians (WEF 2017). Sustainability reporting among
corporations have increased, although it currently a voluntary action and not a legal compliance
(D´Aquila 2018). United States are one of the frontrunners when it comes to technology
development, with high investments and extensive collaborations in research development (WEF
2017).
24
Fabric manufacturing, Italy
Italy has ratified all ILO Conventions related to Freedom of Association except the Collective
Bargaining Convention no 154 (ILO 2017b). Even though, there is a high level of collective
bargaining coverage with 80% of the employees having the rights to bargaining, while only 34.4%
are members of a trade union (OECD 2019). Still, only sporadic violations of workers’ rights occurs
(ITUC 2018). Child labour occurs, mainly in the manufacturing sector (Department of State 2017a),
despite country ratifications of ILO fundamental child labour conventions (ILO 2017b) and the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Cases of forced labour where workers were subjected
to debt bondage has been reported (Department of State 2018a), but evidence of forced labour in the
sector of the organisation has not been found.
There is no minimum wage in Italy as salaries are individually agreed upon through collective
bargaining agreements (Wage Indicator 2019), but there is a high risk of poverty among employed
population, with 12.3% of the population in work are at risk of poverty (EUROSTAT 2019a).
Working time conditions are however considered beneficial, as working hours exceeding 48 hours a
week are rare (ILOSTAT 2019a), all overtime hours shall be compensated with increased hourly rate
and workers are entitled to 11 hours daily rest period and a 24 hours rest period every 7 days
(EURES 2018a). There is a great share of females participating in labour force when comparing to
men (WEF 2018a) but they are far from closing the gender gap in economic participation and
opportunity (WEF 2018b).
Occupational health and safety in the country are considered proactive (UL Safety Index 2019a), and
the social expenditures amount 27.9% of GDP (OECD 2019c). There is high levels of water stress
(Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United (FAO) 2016) which may indicate inefficient water
use, but 95.43% of the population have access to safely managed sanitation facilities (WHO/UNICEF
2015). Access to information are satisfactory due to the press freedom of the country (RSF 2018a),
while access to FDI and technology transfer is quite low (WEF 2017). The quantity of local suppliers
are relatively high (WEF 2017), but as is the unemployment rate of 10.5% (Country economy
2019a).
Italy has ratified 17 international treaties with regards to human rights (United Nations Human
Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) n.aa), yet Roma, Sinti and other minorities are
suffering violence and discrimination from government and society (Department of State 2018a). The
population in the region of the organisation are exposed to high levels of PM2.5, 22.8 µg/m3 (OECD
2019d) in comparison to the Air Quality Guideline of 10 µg/m3 (WHO 2006).
Living conditions are considered positive, with satisfactory performance on safety and security (IEP
2018) and reliability of police service (WEF 2018a). Public trust of politicians are limited (WEF
2017), but government policy making are perceived as transparent (ibid.). Italy are a peaceful country
when it comes to conflicts (IEP 2018) but the economic freedom are limited (The Heritage
Foundation 2019), and there are risk of corruption (Transparency International 2018a). Investments
in technology and development are limited, as is the effectiveness of anti-monopoly policies (WEF
2017), while the intellectual property are protected to a good extent (WEF 2018a).
Thread from Romania
The country has ratified the conventions related to freedom of association and collective bargaining
(ILO 2017c). However, there are no recent official statistics on trade union density and trade unions
are generally reluctant to reveal information about number of membership (European Trade Union
Institute (ETUI) n.a) Unreasonable reforms of the criteria to form a union and extension of the
collective bargaining criteria has resulted in denial of freedom of association for millions of
employees in SMEs (ITCU 2018). Neither is there any available data on current collective bargaining
coverage in the country, but historical figures shows a drastic fall from 98- 36% in just a year
between 2011 and 2012 (ETUI n.a). Collective bargaining rights are undermined by the government
due to business interests (ITUC 2018).
25
Failure in the enforcement of labour laws have resulted in cases of men, women and children being
exploited to forced labour in the manufacturing sector (Department of State 2017b). Children
younger than 16 years are allowed employment in family businesses as long as it does not impose
danger to their health or interrupt their education (ibid). The minimum wage has increased since
2018 and resulted in gained buying power for workers (Country economy 2019b). The minimum
wage of 2080 new Romanian Leu per month (ibid.) match the living wage of 1530-2160 Leu per
month for a typical family (Wage Indicator 2018a) giving the opportunity to meet their basic needs
on one full-time salary. However, the working poverty rate are among the highest in Europe with
17.2% of the workforce at risk for poverty (EUROSTAT 2019a). Working hours, including overtime
may not exceed 48 hours a week (EURES 2018b), and only 2.6% of the workforce exceeded that
threshold in 2017 (ILOSTAT 2019). Female participation in labour force are low with only 0.75
females in ratio to men (WEF 2018a), and there is a gender gap in economic participation and
opportunity (WEF 2018b). For occupational safety and health, the country has developing
socioeconomic conditions and preventative measures (UL Safety Index 2019b).
Above half of the population have access to safely managed sanitation facilities but still 17.95% are
settled with unimproved facilities (WHO/UNICEF 2015). The migration rate is negative meaning
that more people are emigrating than immigrating (Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2016a).
Discrimination towards the Roma minority group occurs in the country. Roma faces by higher risk
than the rest of the population to live in poverty. Also segregation in schools based on ethnic origin,
disability and socioeconomic status is an issue in the country (Amnesty International 2018).
The loss of healthy life years attributable to the environment were 18% of total DALYs in 2012
(WHO 2016), but the population exposure to PM2.5 of 14.6 µg/m3 in 2017 (OECD 2019d) indicate a
great progress towards meeting the Air Quality Guideline of less 10 µg/m3. Reliability of police
service are considered positive (WEF 2018a) contributing to safe a secure communities (IEP 2018),
but the trust of politicians is low (WEF 2017). The economic freedom is moderate (The Heritage
Foundation 2019), and company investments and collaborations in R&D are low, as is the
effectiveness of anti-monopoly policies to ensure fair competition (WEF 2017).
Thread from Hungary
The country has ratified the conventions relevant to freedom of association and collective bargaining
(ILO 2017d). Yet, the trade union density and collective bargaining coverage were low in 2016 and
2014 (OECD 2019a; b) and workers are regularly exposed to violation of their rights (ITUC 2018).
The minimum working age is 16 years, with exceptions from temporary work during school
vacations that does not include physical hard labour, overtime or night shifts (Department of State
2017c). Few cases of labour of children between 15 and 18 occurred in 2016 and men are exploited
to forced labour in agriculture, factories and constructions (ibid.).
Hungary is among the countries with the lowest minimum wage, even though increases in the
previous years raised the workers buying power (Country economy 2019c). According to
calculations, the minimum wage is matching the living wage for a single adult, however, for a typical
family to meet their basic needs, more than one full-time job with minimum salary is required (ibid;
Wage Indicator 2018b). Special agreements may extend the eight hours work day but may never
exceed 12 hours a day or 48 hours a week (EURES 2018c), but 4.1% of the workforce were working
more than 48 hours a week in 2017 (ILOSTAT 2019). The female participation in labour force is
improving with 0.81 as ratio to men (WEF 2018a) but progress are needed to closing the gender gap
in economic participation and opportunity (WEF 2018b).
For occupational safety and health, the country score above average due to desirable qualities and
unintentional injury outcomes (UL Safety Index 2019c). The access to safe sanitation facilities are
improving but 2.01% are still exposed to limited facilities (WHO/UNICEF 2015). The protection of
property rights and intellectual property rights are considered inadequate and in need of improvement
(WEF 2018a) and the freedom of the press in the country is problematic (RSF 2018b).
26
The country has ratified 14 of 18 international human rights treaties (OHCHR n.aa), but hardened
attitudes from the government have resulted in the occurrence of repeated discrimination towards
asylum seekers, who are depicted as criminals or terrorists (Minority Rights Group International
2018b). Changes in legislation also threatens to weaken the future protection of minority rights
(ibid.).
The mean population exposure to PM2.5 of 16.1 µg/m3 in 2017 (OECD 2019d) are quite negative in
comparison to the Air Quality Guideline of 10 µg/m3. The quantity of local suppliers in the country
are significant low (WEP 2017), yet the unemployment rate of 3.6% in 2018 (Country economy
2019a) is considered positive. It is difficult to obtain information about governmental policies and
regulations and public trust in politicians are low (WEF 2017). Regarding public commitment to
sustainability issues, the country has not implemented any additional national legislation but just
follows the basics of the EU Directive 2014/95/EU of 22 October 2014 amending Directive
2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large
undertakings and groups, where companies with more than 500 employees are obligated to include a
section of basic non-financial information in the annual financial report (Szarvas 2018).
Economic freedom are moderate (The Heritage Foundation 2019) and there is a higher risk of
corruption in the country (Transparency International 2018a). Investments in technology and
development are low referring to R&D spending and collaborations (WEF 2017). Neither does the
country performs well in ensuring fair competition due to low effect of anti-monopoly policies (WEF
2017) and protection of intellectual property needs improvements (WEF 2018a)
Buttons and product manufacturing, Portugal
Portugal seems to be a fairly good country for workers. It has ratified the ILO Convention Freedom
and Association and protection (no. 87), Rights to Organize and collective bargaining (no. 98) and
Worker´s Representative Convention (no 135) (ILO 2017e). The collective bargaining coverage is
over world average (OECD 2019b), and the country is rated high in the Global Rights Index (ITUC
2018). However, the trade union density in 2015, was only 16.1% (OECD 2019a). The country also
seems to take the elimination of child labour seriously, ratified the Minimum Age Convention no.
138, the convention no. 182 on Worst form of Child Labour (ILO 2017e), and the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child (1989). The minimum employment age is 16 by law and it is considered to be
effectively enforced in major industries (Department of State 2017d).
All forms of forced labour are prohibited by the law, and a Labor Code have been entered into force
to combat modern forms of forced labour, including the protection of temporary workers. However,
cases of forced labour exist in agriculture, construction and domestic service (ibid.), but no
connections to the manufacturing sector could be found. According to estimations, the minimum
wage is slightly above the living wage for a single adult, but for a family it requires a bit more than a
full-time job to correspond with the living wage (Wage Indicator 2018c; Country economy 2019d).
Concurrently, working poverty are high, indicating a large proportion of people whose income falls
below the poverty line (OECD 2019e).
There are clear requirements for employees’ working-time conditions. Special agreements can
stretch the law limiting working hours to maximum of eight hours per day and 40 hours per week,
however, twelve hours per day and 60 hours per week may never be exceeded (EURES 2018d).
Employees are obligated to work overtime unless there are justifiable grounds for dispensation.
Overtime hours are compensated with payment increase and additional paid time off in cases where
the overtime interfere with compulsory daily or weekly rest (ibid.).
Women are highly participating in the labour force (WEF 2018a), nevertheless, there are still a
gender gap when it comes to economic participation and opportunity (WEF 2018b). Legislation and
regulation are implemented to protect the health and safety of the country’s workforce (UL Safety
27
Index 2019d). 61.7% and 37.8% have access to safely managed sanitation facilities and basic
sanitation facilities respectively (WHO/UNICEF 2015).
As a result of a financial crisis, Portugal has the highest emigration rate in the European Union with
more than 20% of the Portuguese population living outside the country (Carrilho & Persita 2016). At
the same time, there has been an increase in the immigration rate, that has stabilized the total
migration rate which were estimated to 2, 5 per 1000 population in 2017 (CIA 2016a). Protection of
cultural heritage and indigenous peoples rights are acknowledge in the country by ratification of
various connected international conventions and agreements. However, racism and violent treatment
against minorities such as Roma and African descents exists (Minority Rights Group International
2018c). The living conditions are considered quite safe and secure (IEP 2018) and the reliability of
police service is high (WEF 2018a). The unemployment rates are decreasing since the financial crisis
(Carrilho & Persita 2016), but are still above the world median (Statistics Portugal (INE) 2019).
Quantity of local suppliers is low as is the transparency of government policy making (WEF 2017),
while the trust in politicians is quite high among the public (ibid.).
The Decree-Law requires companies that are classified as “large”, “public-Interest entities” or have
an average of 500 employees, to include a non-financial statement of their progress, performance,
position and impacts in the annual management report or as a separate report. The statement shall
address environmental, gender equality and social, employees, anti-corruption and bribery matters as
well as non-discrimination and respect for human rights. The report must be available for the public
(João Riberio Mata & Meireles 2017). The economic freedom in Portugal is considered moderately,
yet it is above the world average (The Heritage Foundation 2019). An inefficient and indebted public
sector has affected the dynamism of the private sector and reduced the economy’s competitiveness
(ibid.).
Distribution, Sweden
Sweden has ratified all the ILO Conventions related to freedom of association and collective
bargaining (ILO 2017f). 66.8% of the employees are members of a union (OECD 2019a) and 90%
are covered by collective agreements (OECD 2019b). Youths are allowed full-time employment from
the age of 16 under the supervision of local authorities (Department of State 2017e). No cases of
reported child labour has been found, but forced labour involving trafficked men and women
occurred during 2017 and an estimation of 5000 persons worked under slave-like conditions
(Department of State 2018b). There is no minimum wage in the country and the risk of poverty
among working population is relatively low, with 6.9% of employees at risk of poverty (EUROSTAT
2019a).
Overtime hours are limited to 48 hours (EURES 2018e) and employees are entitled an 11 hours daily
rest period and 36 hours weekly rest period (Arbetsmiljöverket 2018). Overtime compensations are
regulated by collective agreements and not by law (EURES 2018e). The female participation in
labour force is the same as men (WEF 2018a) and the county is close to closing the gender gap
regarding economic participation and opportunity (WEF 2018b).
Sweden is proactive in occupational health and safety with optimal socioeconomic forces and
unintentional injury outcomes (UL Safety Index 2019e). Water stress levels are low (FAO 2016) and
the majority of the population, 92.31% have access to safely managed sanitation facilities
(WHO/UNICEF 2015). Property rights are protected to a great extent (WEF 2018a) and situation of
press freedom is good (RSF 2018b). A migration rate of 5.3 per 1000 population indicates there is
more people immigrating to the country than emigrating from it (CIA 2016a).
The country has ratified 14 International Human Rights Treaties (OHCHR n.aa), but there are a large
number of hate crimes with xenophobic motives especially towards Afro-Swedes, Jews, Muslims and
Roma (Department of State 2018b). The burden of disease is low in the country when evaluating the
disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) attributable to the environment of 12% (WHO 2016) and the
mean exposure to PM2.5 was only 5.8 µg/m3 in the region of the organisation (OECD 2019d). The
28
country is considered peaceful with regards to safety and conflicts (IEP 2018), but the reliability of
police service is a bit more restricted (WEF 2018a), as is the trust in politicians (WEF 2017).
Sweden is proactive in legislation of sustainability reporting by extending the scope of the EU
Directive 2014/95/EU of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of
non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups, to require
companies of more than 250 employees to disclose a non-financial statement. There are high levels
of economic freedom (The Heritage Foundation 2019) and the country is very clean in regards to
corruption (Transparency International 2018a). Companies invest highly in research and
development and participates in collaborations (WEF 2017). Anti-monopoly policies are effective
(ibid.) and there is a high respect of intellectual property rights (WEF 2018a).
4.1.2.2 Organisation specific data Inventory data collected from organisations are presented in following table (Table 11) based on the
basic requirements of SAM. Due to lack of questionnaire response, the data are mainly obtained from
organisation specific documents such as web sites, sustainability- and annual reports. Also, as public
information from several of the organisations in the foreground system were limited, the system
boundaries were redefined to enable a more comprehensive evaluation of SAM. Therefore, the
background organisation producing the sewing thread is added to the SAM evaluation, due to a
satisfactory proportion of information available for the public. Processes from where organisational
specific data are collected includes: Fabric manufacturer, Italy; Thread manufacturer,
Romania/Hungary; and the Swedish brand company handling product design, marketing, distribution
etc.
29
Table 11. Organisation specific inventory data
Subcategory BR (Ramirez et al. 2014) Fabric manufacturer, Italy Thread manufacturer,
Romania/Hungary
Distribution, Sweden
Freedom of
association
and collective
bargaining
In the organisation there is evidence
of workers belonging to a labour
union
There are no evidence of workers
belonging to a labour union or evidence
of encouragement.
Rated 1 (Sporadic violations of rights)
in the Global Rights Index (ITUC
2018)
Through a worldwide Employment
Standard, the organisation guarantees
that all employees have the right to
collective representation within the
legal framework of the country in
which they operates. Promotes freedom
of association with suppliers through
the Supplier Code
The employed do not belong to a labour
union
Rated 1 (Sporadic violations of rights)
in the Global Rights Index (ITUC
2018)
Child labour There is a policy to avoid child
labour or no evidence of child
labour. (For developed countries
Minimum Age for Admission to
Employment is 15. For Developing
and least developed countries, the
Minimum Age for Admission to
Employment is 14.)
The Code of Ethics reject exploitation
of child labour
The organisation subscribes to the UN
Convention of the Rights of the Child.
Employment Standard states to have no
employees below the legal age of
employment in the country of which it
is operating, and no employees under
15 years as an absolute rule. Promotes
the elimination of child labour in their
supply chain through a supplier code
No evidence of child labour in the
company
Forced
labour
The organisation has a policy
against forced labour or there is no
use of forced labour
No evidence of forced labour Codes and policies of practices that
make specific reference to the
avoidance of slavery, forced or bonded
labour in their own operations and
supply chain. Promotes elimination of
forced labour with suppliers through
self-assessment processes, auditing and
assistance to ensure adherence through
a supplier code
No use of forced labour in the
organisation
Fair salary The lowest salary is equal to or
higher than the minimum wage in
the sector/country where the
organisation is located
N/A Employment standard states that wage
rates shall reflect the rate in the sector
in every country in which it operates.
Promotes its suppliers to pay wages in
accordance with local laws or industry
benchmark
Salaries are set in alignment with
collective agreements
Working
hours
Average weekly hours worked do
not exceed 8 in the day and 48 over
the week
N/A Promotes to its suppliers working hours
should be in compliance with local and
national laws, collective agreements
and should not exceed 48 hours a week.
Overtime hours should be voluntary
and compensated
Working hours do not exceed 8 hours
in a day or 48 hours over the week
30
Equal
opportunities
/discriminati
on
The organisation has a management
system , policy or actions to prevent
discrimination and promotes equal
opportunities for workers
Ethical conduct that promotes equal
opportunities for workers
The organisation is committed to equal
opportunities at work and career
advancement shall be decided on the
basis of qualifications, performance and
abilities needed. The company do not
tolerate any harassment, bullying or
discrimination. Promotes non-
discrimination through the supplier
code
The company advocates equal
opportunities for workers
Health and
safety
The organisation has a
policy/guidelines or programme
related to health and safety
There is a programme related to health
and safety
The company has a Health and Safety
Policy and a Health as Safety
Management system. Promotes health
and safety to suppliers by requirements
of health and safety risk assessment for
buildings and activities under the
suppliers control
The organisation does not have a
programme related to health and safety
and there has not been any occupational
accidents
Social
benefits/
social
security
The BR is that the
organization provides more than
two of the following benefits:
Social Security benefits,
Retirement, Disability, Dependents,
Survivors benefits, Paid maternity
and paternity leave (parental leave),
Paid sick leave, Education and
training, for all countries and
additionally, Medical insurance,
Dental insurance, Paramedical
insurance, including preventive
medicine, Medication insurance,
Wage insurance.
N/A N/A All workers paying taxes in Sweden
and due to general payroll tax,
employees are covered by more than
two of the benefits
Public
commitment
to
sustainability
issues
There is evidence of commitment
or agreements related to
sustainability that are disseminated
through the organisation’s website,
promotional materials or other
means
Member of BCI (Better Cotton
Initiative), all fabric certified to ÖEKO-
TEX Standard 100
Commitment to ZDHC (Zero
Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals)
programme. Promise to accelerate
progress through their ‘Pioneering a
sustainable future’ strategy, focusing on
water, energy, effluent and emissions,
social and living sustainability.
There is no public commitment to
sustainability
Prevention
and
mitigation of
armed
conflicts
There is evidence related to the
prevention and mitigation of armed
conflicts, which is disseminated
through the organisation’s website
promotional materials or other
means
There is no evidence of any promise or
agreement relating to the aspect
There is no evidence of any promise or
agreement relating to the aspect
There is no evidence of any promise or
agreement relating to the aspect
31
Contribution
to economic
development
The organisation provides a
contribution to the economy that is
disseminated through the
organisation’s website, promotional
material or other means
The company disseminates information
on its economic contribution through an
annual report
The company disseminates information
on its economic contribution through an
annual report. Suppliers must apply
robust financial practices and ensure
transparency in financial dealings.
The contribution to the economy are
not disseminated by the organisation
Corruption The organisation has implemented
measures to prevent corruption that
are disseminated through the
organisation’s website, promotional
material or other means
There is no evidence of implemented
measures to prevent corruption
Corruption Perception Index (CPI)= 50
(Transparency International 2018)
The company has an Anti-bribery and
Anti-corruption policy applying to all
employees and third-parties. Promotes
suppliers compliance to anti-bribery
and corruption legislation through a
Supplier code
The organisation has not implemented
any measures to prevent corruption
CPI= 84 (Transparency International
2018a)
Technology
development
The organisation participates in
joint research and development for
efficient and environmentally sound
technologies, which is disseminated
through the organisation’s website,
promotional materials or other
means
Collaboration in energy efficiency and
energy saving research
Proactively works with customers and
suppliers to help them improve the
sustainability of their products
The company does not participate in
joint research and development for
efficient and environmentally sound
technologies
Research and development expenditure
Sweden= 3.3%
Access to
material
resources
There are internal management
systems that ensure the sustainable
use of natural resources, the
prevention of pollution and
recycling of wastes
No evidence of internal management
system that ensure sustainable use of
natural resources, prevention of
pollution and recycling of wastes
HDI Italy=0.88 (UNDP 2017a)
Committing to manage all
manufacturing operations through a
structured environmental management
system aligned to ISO 14001. Promotes
to their suppliers to have an
environmental management systems in
place to optimise the use of resources
and minimise any negative
environmental impact of their
operations
The business strategy are is to produce
by order and there by ensure
sustainable use of natural resources
32
4.1.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment
4.1.3.1 Social Hotspot Assessment The assessment of generic country level data is conducted based on a four-level score scale and
colour scale relative to the country performance or risk of stakeholder impact for each indicator. A
green assessment indicates positive performance or low risk for social impacts; yellow indicates for
satisfactory country performance or medium risk of social impacts; orange indicates inadequate
performance or high risk of social impacts; and red are bad performance or that there are very high
risk for social impact in the country for the specific indicator. The country assessment is based on
reference points, developed into assessment intervals, which are explained in detail in Appendix B.
Table 12 presents a summary of the aggregated subcategory assessment for all countries. The worker
stakeholder group consists of eight subcategories assessed from a total of 17 indicators, the eight
subcategories in the local community represents the assessment result from 13 indicators and the five
subcategories for society are based on the inventory for six indicators while the value chain actors
stakeholder group consists of two subcategories and indicators respectively. Indicator assessment and
subcategory aggregation for each country are presented Appendix E.
Table 12. Summary Hotspot Assessment
Stake-
holder
Subcategory Cotton
cultivation,
California,
US
Fabric,
Italy
Thread,
Romania
Thread,
Hungary
Assembling
and
Buttons,
Portugal
Distribution,
Sweden
Wo
rker
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining
Child labour
Forced Labour
Fair Salary
Working time
Equal
opportunities/
Discrimination
Health and safety
Social benefits/
social security
Lo
cal
com
mu
nit
y
Access to
material
resources
Access to
immaterial
resources
Delocalisation
and migration
Cultural heritage
and indigenous
rights
Safe and healthy
living conditions
Secure living
conditions
Local
employment
Community
engagement
So
ciet
y Public
commitment to
sustainability
issues
33
Prevention and
mitigation of
conflicts
Contribution to
economic
development
Corruption
Technology
development
Val
ue
chai
n
acto
rs Fair competition
Respect of
intellectiual
property
4.1.3.2 Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) The social impact assessment of the organisational specific data were proceeded by applying the
Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) developed by Ramirez et al. (2014) to evaluate the
organisations’ social performance on each subcategory. Eight subcategories refers to the stakeholder
group worker, nine to local community and three subcategories refers to value chain actors, while for
consumers and society five subcategories are considered.
The Subcategory Assessment Method follows a four-level scale ranging from A-D, where B are the
basic requirement that should be fulfilled by the evaluated organisation if they are to be assessed as
good performers on the certain subcategory while to be assessed at level A the organisation ought to
have a proactive behaviour on the subcategory. If the basic requirement are not fulfilled, contextual
data are used to determine whether the organisation shall be assessed at a C or D level. Table 13,
presents the assessment of the data obtained from three organisations within the products value chain
based on the assessment instructions for the method presented in Appendix C.
Table 13. Stakeholder Assessment using SAM
Subcategories Fabric
manufacturer,
Italy
Thread
manufacturer,
Romania/
Hungary
Distribution,
Sweden
Wo
rker
Freedom of association and collective bargaining D A D
Child labour B A B
Forced labour B A B
Fair salary N/A A B
Working hours N/A A B
Equal opportunities /discrimination B A B
Health and safety B A C
Social benefits/ social security N/A N/A B
So
ciet
y
Public commitment to sustainability issues B B C
Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts N/A N/A C
Contribution to economic development B A C
Corruption C A D
Technology development B A D
Lo
cal
Co
mm
un
ity
Access to material resources D A B
Access to immaterial resources D B D
Delocalisation and migration N/A N/A B
Cultural heritage B B C
Safe and healthy living conditions D A D
34
Respect of indigenous rights B B B
Community engagement B B C
Local employment C D B
Secure living conditions N/A N/A B
Co
nsu
mer
Health and safety B N/A B
Feedback mechanism N/A N/A B
Consumer privacy B B B
Transparency C B D
End-of-life responsibility N/A N/A N/A
Va
lue
cha
in
act
ors
Fair competition N/A A N/A
Supplier relationship N/A A N/A
Respect of intellectual property rights N/A N/A B
Regarding the stakeholder group worker, the thread manufacturing organisation in Romania and
Hungary were assessed with A for the majority of the subcategories due to evidence of proactive
behaviour in terms of supplier codes and ethics code of conducts towards its suppliers. For the
Swedish and Italian company, on the other hand, evidence of such behaviour could not be identified.
For some subcategories, such as Freedom of association and collective bargaining, neither could
evidence be found that employees belongs to a labour union, which was the criteria of the basic
requirement to be fulfilled, and country-level county data are therefore used to assess the
organisations. As both organisations operates in countries rated 1 in the Global Rights Index (ITUC
2018) i.e. where compliance with international standards are easy to meet, both are assessed as D
according to the evaluation framework. There are also some subcategories where assessment are not
considered possible due to lack of data or data uncertainty. This is for example the case of fair salary
and working hours where no relevant data for the fabric manufacturing process could be identified
but while the thread manufacturer are assessed as A due to related policies and programmes
disseminated through the organisations website.
For stakeholder group society the subcategory prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts, could
not be assessed for two of the organisations as no evidence could be found whether or not the
organisations have been involved in such cases. This was also the case for the subcategories
delocalisation and secure living conditions in the local community stakeholder group. With regards to
the local community, assessment A was only achieved by the thread organisation for two
subcategories, and are due to an integrated environmental management system aligned to ISO 14001.
In most cases where the basic requirement are not fulfilled the majority of the subcategories are
assessed with the lowest assessment D when county data are used. This is due to the fact that the
organisations operating in countries with positive context and issues related to the subcategory and
basic requirement are more easily met as compliance with international standards are established and
therefore expected by the organisations (Ramirez et al. 2014).
For the consumer stakeholder group, the subcategory end-of-life responsibility could not be assessed
for any of the organisations as information of the possibility of a recycling process at the end of life
of the product could not be obtained. Regarding fair competition and supplier relationship within the
stakeholder group value chain actors, the thread company are assessed as A due to the existence of
anti-trust policies and the promotion of policies and law compliance among their suppliers, while for
the other organisations, no such policies of code of conducts could be identified.
35
4.1.4 Life Cycle Interpretation
4.1.4.1 Social Hotspot Interpretation As can be noted in the assessment table (Tab. 12), only eight negative hotspots are identified in the
value chain. Five of those are related to the United States while the remaining three are identified in
Portugal, Romania and Italy. The majority of the critical hotspots concerns the stakeholder group
workers, which seems to be most vulnerable to social impacts in the assessment where fair salary and
freedom of association and collective bargaining are identified as hotspots. Regarding freedom of
association and collective bargaining, United States was assessed with bad performance or very high
risk for all indicators representing the subcategory, while Romania failed due to low union
membership and violations of workers’ rights. Fair salary is identified as a hotspot in Italy and
Portugal. This is due to high risks of working poverty in the both countries as well as the relation
between minimum wage and living wage. In Portugal, the minimum wage are rarely covering the
living wage of a single adult while for Italy does not have any minimum wage by law. Since also the
collective bargaining coverage are low in the country, fair salary was assessed as a risky subcategory.
Working time was assessed as a hotspot in United States due to evidence that farmworkers are not
covered by labour acts on limited working hours and overtime payment. For United States, potential
social impacts on workers are also identified in the subcategory social benefits and social security,
where low investments are done in social expenditures and hiring and firing practices are not
restricted. Within the stakeholder group local community, protection of cultural heritage and
indigenous rights United State are considered a hotspot due to significant limited ratification of
Human Right Treaties and evidence of discrimination of minorities and indigenous peoples from
society and government. Public commitment to sustainability reporting are interpreted as a hotspot
for United States due to absence of legal frameworks or policies for non-financial disclosures, an
issue that may have impact on the society.
There is a risk that double counting has occurred in the hotspot assessment as many of the
subcategories overlap in terms of impact areas. However, measures have been taken in order to avoid
such circumstances, such as in the case where cultural heritage and indigenous rights were merged
into one subcategory.
Even though the significant social hotspots may not be common, country performance on a large
proportion of the subcategories are assessed as inadequate and or considered as being of high risk for
violations. 51 subcategories out of a total of 138 spread over the six countries in the assessment are
considered as negative and are assessed with bad-/inadequate performance or as very high-/very high
risk. Fig. 3 illustrates the distribution of subcategory performance and risk categorization for each
stakeholder group. Green and yellow shades indicates positive assessment while red and orange
illustrates the distribution of negative performance and higher risks.
Fig. 3. Distribution of subcategory performance and risk by stakeholder group
36
4.1.4.2 Interpretation of Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) For illustrative purposes, the assessment results are translated into the numerical scale where A=4,
B=3, C=2 and D=1 as reproduced from Ramirez et al. (2014) in chapter 4.1.1.7, and are presented in
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Assessment of all stakeholders with SAM
Of a total of 90 evaluations by subcategory, 15.5% are assessed as A, 37.8% as B, while 10% and
12.2% received a C and D respectively. Looking at the overview above, it is evident that the
organisation responsible for the thread manufacturing has the most proactive behaviour towards
limiting their social impacts and protecting its suppliers. However, the results are not considered to
assess all the relevant issues due to lack of data and are therefore not complete enough to draw any
conclusions. For almost a quarter (24.4%) of the evaluated subcategories data was too limited to
enable the assessment.
22 of the 90 subcategory evaluations were not possible due to lack of data. For the thread and fabric
manufacturers this are mainly due lack of or limitations in inventory data while for the Swedish
company the incomplete subcategory assessment depended in most of the cases on limitations in
context data. Fig 5, shows an illustration of the number of missing subcategory assessments divided
0 1 2 3 4
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
Child labour
Forced labour
Fair salary
Working hours
Equal opportunities /discrimination
Health and safety
Social benefits/ social security
Public commitment to sustainability issues
Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts
Contribution to economic development
Corruption
Technology development
Access to material resources
Access to immaterial resources
Delocalisation and migration
Cultural heritage
Safe and healthy living conditions
Respect of indigenous rights
Community engagement
Local employment
Secure living conditions
Health and safety
Feedback mechanism
Consumer privacy
Transparency
End-of-life responsibility
Fair competition
Supplier relationship
Respect of intellectual property rights
Wo
rker
Soci
ety
Loca
l Co
mm
un
ity
Co
nsu
mer
Val
ue
chai
nac
tors
Cotton shirt: Stakeholder Assessment with SAM
Distribution, Sweden Thread manufacturer, Romania/ Hungary Fabric manufacturer, Italy
37
into process and stakeholder group, and indicates the largest assessment gap due to lack of data
concerns the fabric manufacturer and the stakeholder groups consumer and value chain actors. This
affect the completeness of the assessment as those are the stakeholder groups with the fewest
subcategories and their impacts are therefore not appropriately accounted for. The fact that the
Swedish organisation accounts for least missing data also indicates that primary data collection are
preferable to conduct an impact assessment using SAM.
Fig. 5. Number of subcategories where no data were available to enable assessment, divided into stakeholder
group and organisation
The incompleteness is also affected by other factors. For example, as data from the tread and fabric
manufacturer are solely collected from secondary sources available to the public, it is important to
highlight that negative impacts occur even if they are not stated in such documents which mainly
focus on areas the organisations performs well. But also the negative assessment levels should be
interpreted with caution. The Swedish company, that are the main subject of this study, were
assessed as D for several of the subcategories. This assessment may not be a correct reflection of
their behaviour as even if they have not adopt a proactive behaviour they must not be bad performers.
For example, to fulfil many of the basic requirements the organisations must have defined policies
and programmes which may not be common for smaller companies but are obvious factors integrated
in the business culture. Or as in the case of technology development, it may not be possible for quite
new business to allocate resources for joint research. Further, as the distribution process in Sweden
are an office operation, many of the subcategories may be considered to be irrelevant. As for
example the case of the safe and health of local communities where no measures are taken by the
organisation, and are thereby assessed based on context data, even if they do not expose any health
and safety impacts on their local surroundings.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Worker Society Local community Consumer Value ChainActors
Data not available (N/A)
Fabric manufacturer, Italy Thread manufacturer, Romania/Hungary
Distribution, Sweden
38
4.2 Application issues and problem analysis
4.2.1 Defining the product system Several issues and problems were identified through the conduction of the S-LCA. First of all, for an
S-LCA study to be reliable and meaningful, the whole life cycle should be assessed (UNEP/SETAC
2009). However, processes and input materials that contributes the final product that serves as the
case for the study are extremely complex and not always traceable. This can be processes that
produce the chemicals used in the dying process that may be unknown to the organisation of the
study, or in the case of recycling and/or disposal where the individual choice makes it impossible to
specify organisations in the end-of-life phase for a specific product. This is the reason why system
boundaries has to be set in order to be able to conduct an S-LCA. However, how to do the system
modelling is not obvious, as the understanding of a life cycle are origins from the cradle-to-grave
definition (Braungart & McDonough 2009), questions whether one could call it a life cycle if not all
life cycle stages are included. To deal with the system modelling issues, the Guidelines
(UNEP/SETAC 2009) suggest the use of an activity variable, such as worker hours, in order to
determine the importance of each life cycle phase of the product. Although, identification of working
hours from organisations providing each component of the product was not considered possible in
the frame of the study as such information was not already available.
The sample of organisations from where organisational data were collected are simply based on data
availability, reducing the representativeness of the assessment. To increase the relevance of the
results, it would be more appropriate to conduct the assessment with focus on the most significant
processes in value chain or the processes providing the largest input to the product, such as cotton
cultivation, fabric manufacturing and assembling.
4.2.2 Indicator selection
When indicators were selected for the hotspot assessment, indicators of quantitative and semi-
qualitative measurement units were prioritized to limit qualitative assessment and thereby provide a
more objective assessment framework. Selected indicators are based on those proposed in the
Methodological Sheets (UNEP/SETAC 2013) for generic hotspot analysis. For some subcategories
though, it was not possible to find a data source providing information aligning with the indicators
proposed, which for example were the case for child labour and forced labour. In such cases, new
indicators were developed to enable a complete assessment. However, some uncertainties arise with
regards to the validity of new indicators and whether they reflect the subcategory appropriately. For
example, uncertainties in the indicator of comparing living wage and minimum wage is close enough
to the subcategory for fair salary. As the subcategories covers several of areas, without a deeper
knowledge in a wide range of disciplines, the indicator selection are a very time consuming
procedure, and still, uncertainties of their validity may occur.
As the indicators and related data are collected from secondary sources, there is a risk of double
counting, as each indicator involves different parameters. The most obvious example is the case of
the economic freedom used as an indicator for economic situation of the country that covers 12
factors including property rights that are also measured as a separate indicator in the subcategory for
material resources.
For the SAM, indicators suggested in the Methodological sheets (UNEP/SETAC 2013) are
incorporated and translated into basic requirements (Ramirez et al. 2014). However, for assessment
of subcategories where the BR are not fulfilled, country-level data are used as context data to assess
39
the organisation at a C or D level. Some of the sources and indicators suggested for this purpose were
however no longer available, not updated as desired or did not include the information needed. For
most of those cases, indicators that were considered to serve as a substitute were suggested and are
clearly marked in Appendix C. In the case of the subcategories consumer privacy and supplier
relationship, no suitable indicator could be found which makes the subcategory evaluation
incomplete as organisations that does not fulfil the BR cannot be assessed.
4.2.3 Data Quality and Availability
The majority of the collected country-level data is considered to provide sufficient information to
conduct a hotspot assessment. However, except from data uncertainties in terms of indicator selection
and their relation to subcategories, uncertainties in data relevance may also occur in geographical
terms such as for example the indicator for pollution levels. Pollutants from a country perspective
does not really give the picture of the impact on the local community, however, since specific micro-
/macro locations of unit process was not always specified, county data has been used.
Relevant information to enable the hotspot assessment using the developed evaluation framework
were available for the majority of the indicators. In only three cases no data were found to enable
indicator assessment, including collective bargaining coverage in Romania and minimum wage in
Sweden and Italy which made the subcategory assessment of fair salary incomplete. Approximately
85% of the country-level inventory data are from the years 2017-2019, while approximately 5% are
from 2007-2012. Those includes the data for the indicator of water stress and burden of disease and
the data may not be relevant for the current condition of the country.
Data availability was a more significant issue for organisation specific data. No data could be found
for 22 out of a total of 90 evaluations by subcategory basic requirements. The objective was to base
the assessment on primary data collected from questionnaires, but due to low response rate, where
one of three organisations answered the questionnaires, the data are mainly based on organisations
websites and corporate documents such as annual- and sustainability reports that are publicly
available. Such reports may reflect high levels of uncertainties as they highlights proactive behaviour
while critical aspects are rarely stated. As access to relevant documents were limited, and access to
internal documents were non-existent, representatively and credibility may be questioned. For some
subcategories, SAM requires data that preferably could be collected from a third-party, as for the
feedback mechanism where data are suggested to be collected from organisations handling consumer
complaints. Those subcategories have not been assessed as organisations or authorities handling such
specific questions has not been identified in each country or region.
Uncertainties also occur in the primary data. The primary data are only based on collection from
management of the specific organisation, and due to the smaller size of the organisation, all
questionnaires were answered by the same person even though the different questionnaires were
intended to be answered by different people within the organisation. This may have affected the data
quality, as the respondent may have limited insight in some areas. Also, as some questions are of
sensitive characteristics, there may be a risk they are not answered completely truthfully. Preferable
in S-LCA is to collected data from affected stakeholders such as the local community and workers
etc. Therefore, a simpler questionnaire (Appendix A) were developed to be answered by a sample of
employees within the organisations, in order to enable triangulation, without feedback. Likewise,
third-party representatives from other stakeholder groups were supposed to be interviewed for
triangulation purposes but due to the time-frame, limited contacts on the site and language barriers, it
was not possible in the frame of this study.
It has been troublesome to get organisations to participate in the study by answering the
questionnaires. Despite assurance of anonymity and persuasion that the results may be useful for the
company in the future, not even the more conscious organisations expressed any interest, articulating
lack of time.
40
Even though the questionnaires, partly adapted from Petti et al. (2018) were shortened down, they are
still long and composed with open-ended questions which may be a reason for the low response rate.
However, unwillingness to answer sensitive questions may be another.
Despite some validity and relevance uncertainties, the country-level data are considered to cover the
needs to conduct a hotspot analysis. Even though the data and assessment results does not provide an
actual reflection of the specific processes of the value chain, as an organization's performance can be
better or worse than what is general for the country, it is considered to serve it purpose to identify
possible areas for further investigation. Regarding the organisational specific assessment, the data are
considered too incomplete to reflect the social impact of the product. For a sufficient and reliable
analysis using the Subcategory Assessment Method, primary data are desired.
4.2.4 Assessment and Interpretation
4.2.4.1 Social Hotspot Assessment The assessment and interpretation phase involved a few problems as well. In the development of the
evaluation framework for the hotspot assessment, the objective was to use a four level assessment
scale to obtain consistency with the scale used in SAM. However, the determination of assessment
levels and scale of distribution were not always obvious and often based on assumptions and/or
simple division which may have resulted in assessment uncertainties, due to limited knowledge in
certain areas. For example in cases where a world maximum and world minimum were used to
determine the intervals, an extremely high or significant low values may have resulted in assessment
intervals that to not reflect the risk or performance appropriately. One example is the working
poverty indicator where values below 6.1% are assessed as good performance or low risk while
working poverty above 10% are assessed as bad behaviour or very high risk, and whether or not this
is a sufficient reflection, expert judgment would have been desired. The same uncertainty occurs
where the assessment are based on assumptions, such as for the indicator of migration rate, were
positive rates are assumed to reflect a positive country performance and vice versa.
Inspiration for the determining the intervals were taken from Hannouf and Assefa (2018), who for
semi-qualitative data, such as country rankings assess the country performance based on whether the
country are ranked in the top, second, third of fourth quarter of the total ranking. However, what
could be noted during this study was that assessment variations occurs between the use of ranking
and the use of value or score from the same source. For example in the case of economic
participation indicator in the subcategory equal participation and discrimination, when evaluating the
rankings, Italy were assessed as bad performers while considering the score from the same data
source the country performance were assessed as satisfactory. Therefore, assessment based on
country rankings where avoided when possible.
How to aggregate the indicator assessment results into subcategory results, has been another case of
confusion. Moreover, in the impact assessment phase the assumption was made that all subcategories
have the same weight. The method chosen are based on a desire for consistency and avoidance of
subjectivity. However, the method pose a risk that important aspects get lost, if for example a country
performs well in two indicators and bad in one, the subcategory will not be indicated as a hotspot.
4.2.4.2 Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) Despite relatively clear description of evidence required for each assessment level in SAM were
provided by Ramirez et al. (2014), it is considered to be a risk of subjectivity when interpreting the
evidence. As for example in the case of public commitment to sustainability issues where
uncertainties raised whether it had to be an international recognized commitment or certification or
not. A certification such as ISO 14001 for environmental management system provides an indication
of some commitment that are followed up by audits. However, many certifications are expensive and
41
smaller organisations may follow the requirements and commit to sustainability issues even if they
are not certified.
For some of the subcategories, the BR required evidence and what should be interpreted as valid
evidence or not are not clearly stated. Other BRs required a lack of evidence, such as no records of
proven cases that community members have been affected by the organisations actions or products or
lack of evidence of conflicts in the area. Such cases also complicated the assessment as it is difficult
to know where to look for evidence and when to be satisfied if nothing could be found. And even if
the BR could be answered by questionnaire response, caution to the validity of that data should be
taken as the subject may be perceived as sensitive.
5. Discussion
The chapter starts with a discussion regarding practical application issues identified during the
S-LCA conduction in the context of perceived issues from other studies within the S-LCA field and
issues questioning the validity of SAM with regards to the results are highlighted. Further, the S-
LCA methodology are discussed in the context of sustainable development in terms of the
Sustainable Development Goals, while a discussion of the applicability and feasibility of the tested
methods summarises the chapter.
5.1 Practical application issues
The S-LCA is a relatively new method within the discipline of life cycle thinking and are still under
development. This thesis is based on a S-LCA conduction of a textile product from a company
defined as SME, with the attempt to test the applicability of the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines and
Methodological Sheets for S-LCA (2009; 2013) as well as the existing tool SAM developed by
Ramirez et al (2014), on smaller companies. As researchers develops own methods and developed
frameworks are not used and tested on a larger sample of cases, standardization of frameworks is
difficult or impossible (Subramanian, Chau & Yung 2018), the present study used existing tools to
contribute to the development of the S-LCA for real world application. The inventory and assessment
phase for the different tools and methods were handled separately but all stakeholder groups and
most subcategories proposed in the Guidelines (UNP/SETAC 2009) were considered to ensure that
important issues are not overlooked as proposed by Benoît-Norris et al. (2011). Regarding the
hotspot analysis based on generic country-level data, all processes in the conceptualized product
system were considered while for the SAM, the system boundaries had to be refined due to data
availability issues. The findings in the result section (chapter 4.2) present some major and significant
issues that appeared during the S-LCA conduction that possibly can occur for other SMEs when
implementing the methodology, but possibly also for other companies using the methods.
The hotspot assessment in this study is evaluated as complete and consistent as data for most
processes and subcategories could be identified and thus illustrates the possibility to conduct a
hotspot analysis. However, as the analysis are based on generic data the assessment should not be
used as a foundation for decision-making as the social impacts depends on the company’s behaviour
and effect on stakeholders (Jørgensen, et al. 2008), which may be better or worse than the general
country performance as expressed by Dreyer, Hauschild and Schierbeck (2006). Decision-making
should therefore not be based on hotspot analysis solely but needs to be complemented with a more
site-specific assessment. The reliability of the assessment results leads to questioning the feasibility
of the method, especially in the context of SMEs. As there are no set indicators and regularly updated
data sources, the hotspot assessment are time-consuming and requires knowledge in different fields
in order to conduct a complete, consistent and valid study. The method requires resources that most
42
SMEs may not have, including financial resources for databases explicitly focusing on the social
hotspots assessment. The flexibility in indicator selection as well as assessment methods place the
issue in a broader context as it makes it possible for organisations to choose indicators were they
already perform well that not represent the views of the affected stakeholders and assess the results in
a favourable manner.
The issues regarding the flexibility of the methodology are highlighted by other researchers and
practitioners of S-LCA (Subramanian, Chau & Yung 2018), and perceived challenges related to
selection of appropriate indicators corroborates with the experience of for example Singh and Gupta
(2018) conducting an S-LCA in the Indian steel sector. Absence of general standardized indicators
and insufficient guidance in the selection of appropriate indicators are seen as a critical factor to
overcome unreliable results and enable comparison of different supply chains or products (Kühnen &
Hahn 2017). This is also emphasised by Benoît-Norris and Revéret (2015), who means that the
limited number of existing case studies are not comparable due to lack in practical application.
Further, Zamani et al. (2018) explains that the number of social indicators used in the evaluation can
influence the results, a concern that was evolved during the assessment phase of this study.
While Subramanian, Chau and Yung (2018), finds the reliance on interviews and surveys as data
collection technique being a drawback in the S-LCA practice, most S-LCA practitioners advocates
site-specific data (Ekener-Petersen 2013; Dreyer, Hauschild & Schierbeck 2006; Jørgensen et al.
2008), but as the collection are a costly and time consuming action (UNEP/SETAC 2009) it is not
needed for all organisations (Benoît et al. 2010).
According to UNEP/SETAC (2009), it may be beneficial to consider the sphere of influence the
company has on their value chain, where Dreyer, Hauschild and Schierbeck (2006) suggest that the
most direct influence may be exposed to the organisations closest to the company in the supply chain.
In an interviewing study on the matter, it was found that companies had difficulties in obtaining site-
specific data from organisations in remote parts of the upstream or downstream value chain
(Jørgensen et al. 2009). However, in this study it was evident that there are difficulties in involving
even the organisations with which the company have regularly contact with. Since the organisations
requested to participate in the study by answering the questionnaires, operates in areas that are not
considered to be of high risk for social impact, leads to question the applicability of the SAM method
in other contexts as well. Such as the context of a more complex value chain in more vulnerable
areas, assessment of organisations further upstream and downstream the products value chain that
may be in more urgent need for social impact evaluation.
The lack of data affected the applicability of SAM as it was not possible to make a complete
conduction with site specific data. The questionnaires were sent to three of the organisations but only
the company subject of the study, the organisation responsible for the brand and distribution process
responded. The Italian fabric company did not respond at all while the organisation performing the
assembling of the shirt in Portugal recurrently expressed their limited time. The Swedish company,
that answered the questionnaires expressed that many questions were difficult to answer and hard to
understand. Which leads to questioning whether the number of questions and their formulation are
necessary in order to reach the goal of the evaluation (Harboe 2013), in this case the BRs, or if
questionnaires could be reconstructed to increase the possibility of increased response rate.
The challenge with site-specific data collection are also expressed by Umair, Björklund and Ekener-
Petersen (2015) and Agyekum, Fortuin and van der Harst (2017) who both managed to obtain some
data from interviews and field observation but perceived hesitation and unwillingness from
participants to answer questions and give information. For the latter, this resulted in a restricted
number of subcategories that could be used for the S-LCA.
A limited number of S-LCA studies could be found in the literature prior and during the conduction
of this study and more restricted are the studies with relation to the clothing and/or textile sector.
Only one are considered to be comparable to the present study in terms of case, methodology and
methods used. This is the one of Lenzo et al. (2017), conducting an S-LCA of a textile product from
43
an Italian company, following the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines (2009), the Subcategory Assessment
Method (SAM) as well as performing a hotspot assessment. Similar to the present study, Lenzo et al.
(2017) encountered issues in implementation, referring to limited data availability or total absence of
data being the major problem, as well as the difficulties in finding information from suppliers. This
corroborating issue is an interesting aspect as the study only covers two stakeholder groups, workers
and local community, in the assessment, thus a more narrow focus area, but still find the data
collection challenging. In contradiction, the authors do not mention any issues about the assessment
phase or indicator selection that have been identified in this study.
For the hotspot assessment, the reason for this could be that they use the SHBD database that present
and assess the indicator data, and thereby the confusion of determining assessment criteria’s and
appropriate indicators are overcome. However, the authors express difficulties making a convenient
linkage of the available indicators with the functional unit of the system (Lenzo et al. 2017). They
also express a limited choice of indicators in the database, which are also observed by Subramanian,
Chau and Yung (2018) and Zamani et al. (2018), who mention that the SHDB do not cover indicators
for all affected stakeholders.
The issue of data quality for generic data faced in the study seems to be a common issue in S-LCA
(for example Agyekum, Fortuin & van der Harst 2017; Vavra, Munzarova & Bednarikova 2015;
Ekener-Petersen & Finnveden 2013; Ciroth & Franze 2011; Subramanian, Chau & Yung 2018). The
concerns regarding the aggregation of indicator results into subcategories that were faced in the
assessment phase are also recognized in the literature and are according to Subramanian, Chau &
Yung (2018), due to the absence of a scientific method.
5.1.1 Methodological issues – SAM
An aspect affecting the applicability of the SAM is the formulation of the Basic Requirements (BR)
that may not be suitable for smaller companies and may therefore result in an unfair assessment that
does not reflect the organisations behaviour appropriately. Examples are BRs that requires
certification or environmental management systems that may not be attributable for smaller
companies with limited budget.
There are a high possibility that organisations’ performance are better that what is outlined in the
assessment table as country context data are used in cases when no evidence related to a certain
subcategory could be found in the secondary sources. Although, the issue also arise in the case where
primary data was collected, further elaborates the applicability of the framework on smaller
companies.
The country data used for assessment of subcategories were basic requirements are not fulfilled could
be questioned as the purpose of the SAM is to evaluate organisations actual performance and not
their position in the country. According to the framework developed by Ramirez et al. (2014),
organisations not fulfilling the BRs shall be assessed worse (with D) if they operates in a country
where international standards and agreements related to the subcategory are more easily met, while
organisations working in countries where compliance to the same standards and agreement are less
common are assessed better (with C). This creates questions regarding the validity of the SAM
method, as an organisation operating in a country with high standards and protection of certain issues
are assessed as worse performers than organisations working in less vulnerable locations even if both
lack lacks policies or implemented programmes in the specific issue. For example in the case of
workers, where the frameworks BRs require specific policies for several of the subcategories, the
Swedish organisation are assessed as pretty bad performers due to lack of such implementations,
even though workers rights’ are protected by several laws and regulations.
Concerns regarding the inapplicability of the SAM framework on smaller companies corresponds to
the findings of Ramirez et al (2016), who discovered that SAM does not reflect the social behaviours
44
of small organisations as the BRs are based on references which involves activities that are difficult
to find in smaller companies.
5.2 Social Life Cycle Assessment contribution to the
Sustainable Development Goals
The reason to evaluate the applicability of the S-LCA methodology are due to the increasing pressure
from society to handle sustainability issues in the supply chain (Clifford 2013; Grafström, Göthberg
& Windell 2015) and expectations on companies to align practices for the achievement of sustainable
development (Sachs 2019). Mapping S-LCA results to the SDGs are suggested to give an
understanding of the company’s sustainability progress within the SDG framework. The figure below
(Fig. 6) illustrates some goals that includes targets that can be linked to the subcategories and social
impact indicators of each stakeholder group in this study.
Fig. 6. Relation between S-LCA and SDGs illustrated by stakeholder group. Inspired by Marinez, Keresztesi,
Indrane and Das Gupta (n.a.)
Companies having policies and management systems that protects workers’ rights eliminate forced
labour, child labour and discrimination relate to the SDG 5 for Gender equality and SDG 8 for
Decent work and economic growth and may promote the achievement of SDG 16 for Peace justice
and strong institutions, by promoting “...the rule of law at national and international levels..” (SDG
16.3) (UN General Assembly 2015) and “End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of
violence...” (SDG 16.2) (ibid.). By assessing fair salary, implementing health and safety programmes
and provide workers with social benefits, the company can contribute to the achievement of SDG 1,
3, 4 and 10.
SDG 1, 8, and 10 are also affected by the society as business drives growth and creates working
opportunities. S-LCA indicators in the society stakeholder group also concerns public commitment to
sustainability which may “Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development” (SDG 17.14)
(UN General Assembly 2015), and measure corruption prevention that may contribute to the
reduction of “…corruption and bribery in all their forms” (SDG 16.5) (ibid.).
45
The S-LCA assess the organisations’ participation in research and development. Technology
development may align with different goals depending on the focus area of the research. The
strongest connection in this study are considered to be SDG 12 for sustainable consumption and
production. However, efficient and environmentally sound production processes contribute to
improved water quality (SDG 6), energy efficiency (SDG 7), minimize ocean acidification (SDG 14),
and improve resource efficiency (SDG 8) which are closely related to health issues caused by
pollution and man-made related disasters and thereby affect also SDG 3. Collaborations in research
also contributes to the enhancement of scientific research (SDG 9.5) while promoting development
transfer (SDG 17.7) and enhance global partnership for sustainable development (SDG 17.16).
It became evident during the mapping that the connection varies depending on the indicator selection.
As for example, many social impacts that affect the national and international society may also be
relevant to the local community and vice versa and thus the connection to the SDGs should be similar
to those stakeholder groups. However, the relationship between the SDGs and the S-LCA are an
interpretation based on the social impact indicators used in this study, and should not be seen as an
exclusive connection between stakeholder groups and SDGs.
5.3 Applicability and feasibility
Based on the above linking to SDGs it is implicated that S-LCA can be used by business as a
measurement system to evaluate their social performance and identify impact areas of products and
organisations and thus capture their contribution to sustainable development. However, based on the
practical implementation problems identified in this study, methods needs to be further developed in
order to promote a wider use of the S-LCA for social profiling. Lenzo et al. (2017) express that,
especially SMEs, have less power along the supply chain than multinational in the textile and
clothing manufacturing sector which may be interpreted that issues regarding lack of participation of
organisations in the value chain may occur also for other companies, in the textile sector and others
as well. Since, as also mentioned, difficulties in retrieval of site-specific data is a general issue in
many industry realities due to the lack of highly integrated and cooperating supply chains (ibid.).
UNEP/SETAC (2009) proposes S-LCA practitioners to have a strong background in LCA, CSR and
social impact assessment, which has also became apparent during the conduction of this case
study. Jørgensen et al. (2009), assume that the S-LCA method will not be used by all companies but
rather by companies with some degree of CSR involvement, referring to a SME study showing a
clear correlation between size of a company and the extent to which a company perceive it possible
to apportion time and resources for such activities. That hypothesis could explain the issues faced
during of this study as the case company currently do not have any CSR activities or management.
Although, in order to promote companies to take responsibility towards its stakeholders, such
practices needs to be implemented in the core business and internal management systems and
therefore needs to be easy applicable to all types and sizes of organisations.
To obtain consistency and transparency and enable comparison between the social profile of
companies and products, there is a need for a standardized methodology. This includes set indicators,
relevant for different business operations that are applicable across the supply chain as well as
recognized assessment methods and improved data sources to ensure S-LCAs are updated and
appropriate. Also the accessibility problems regarding organisational specific data are a subject for
investigation, how the involvement of stakeholders and organisations can be improved or valid and
reliable information can be collected in another manner without risking to overlook important issues.
Most important in order to enhance the real world use of the S-LCA, thus move it from a scholar and
research level to the company and business levels, is to design the tools and frameworks for practical
use in these contexts, an opinion shared with Benoît-Norris and Revéret (2015). Thus, include
business and companies in the development to ensure the relevance and feasibility expected by the
tools are in actual accordance with the situation of the intended user group (Jørgensen et al. 2009).
46
6. Conclusion
The aim of this thesis was 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 does S-LCA apply in assessing the social performance, the actual as well as the potential
positive and negative impacts, of a SME clothing company?
The purpose of the case study approach was a desire to contribute to the development of standardized
tools suitable for real world applications of S-LCA no matter organisational size or sector of
operation.
Based on the findings of the present study, the efforts required and the obtained results, S-LCA are
not considered to be a reasonable methodology to assess the social performance of a SME in the
clothing sector. The study showed that it is possible to conduct a hotspot analysis based on the
Methodological sheets (2013), thus identify processes in the value chain that may be at risk for
negative social impacts. However, due to identified issues regarding data quality, uncertain data
availability and a wide number of different data, it is not considered to be feasible to a smaller
company with limited time and resources.
Further, the method used for assessing hotspots in this study are considered to involve some
uncertainties with regards to indicator relevance and assessment criteria that may result in potential
negative and positive impacts are not reflected properly, partly due to the explicit use of country-
level data. A suggestion to overcome some of those issues of uncertainty is to develop branch-
specific indicators and databases that are properly updated.
The Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM) are not considered to be a suitable method for smaller
companies, based on the incompleteness of the assessment of this study. The conclusion are mainly
based on application issues regarding to the time-consuming data collection process that requires an
internal management system focusing on those questions that are resource demanding, as well as
basic requirements incompatible for smaller businesses. However, it is perceived that the method
have potential to be developed to capture the actual negative and positive impacts of all sorts of
companies if the basic requirements are adjusted to be more sector and size specific and if the
framework are possible to integrate in the daily business.
Future research with regards to SAM could focus on refining the BRs to be more suitable to different
sizes of organisations. Further, the questionnaires could be refined and tested to evaluate their
suitability and in different sectors and organisations and their possibilities to receive information
needed for the social impact evaluation. To enhance the data collection, it would be interesting to
investigate the possibilities to integrate a feedback mechanism in the value chain for monitoring
purposes, which may strengthen the relationships and enhance the collaboration while
simultaneously assessing the social performance. Regarding Social Hotspot Assessment, future
research should focus on the development of a standardized method comprising a set number of
indicators to be included with data sources continually updated.
To make it easier for companies to evaluate their social performance and social impact, future
research could also focus on the social assessment of common organisations and processes, for
example, different transportation or energy, were companies conducting an S-LCA can implement
the results that refer to the company they use. This could result in more comprehensive and reliable
S-LCAs as different processes are conducted by experts in specific fields. Also the issue of the end-
47
of-life phase which are rarely considered in S-LCAs could be handled in this way, by making a social
assessment of different disposal plants that companies can use in their life cycle assessment. Further,
it would be interesting to conduct a social life cycle assessment of a product within a circular
economy and evaluating the social impacts of processes involved reuse, remake and recycling
activities, as this is the direction of future production and consumption.
7. Acknowledgement
I would like to direct a special gratitude to my supervisor Thomas Zobel at Luleå University of
Technology for all the valuable feedback and guidance throughout the thesis work. All educational
and constructive support have help me a lot.
Secondly, I would like to thank the CEO at the case study company for letting me use one of their
products in the study and for all efforts made to put me in contact with the suppliers.
I would also like to thank my subject reviewer Raine Isaksson at Uppsala University for constructive
suggestions and opinions.
Finally, I would like thank family and friends for all support with regards to the thesis and in the
daily life, big and small, it means a lot.
48
8. References
Agyekum, E.O., Fortuin, K.P.J. & van der Harst, E. (2017). Environmental and social life cycle assessment
of bamboo bicycle frames made in Ghana, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 143, pp. 1069-1080.
Amnesty International (2018). Amnesty International Report 2017/18 – The State of the World’s Human
Rights. London: Amnesty International Ltd. Available from:
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL1067002018ENGLISH.PDF [Accessed 2019-
03-19]
Ander, G. (2016). Den lilla svarta: modeindustrins mörka baksida, Stockholm: Ordfront.
Arbetsmiljöverket (2018). Arbetstidslagen (ATL). Available from: https://www.av.se/arbetsmiljoarbete-
och-inspektioner/lagar-och-regler-om-arbetsmiljo/arbetstidslagen/ [Accessed 2019-03-20]
Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M.C. & Martucci, O. (2015). Social Life Cycle Assessment in a Managerial
Perspective: an Integrative Approach for Business Strategy. In: Muthu, S. S. (Ed) Sustainability in
the Textile Industry. pp 227–257. Singapore: Springer Singapore. DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-296-
8_7
Benoît, C., Norris, G.A., Valdivia, S., Ciroth, A., Moberg, Å., Bos, U., Prakash, S., Ugaya, C., Beck, T.,
(2010). The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!, The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 156-16
Benoît-Norris, C., Vickery-Niederman, G., Valdivia, S., Franze, J., Traverso, M., Ciroth, A. & Mazijn, B.
(2011). Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 682-690.
Benoît-Norris, C. & Revéret, J-P. (2015). Partial Organization and Social LCA Development: The creation
and Expansion of an Epistemic Community. In: Muthu, S. S. (Ed) Social Life Cycle Assessment – An
Insight, pp. 199–226. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media Singapore. ISBN 978-981-287-
295-1.
Braungart, M & McDonough, W. (2009), Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. Vintage:
London
Bryman, A. (2017). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder, ed. 3, Liber: Stockholm.
Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS) (2018). Profile of the working poor, 2016. Available from:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2016/home.htm [Accessed 2019-03-29]
Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS) (2019). Household data – Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally
adjusted, Unemployment rates January 2019. Available from:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t10.htm [Accessed 2019-03-06]
Carrilho, P. & Persita, H. (2016). Portugal: High and rising emigration in a context of high, but decreasing,
unemployment. Eurofound, February 15.
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/article/2016/portugal-high-and-rising-emigration-in-a-
context-of-high-but-decreasing-unemployment [Accessed 2019-03-11]
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2016a). Country Comparison: Net migration rate. The World Factbook
2016-17. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency. Available from:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html [Accessed
2019-03-30]
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2016b). Country Comparison: Unemployment rate. The World
Factbook 2016-17. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency. Available from:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html [Accessed
2019-03-30]
49
Cerri, K. (2018). Insider Perspective: The United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights. World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Dec 5.
https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/News-Insights/Insider-perspective/The-United-Nations-Forum-on-
Business-and-Human-Rights [Accessed 2019-01-25]
Ciroth, A. & Franze, J. (2011). LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook – Consideration of Social and
Environmental Impacts along the Entire Life Cycle. Berlin: GreenDelta ISBN 978-1-4466-0087-0
Clifford S. (2013). Some retailers say more about their clothing’s origins, The New York Times. May 8.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/business/global/fair-trade-movement-extends-to-
clothing.html?_r=0 [Accessed 2019-02-06]
Climate & Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) (2018). World Health Organisation releases new global air
pollution data http://ccacoalition.org/en/news/world-health-organization-releases-new-global-air-
pollution-data [Accessed 2019-03-05]
Country economy (2019a). Unemployment. https://countryeconomy.com/unemployment [2019-03-20]
Country economy (2019b). Romania National Minimum Wage - NMW
https://countryeconomy.com/national-minimum-wage/romania [Accessed 2019-03-19]
Country economy (2019c). Hungary National Minimum Wage - NMW
https://countryeconomy.com/national-minimum-wage/hungary [Accessed 2019-03-19]
Country economy (2019d). Portugal National Minimum wage – NMW
https://countryeconomy.com/national-minimum-wage/portugal [Accessed 2019-03-03]
Country economy (2019e). United States (USA) National Minimum wage - NMW
https://countryeconomy.com/national-minimum-wage/usa [Accessed 2019-03-03]
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural heritage (2003). UNESCO, adopted 17 October
2008, entered into force 20 April 2006. Available from: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=17716&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 2019-03-05]
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005).UNESCO,
adopted 20 October 2005, entered into force 18 March 2007. Available from:
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#ENTRY [Accessed 2019-03-
05]
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). 1577 UNTS 3, adopted 20 November 1989, entered into
force 2 September 1990. Available from:
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-
11&chapter=4&lang=en [Accessed 2019-03-03]
CSR Europe & GRI (2017). Member State Implementation of Directive 2014/95/EU. Available from:
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/NFRpublication%20online_version.pdf
D’Aquila, J.M. (2018). The Current State of Sustainability Reporting: A Work in Progress, The CPA
Journal, vol. 88, no. 7, pp. 44-50
Department of Labor (2008a). Fact Sheet #23: Overtime Pay Requirements of the FLSA.. United States:
Wage and Hour Division. Avaliable from: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs23.pdf
Department of Labor (2008b). Fact Sheet #12: Agricultural Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). United States: Wage and Hour Division. Available from:
https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs12.pdf
Department of Labor (2016). Fact Sheet #40: Overview of Youth Employment (Child Labor) Provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Agricultural Occupations. United States: Wage and Hour
Division. https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs40.pdf
50
Department of State (2017a). Italy 2017 Human Rights Report. United States: Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. Available from:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2017&dlid=277179
[Accessed 2019-03-29]
Department of State (2017b). Romania 2017 Human Rights Report. United States: Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. Available from:https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/277453.pdf
[Accessed 2019-03-19]
Department of State (2017c). Hungary 2017 Human Rights Report. United States: Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. Available
from:https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/277417.pdf [Accessed 2019-03-19]
Department of State (2017d). Portugal 2017 Human Rights Report. United States: Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. Available from:
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/277451.pdf [Accessed 2019-02-28]
Department of State (2017e). Sweden 2017 Human Rights Report. United States: Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. Available
from: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2017&dlid=277223
[Accessed 2019-03-29]
Department of State (2018a). Italy 2018 Human Rights Report. United States: Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. Available
from: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2018&dlid=289143
[Accessed-2019-03-29]
Department of State (2018b). Sweden 2018 Human Rights Report. United States: Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. Available
from: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2018&dlid=289187
[Accessed 2019-03-29]
Donmoyer, R. (2000). Generalizability and the single-case studies. In. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. &
Foster, P. (ed.) Case study method: key issues, key texts. London: SAGE, pp. 45-68.
Dreyer, L., Hauschild, M. & Schierbeck, J. (2006). A Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment
(10 pp), The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 88-97.
Ekener-Petersen, E. (2013). Tracking down Social Impacts of Products with Social Life Cycle Assessment.
PhD. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. ISBN 978-91-7501-976-5
Ekener-Petersen, E. & Finnveden, G. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social S-LCA - part 1: a case
study of a laptop computer, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.
127-143.
EURES (2018a). Living and working conditions - Working time - Italy .
https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=8407&acro=living&lang=en&parentId=7783&countryId=I
T&living= [Accessed 2019-03-29]
EURES (2018b). Living and working conditions - Working time - Romania.
https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=8417&acro=living&lang=en&parentId=7793&countryId=
RO&living= [Accessed 2019-03-19]
EURES (2018c). Living and working conditions - Working time - Hungary.
https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=8404&acro=living&lang=en&parentId=7780&countryId=
HU&living= [Accessed 2019-03-19]
EURES (2018d). Living and working conditions – Working time- Portugal.
https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=8416&acro=living&mode=text&recordLang=en&lang=en
&parentId=7792&countryId=PT®ionId= [Accessed 2019-03-03]
51
EURES (2018e). Living and working conditions - Working time - Sweden.
https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=8421&acro=living&lang=en&parentId=7797&countryId=
SE&living= [Accessed 2019-03-29]
European Commission (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility:
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2011) 681 final of 25 Oct
2013.
European Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and
medium-sized enterprises (OJ 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36-41).
European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) (n.a). Industrial relations in Romania - Background summary.
https://www.etui.org/ReformsWatch/Romania/Industrial-relations-in-Romania-background-summary
[Accessed 2019-03-19]
European Parliament and the Council Directive 2010/63/EU of 22 October 2014 amending Directive
2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large
undertakings and groups (OJ L 330, 15.11.2014, p. 1–9).
EUROSTAT (2019a). In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate (%). EUROSTAT Expenditure statistics, code:
tespm070 (database) http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do [Accessed
2019-03-20].
EUROSTAT (2019b). Total Expenditure- Percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). EUROSTAT
Expenditure statistics, code: spr_exp_sum (database).
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do [Accessed 2019-03-19].
EY Global (2017). Why Sustainable Development Goals should be in your business plan.
https://www.ey.com/en_gl/assurance/why-sustainable-development-goals-should-be-in-your-
business-plan [Accessed 2019-04-09]
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United States (FAO) (2016). SDG 6.4.2. Water Stress.
AQUASTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (database).
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html [Accessed 2019-03-04]
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2017) SDG Indicator 6.4.2 – Water
stress. http://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/indicators/642/en/ [Accessed 2019-03-
04]
Global Slavery Index (2018). Country Studies – United States.
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/country-studies/united-states/ [Accessed 2019-03-
03]
Annapoorani, S.G. (2017). Social Sustainability in Textile Industry. In: Muthu, S. S. (Ed) Sustainability in
the Textile Industry. pp 57–78. Singapore: Springer Singapore. ISBN 978-981-10-2639-3.
Grafström, M., Göthberg, P. & Windell, K. (2015). CSR: företagsansvar i förändring. 2. ed. Malmö: Liber.
Grießhammer, R., Benoît, C., Dreyer, L-C., Flysjö, A., Manhart, A. & Mazjin, B. (2006) Feasibility study:
integration of social aspects into LCA. Available at:
http://www.saiplatform.org/uploads/Library/UNEP-SETACLifeCycleInitiativeTFonSocialIssues-
FeasibilityStudy.pdf [Accessed 2019-02-15]
Harboe, T. (2013), Grundläggande metod: den samhällsvetenskapliga uppsatsen, 1. ed. Gleerup: Malmö.
52
Hannouf, M. & Assefa, G. (2018). Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment: a case
study of high-density polyethylene production in Alberta, Canada, The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 116-132.
Henriques, A. (2012). Understanding a company's social impact is crucial to sustainability. The Guardian,
June 12. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/understanding-social-impact-business-
sustainability [Accessed 2018-12-20]
Indian Law Resource Center (n.a) Ending Violence against Native Women. Available from:
https://indianlaw.org/issue/Ending-Violence-Against-Native-Women [Accessed 2019-03-11]
ILOSTAT (2018). Employment-to-population ratio – ILO modelled estimates (%). The ILO Department of
Statistics.
https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/oracle/webcenter/portalapp/pagehierarchy/Page3.jspx?MBI_ID=7&
_afrLoop=1288500155817317&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=o0re9vszq_1#!%40%40%3F
_afrWindowId%3Do0re9vszq_1%26_afrLoop%3D1288500155817317%26MBI_ID%3D7%26_afr
WindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Do0re9vszq_57 [Accessed 2019-04-02]
ILOSTAT (2019a). Share of employees working more than 48 hours per week (%). The ILO Department of
Statistics.
https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/oracle/webcenter/portalapp/pagehierarchy/Page3.jspx?MBI_ID=8&
_afrLoop=880303387308400&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=jrdnn5ft5_126#!%40%40%3F
_afrWindowId%3Djrdnn5ft5_126%26_afrLoop%3D880303387308400%26MBI_ID%3D8%26_afr
WindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Djrdnn5ft5_182 [Accessed 2019-03-03]
ILOSTAT (2019b). Industrial Relations - Trade Union Density rate (%). The ILO Department of Statistics.
https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/oracle/webcenter/portalapp/pagehierarchy/Page3.jspx?MBI_ID=9&
_afrLoop=83081303516268&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=l8b41bre5_1#!%40%40%3F_af
rWindowId%3Dl8b41bre5_1%26_afrLoop%3D83081303516268%26MBI_ID%3D9%26_afrWindo
wMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Dl8b41bre5_57 [Accessed 2019-03-19]
Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) (2018). Global Peace Index 2018: Measuring Peace in a Complex
World. Sydney: Institute of Economics and Peace. Available from:
http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2018/06/Global-Peace-Index-2018-2.pdf [Accessed 2019-
03-05]
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966). 660 UNTS 195,
adopted 7 March 1966, entered into force 4 Janauary 1969. Avaliable from:
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en
[Accessed 2019-03-05]
International covenant on civil and political rights (1966). 999 UNTS 171, 1057 UNTS 407, adopted 16
December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976. Avaliable
from: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-
4&chapter=4&lang=en [Accessed 2019-03-05]
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). 993 UNTS 3, adopted 16
December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976. Avaliable from:
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&clang=_en
[Accessed 2019-03-05]
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017a). Up-to-date Conventions and Protocols not ratified by
United States.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11210:6143348148250::::P11210_INSTRUMENT_S
ORT:1 [Accessed 2019-03-02]
53
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017b). Ratifications for Italy.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:102709
[Accessed 2019-03-20]
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017c). Ratifications for Romania.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:102824
[Accessed 2019-03-19]
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017d). Ratifications for Hungary.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:102679
[Accessed 2019-03-19]
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017e). Ratifications for Portugal.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:102815
[Accessed 2019-03-02]
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017f). Ratifications for Sweden.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:102854
[Accessed 2019-03-19]
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017g). Ratifications for United Stated.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:102871
[Accessed 2019-03-02]
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017h). Conventions and Recommendations.
https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/conventions-and-
recommendations/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed 2019-03-02]
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) (2018). 2018 ITUC Global Rights Index – The World’s
Worst Countries for Workers. Brussels: ITUC https://da.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ITUC-
Global-Rights-Index-2018-EN.pdf
João Riberio Mata, M. & Meireles, C. (2017). Portugal: Disclosure Of Non-Financial And Diversity
Information. PLMJ, October 23rd
http://www.mondaq.com/x/639068/Corporate+Commercial+Law/DISCLOSURE+OF+NONFINAN
CIAL [Accessed 2019-03-06]
Jørgensen, A., Le Bocq, A., Nazarkina, L. & Hauschild, M. (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle
assessment, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 96-103.
Jørgensen, A., Hauschild, M.Z., Jørgensen, M.S. & Wangel, A. (2009), Relevance and feasibility of social
life cycle assessment from a company perspective, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 204-214.
KPMG (2018). All companies with over 500 employees required to disclose non-financial information.
https://home.kpmg/ro/en/home/insights/2018/11/companii-500-angajati-obligate-raporteze-
informatii-nefinanciare.html [Accessed 2019-03-20]
Kärnstrand, M. & Andersson Åkerblom, T. (2016). Modeslavar: den globala jakten på billigare kläder,
Leopard: Stockholm.
Kühnen, M. & Hahn, R. (2017). Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of Frameworks,
Theories and Empirical Experience. Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1547-1565.
Köksal, D., Strähle, J., Müller, M. & Freise, M. (2017). Social Sustainable Supply Chain Management in
the Textile and Apparel Industry—A Literature Review, Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 100
54
Köksal, D., Strähle, J. & Müller, M. (2018). Social Sustainability in Apparel Supply Chains—The Role of
the Sourcing Intermediary in a Developing Country, Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1039.
Lenzo, P., Traverso, M., Salomone, R. & Ioppolo, G. (2017). Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Textile
Sector: An Italian Case Study, Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 2092.
Life Cycle Initiative (n.a). Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA).
https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/starting-life-cycle-thinking/life-cycle-approaches/social-lca/
[Accessed: 2019-01-25]
Marinez, E.V., Keresztesi, K., Indrane, D. & Das Gupta, J. (n.a.). Measuring your contribution to the
Sustainable Development Goals with Social Metrics. Available from: https://product-social-impact-
assessment.com/measuring-contribution-sustainable-development-goals-social-metrics/ [Accessed
2019-04-27]
Minority Rights Group International (2009). World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples – Inuit
and Alaska Natives. Available from: https://minorityrights.org/minorities/inuit-and-alaska-natives/
[Accessed 2019-03-11]
Minority Rights Group International (2018a). World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples-
United States of America. Available from: https://minorityrights.org/country/united-states-of-
america/ [Accessed 2019-03-11]
Minority Rights Group International (2018b). World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples-
Hungary. Available from: https://minorityrights.org/country/hungary/ [Accessed 2019-09-19]
Minority Rights Group International (2018c). World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples-
Portugal. Available from: https://minorityrights.org/country/portugal/ [Accessed 2019-03-11]
Muthu, S.-S. (ed.)(2017). Evaluation of Sustainability in Textile Industry. Sustainability in the Textile
Industry, Springer: Singapore, pp. 9-16. DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2639-3_2
MVO Platform (2018). The contribution of companies to the SDGs. Available from: https://www.business-
humanrights.org/sites/default/files/Companies-contribution-to-the-SDGs.pdf [Accessed 2019-04-09]
Nadeau, C.A & Glasmeier, A.K. (2019). NEW DATA UP: Calculation of the Living Wage. Living Wage
Calculator, January 24th http://livingwage.mit.edu/articles/37-new-data-up-calculation-of-the-living-
wage [Accessed 2019-03-01]
OECD (2019a). Trade Unions: Trade union density, OECD Employment and Labour Market Statistics
(database), https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00371-en [Accessed 2019-03-02].
OECD (2019b). Collective bargaining coverage. OECD Employment and Labour Market Statistics
(database). https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TUD [Accessed 2019-03-02].
OECD (2019c). Social Expenditure – Aggregated data. OECD Social and Welfare Statistics (database).
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SOCX_AGG [Accessed 2019-03-04].
OECD (2019d). Exposure to PM2.5 in countries and regions. OECD Environment Statistics (database)
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EXP_PM2_5 [Accessed 2019-03-05]
OECD (2019e). Poverty rate (indicator). OECD Social Welfare Statistics (database)
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm#indicator-chart [Accessed 2019-03-06]
Omish-Lucero, G. (2018). After Centuries of Discriminations, We Need to Help Native American Victims of
Violence. California Health Report, April 17. http://www.calhealthreport.org/2018/04/17/centuries-
discrimination-need-help-native-american-victims-violence/ [Accessed 2019-03-11]
55
Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C. & Revéret, J. (2010). Impact assessment in S-LCA: sorting the sLCIA methods
according to their outcomes, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.
164-171.
Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C. & Revéret, J. (2013). Revisiting the role of LCA and S-LCA in the transition
towards sustainable production and consumption, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1642-1652.
Petti, L., Sanchez Ramirez, P.K., Traverso, M. & 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, no. 3, pp. 569-580.
Petti, L., Serreli, M. & Di Cesare, S. (2018), Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 422-431.
Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value, Harvard Business Review,
Boston.
Quinn Patton, M. (1999). The Nature of Qualitative Inquiry. In Bryman, A. & Burgess, R.G. (ed.)
Qualitative Research. Vol 4, London: SAGE, pp. 139-149.
Ramirez, P.K.S., Petti, L., Haberland, N.T. & Ugaya, C.M.L. (2014). Subcategory assessment method for
social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework, The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1515-1523.
Ramirez, P.K.S., Petti, L., Brones, F. & Ugaya, C.M.L. (2016). Subcategory assessment method for social
life cycle assessment. Part 2: application in Natura’s cocoa soap, The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 106-117.
Remmen, A., Astrup-Jensen, A. & Frydendal, J. (2007). Life Cycle Management – A Business Guide to
Sustainability. Paris: UNEP. ISBN: 978-92-807-2772-2.
Reporters without Borders (RSF) (2018a) The World Press Freedom Index https://rsf.org/en/world-press-
freedom-index [Accessed 2019-03-04]
Reporters without Borders (RSF) (2018b) Index details – Data of press freedom ranking 2018
https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table [Accessed 2019-03-04]
Retail Forum for Sustainability (2013). Sustainability of Textiles. In Issue Paper N⁰11 European
Commission Retail Forum. Brussels, Belgium August 2013. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/retail/pdf/issue_paper_textiles.pdf
Sachs, J.D. (2019). The SDGs and Corporate Social Responsibility. CSR Compass, Vol. 53, pp.1-4.
Available from: http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/insight053_e.pdf
Sala, S., Vasta, A., Mancini, L., Dewulf, J. & Rosenbaum E. (2015). Social Life Cycle Assessment – State
of the art and challenges for supporting product policies. Italy: European Commission, Joint
Research Centre, EUR 27624 EN, doi:10.2788/253715.
Singh, R.K. & Gupta, U. (2018), Social life cycle assessment in Indian steel sector: a case study, The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 921-939.
Slavery Convention (1926). [Online]. 60 LNTS 254, adopted 25 September 1926, entered into force 9
March 1927 Available from:
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-
3&chapter=18&clang=_en [Assessed 2019-03-03]
56
Statistics Portugal (INE) (2019). Unemployment rate (Series 2011 - %) by Sex, Age group and Highest
completed level of education; Total 4th Quarter 2018 Available from:
https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&contecto=pi&indOcorrCod=0
005599&selTab=tab0 [2019-03-06]
Subramanian, K., Chau, C.K. & Yung, W.K.C. (2018), Relevance and feasibility of the existing social LCA
methods and case studies from a decision-making perspective, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
171, pp. 690-703.
Swedish Standards Institute (SIS) (2010). SS-ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibility (ISO
26000:2010, IDT). Stockholm: SIS.
Szarvas, J. (2018). Hungary: Corporate governance 2018. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/corporate-
governance-laws-and-regulations/hungary [Accessed 2018-03-20]
The Heritage Foundation (2019). 2019 Index of Economic Freedom – 25th Anniversary Edition.
Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation
https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2019/book/index_2019.pdf
Transparency International (2018a) Corruption Perception Index 2018. Available from:
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018 [Accessed 2019-03-06]
Transparency International (2018b) Corruption Perception Index 2018: Technical Methodology Note.
Available from: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018 [Accessed 2019-03-06]
Traverso, M., Bell, L., Saling, P. & Fontes, J. (2018). Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative
product social impact assessment, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 23, no. 3,
pp. 597-606.
UL Safety Index (n.a) OSH Framework. https://ulsafetyindex.org/theme/labor-protections#country/
[Accessed 2019-03-04]
UL Safety Index (2019a). Safety performance in Italy. https://ulsafetyindex.org/country/Italy [Accessed
2019-03-29]
UL Safety Index (2019b). Safety performance in Romania. https://ulsafetyindex.org/country/Romania
[Accessed 2019-03-19]
UL Safety Index (2019c). Safety performance in Hungary. https://ulsafetyindex.org/country/Hungary
[Accessed 2019-03-19]
UL Safety Index (2019d) Safety performance in Portugal. https://ulsafetyindex.org/country/Portugal
[Accessed 2019-03-04]
UL Safety Index (2019e). Safety performance in Sweden. https://ulsafetyindex.org/country/Sweden
[Accessed 2019-03-29]
UL Safety Index (2019f) Safety performance in United States of America.
https://ulsafetyindex.org/country/United-States-of-America [Accessed 2019-03-04]
Umair, S., Björklund, A. & Ekener-Petersen,.E. (2015), Social impact assessment of informal recycling of
electronic ICT waste in Pakistan using UNEP SETAC guidelines, Resources, Conservation &
Recycling, vol. 95, pp. 46-57.
UN General Assembly (2015). Transforming out world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21
October 2015, A/RES/70/1. Available from:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustaina
ble%20Development%20web.pdf [Accessed 2019-04-09]
57
UNESCO (2016). A world without information? Right to information and SDG [video].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=ppJ_0m1wjiI [Accessed 2019-03-20]
UNESCO (2019) List of World Heritage in Danger. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger
[Accessed 2019-04-11]
United Nations (n.a). The Sustainable Development Agenda – What is sustainable development? Available
from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/ [Accessed: 2019-01-22]
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2008). Climate Change: technology
Development and Technology Transfer. Paper of the Beijing High-level Conference. Beijing, China
7-8 November 2008.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/tec_technology_dev.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2017a). Human Development Index (HDI). Human
Development Data (1990-2017) (database). http://hdr.undp.org/en/data [Accessed 2019-04-11].
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2017b). Research and development expenditure (% of
GDP) Human Development Data (1990-2017) (database). http://hdr.undp.org/en/data [Accessed
2019-04-11].
United Nations Environmental Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(UNEP/SETAC) (2009). Guidelines for social life-cycle assessment of products. Nairobi: UNEP.
ISBN: 978-92-807-3021-0
United Nations Environmental Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(UNEP/SETAC) (2013) The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle
Assessment (S-LCA). Paris: UNEP. Available from: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf
United Nations Environmental Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(UNEP/SETAC) (2011). Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making informed choices
on products. Nairobi: UNEP. ISBN: 978-92-807-3175-0
United Nations (UN) Global Compact (n.aa). Strong markets and storing societies go hand in hand.
Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/social/poverty [Accessed 2019-
04-01]
United Nations (UN) Global Compact (n.ab). Protect workers’ safety and health. Available at:
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/social/labour [Accessed 2019-04-01]
United Nations (UN) Global Compact (n.ac). The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact. Available at:
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles [Accessed: 2019-01-24]
United Nations (UN) Global Compact (2014). Guide to corporate sustainability. New York: United
Nations Global Compact,
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/publications/UN_Global_Compact_Guide_to_Corporate_Sus
tainability.pdf [Accessed 2018-12-19]
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2011). Guiding principles on business
and human rights: implementing the United Nations "Protect, Respect and Remedy" : framework.
New York and Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) (n.aa). Status of ratification –
interactive dashboard. http://indicators.ohchr.org/ [Accessed 2019-03-21]
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) (n.ab). The Core International
Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CoreInstruments.aspx [Accessed 2019-03-21]
58
Vavra, J., Munzarova, S. & Bednarikova, M. (2015). Assessment of Social Impacts of Chemical and Food
Products in the Czech Republic. In: Muthu, S. S. (Ed) Social Life Cycle Assessment – An Insight, pp.
147–198. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media Singapore. ISBN 978-981-287-295-1.
Wage Indicator (2018a). Living Wage Series – Romania- December 2018- In New Romanian Leu, per
Month. https://wageindicator.org/salary/living-wage/romania-living-wage-series-december-2018
[Accessed 2019-03-19]
Wage Indicator (2018b). Living Wage Series – Hungary- December 2018- In Forint, per Month.
https://wageindicator.org/salary/living-wage/hungary-living-wage-series-december-2018 [Accessed
2019-03-19]
Wage Indicator (2018c). Living Wage Series – Portugal- December 2018- In Euro, per Month.
https://wageindicator.org/salary/living-wage/portugal-living-wage-series-december-2018 [Accessed
2019-03-03]
Wage Indicator (2018d). Living Wage Series – United States- December 2018- In US Dollar, per Month.
https://wageindicator.org/salary/living-wage/united-states-living-wage-series-december-2018
[Accessed 2019-03-03]
Wage Indicator (2018e). Living Wage Series – Italy-December 2018- In Euro, per Month.
https://wageindicator.org/salary/living-wage/italy-living-wage-series-december-2018 [Accessed
2019-03-29]
Wage Indicator (2018f). Living Wage Series – Sweden-December 2018- In Swedish Krona, per Month.
https://wageindicator.org/salary/living-wage/sweden-living-wage-series-december-2018 [2019-03-
29]
Wage Indicator (2019). Minimum Wages in Italy. https://wageindicator.org/salary/minimum-wage/italy
[2019-03-29]
Walk Free Foundation (2018). The Global Slavery Index 2018. Available:
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/resources/downloads/ [Accessed 2018-12-19]
Watkins, D. & Gioia, D. (2015), Mixed Methods Research, Oxford University Press, New York.
WHO/UNICEF (n.a) Monitoring – Sanitation. https://washdata.org/monitoring/sanitation [Accessed 2019-
03-04]
WHO/UNICEF (2015). Wash data –sanitation- by country. https://washdata.org/data/household [Accessed
2019-03-04]
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2016). Business and the SDGs: Role,
opportunity and responsibility. WBCSD, November 18.
https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/People/Social-Impact/News/Business-and-the-SDGs-Role-
opportunity-and-responsibility [Accessed 2019-04-09]
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2018). Putting people first: progress &
priorities in corporate respect for human rights. Geneva: WBCSD.
https://docs.wbcsd.org/2018/11/WBCSD-progress-priorities-in-corporate-respect-for-human-
rights.pdf
World Economic Forum (WEF) (2017). The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018. Geneva: World
Economic Forum http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-
2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf
World Economic Forum (WEF) (2018a). The Global Competitiveness Report 2018. Geneva: World
Economic Forum
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2018.pdf
59
World Economic Forum (WEF) (2018b). The Global Gender Gap Report 2018. Geneva: World Economic
Forum http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
World Health Organization (WHO) (2006). WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone,
nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Geneva: World Health Organization
World Health Organization (WHO) (2013). Human effects of particulate matter – Policy implications for
countries in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and central Africa. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for
Europe ISBN 978 92 890 0001 7
World Health Organization (WHO) (2016). Burden of disease attributable to the environment, Data by
country. Global Health Observatory data repository. (database).
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ENVDALYSBYCOUNTRYv [Accessed 2019-03-05]
World Health Organization (WHO) (n.aa). Age standardized disability-adjusted life year (DALY) rates, by
country. https://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/countries/situation_trends_dalys/en/
[2019-03-05]
World Health Organization (WHO) (n.ab). Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) attributable to the
environment (%). http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.wrapper.imr?x-id=4657 [Accessed 2019-03-05]
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (n.a). What is Intellectual Property? [factsheet]
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods, 5.th edn, SAGE, London.
Zamani, B., Sandin, G., Svanström, M. & Peters, G.M. (2018). Hotspot identification in the clothing
industry using social life cycle assessment—opportunities and challenges of input-output modelling,
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 536-546.
Appendix A - Questionnaires Questionnaire: Workers
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
1. Are the employees free to join a union?
2. If yes, are there employees who belongs to a union?
3. Can the worker participate freely in collective/union meetings?
Respondent’s position in the organisation
Indicate the number of total employees Men: Women:
60
4. If yes,
- How often do the union meetings take place?
- Are there any documents regarding attendance of the meetings?
5. Is there a union representative in the company?
6. Are your organisation committed to the dissemination of the union's actions (through for example brochures,
newspapers, posters posted on the bulletin board, etc.)?
5. Are there copies of collective bargaining agreements between the company and the union?
6. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices for respect of freedom of association and collective bargaining?
Child labour
7. Are there workers aged lower than 15 year?
8. Are there workers aged between 15 and 19 years?
9. If yes:
-How many men and how many women?
-How many are enrolled in schools?
-How many are employed as internal?
-How many are employed as apprentices?
-What are the functions performed by these workers?
-What is the average number of weekly working hours?
10. What measures are taken to prevent and eliminate child labour?
11. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) adaption of compliance or
policies to prevent child labour?
Forced labour
12. Does the employment contract include: wages, social security contributions and/or other benefits?
13. Is the employee free to resign at his own free will within the limits of the law?
14. Does the organisation have a policy against forced labour?
15. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
that prohibit forced labour?
Fair salary
16. Are the employees with lower hourly wages able to meet their basic needs?
61
17. What is the base salary at the company?
18. Is there a difference in the value of the current salary between men and women?
19. What are the types of labour contracts of the company?
• Fixed-term contract☐
• Steady contract☐
• Temporary contract☐
• Training☐
• Apprenticeship☐
• Voucher☐
20. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of
policies/practices ensure fair salary?
Working hours
21. Does there occur overtime?
22. If yes:
- Approximately, how many overtime hours are done per week?
- Approximately, how many overtime hours are done per year?
- Approximately, how many working hours are there on average per week?
23. Does your company promote the respect of working hours prescribed by law, to its suppliers (or companies in the
value chain)?
Equal opportunities/discrimination
24. Is there a policy on equal opportunity and gender in the company?
25. Have there been any cases of discrimination in the last 3 years?
26. If yes, what are the total number of cases of discrimination?
27. What is the share of women covering leadership positions in relation to men?
28. Are there people with disabilities working at the company?
29. Does your organisation promote to its suppliers (or companies in the value chain) implementation of policies/or
practices to prevent discrimination and endorse equality?
Health and safety
30. Is there a formal policy/guidelines of programme related to health and safety?
31. If yes, is it in compliance with the law?
62
31. Are there accident records?
33. If yes:
- How many accidents have occurred in the company in the last 3 years?
- How many fatal accidents have occurred in the company in the last 3 years?
34. Are there existing programs and/or training programs on risks of accidents for workers?
35. If yes, how often are they created/updated?
36. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
or practices to ensure the health and safety of workers?
Social benefits/ social security
37. Which social benefits are provided to workers?
☐Social Security benefits
☐Retirement
☐Disability
☐Dependents
☐Survivors’ benefits
☐Paid maternity and paternity leave (parental leave)
☐Paid sick leave
☐Education and training,
☐Medical insurance
☐Dental insurance
☐Paramedical insurance, including preventive medicine
☐Medication insurance
☐Wage insurance.
38. Does your organisation promote to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) adoption of policies and/or
practices to ensure social security and promote social benefits for their workers?
Questionnaire: Local Community
Access to material resources
1.Are your organisation concerned about the material resources (water, land, etc ...)?
2. Does your organisation develop and/or create an environmental risk assessment of its activities?
3. If yes, is there a presence of a conflict in the use of material resources (such as water, land, roads, schools) with the
local community?
Respondent’s position in the organisation
63
4. Is there an environmental management system within the company?
5. If yes, which one?
6. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices aimed at rational use of material resources?
Access to immaterial resources
7. Does your organisation provide services such as education, health services and/or promote initiatives or fund
programs to the members of the local community?
8. Does your organisation provide education to members of the local community or initiatives to provide information,
knowledge and technology transfer?
9. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices aimed at the development of immaterial resources to the local community?
Delocalization and migration
10. Have there ever been situations which led to the transfer of local community members for reasons related to the
performance of the company activities?
11. If yes:
- Is there a policy that facilitate the integration of these people into the new community?
- Is there documentation proving the company's commitment to the promotion of the integration of transferred
people?
12. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices to prevent delocalization and migration of the local community by reason of its business?
Cultural heritage
13. Does your organisation finance/ support/ promote cultural, artistic events or any expression of local cultural
heritage?
14. Are there programs in the company that allow to include the cultural heritage in the choice/selection of products?
15. If yes, please indicate some.
16. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices aimed at respecting the cultural heritage?
Safe and healthy living conditions
17. Does your organisation have a risk assessment system related to health and safety of the local community?
64
18. Does your organisation participate with local organisations to inform the local community about the potential risks of
its impacts (or potential impacts)?
19. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices aimed at safeguarding the health and safety of the local community?
Respect of indigenous rights
20. Does your organisation operate in a region where exist conflicts with the indigenous inhabitants (community of
typically people originally from that area)?
21. If yes, does the company have policies or commitments which respect the indigenous rights?
22. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices aimed at respecting the indigenous rights to its suppliers?
Community engagement
23. Is there a policy that proves that the organisation is in favour of the local community?
24. Are there meetings between the organisation and the residents of the local community?
25. Does the organisation support local community initiatives (e.g. financial support, voluntary work...)?
26. If yes,
- How many?
- Where and how does it support such initiatives?
27. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) adoption of policies and/or
practices through commitments to the local community?
Local employment
28. Please indicate the percentage of employees who come from the same area where the company operates (within
a radius of 50 km).
29. Does your organisation prefer to select local suppliers?
30. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices to promote local employment?
Secure living conditions
31. Has there been conflicts between your organisation and the local community (in the last three years)?
32. Has your organisation undertaken activities that have put the safety of the local community at risk?
65
33. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices for safe living condition for the local community?
Questionnaire: Society
Subcategory: Public commitment to sustainability issues
1. Has your organisation made any public promises or agreements on sustainability issues (e.g. certifications,
sustainability networks, collaborations etc.)?
2. If yes, which ones?
3. Does your organisation promote to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) adoption of policies and/or
practices to endeavour public commitment to sustainability issues?
Prevention and mitigation of conflicts
4. Is there or have it been any conflicts in the area of your organisation?
5. If yes, has the organisation been involved in these conflicts?
6. Is there a strategy for prevention and mitigation of conflicts disseminated to the public?
7. Does your organisation promote it your suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) adoption of policies and/or
practices to prevent and mitigate conflicts?
Contribution to economic development
8. Does your organisation provide public information about the company´s contribution to economic development
(e.g. through annual reports, website etc.)?
9. Does your organisation promote to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices to contribute to economic development?
Corruption
10. Has your organisation implemented measures to prevent corruption (Formalised commitments, anti-corruption
program etc.)?
11. Are those measures disseminated through the organisation’s website, promotional material or other means?
Respondent’s position in the organisation
66
12. Does your organisation promote to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices to avoid corruption?
Technology development
13. Does your organisation participate in joint research and development for efficient and environmentally sound
technologies (involvement in technology transfer program or projects, partnerships in research and development,
investments in technology etc.)?
14. If yes, are participations disseminated through the organisation’s website, promotional materials or other means?
15. Does your organization promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices to endeavour participation in technology development?
Questionnaire: Consumers
Health and safety
1.Have there been complaints from customers/clients about the health and safety of the product?
2. If yes, how were they solved by your company?
3. What are the practices adopted by your company to ensure, through the quality of the product, the health and
safety of customers and consumers (procedures, certifications etc.)?
4. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) adaption of policies and/or
practices to protect customer and consumer health and safety?
Feedback mechanism
5. What are the ways by which the customer/client can get in touch with your company?
6. Have there been complaints from customers/clients in relation to the lack of a company feedback mechanism?
7. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices to encourage feedback mechanism?
Respondent’s position in the organisation
67
Customer privacy
8. Is there a policy to ensure customer privacy and the safety of customer data?
9. Has there been complaints from customers in relation to breaches of privacy in the last year?
10. Does your organisation promote to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices to protect customer privacy?
Transparency
11. Does your organisation have a report that communicates its social responsibility?
12. If yes, which one?
13. Has it been any complaint from consumers/customers regarding transparency?
14. Does your organisation promote to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) adoption of policies and/or
practices aiming for transparency?
End-of-life responsibility
15. Does your organisation have internal management systems that provides information to customer regarding end-of-
life options of its products?
16. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices aimed at encouraging responsibility in the end of life?
Questionnaire: Value Chain Actors
Fair competition
1.Does your organisation have any documentation (procedure, policy, strategy, and/or certification) for anti-
competitive behaviour?
2.Are your organisation member of an alliance that behave in an anti-competitive way?
3. If yes, which one?
4. Does your organisation have any law suits with regard to anti-trust legislation or illegal monopolies?
Respondent’s position in the organisation
68
5. Does your organization promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices aiming for fair competition?
Supplier relationship
6. Does your organisation have code of conduct with defined standards of ethical behaviour that are expected from
suppliers?
7. If yes, how is it communicated to the suppliers?
8. Does there occur fluctuations regarding the use of suppliers?
9. Does your organisation measure or follow-up supplier satisfaction?
10. Does your organization promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices to strengthening relationships?
Respect of intellectual property rights
11. Does your organisation have a policy and/or practices to respect intellectual property rights?
12. Have your organisation been involved with violations against intellectual property rights?
13. Does your organisation promotes to its suppliers (or to the companies in the value chain) implementation of policies
and/or practices aiming to respect of intellectual property rights?
Questionnaire: Workers for employees
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
1. Do you belong to a union?
2. If yes, can you participate freely in collective/union meetings?
If no, are you free to join a union?
3. Are there a union representative in the company?
Child labour
Respondent’s position in the organisation
Sex: Male Female Age:
69
4. Are there workers aged lower than 15 year?
5. Are there workers aged between 15 and 19 years?
Forced labour
6. Do you find your employment contract clear and understandable?
7. Are you free to resign on you own free will within the limits of the law?
Fair salary
8. Do you find you salary to cover your basic needs?
9. Do you perceive it to be a difference in the value of the current salary between men and women?
10. What kind of labour contract do you have?
• Fixed-term contract☐
• Steady contract☐
• Temporary contract☐
• Training☐
• Apprenticeship☐
• Voucher☐
Working hours
11. In the table below, indicate the number of ordinary hours worked on average per week:
January/
February
March/April May/June July/August September/
October
November/
December
Ordinary
weekly
hours
12. Does there occur overtime in the organisation?
13. Indicate in the table below the number of overtime hours done on average per week:
January/
February
March/April May/June July/August September/
October
November/
December
Overtime
hours/
week
Equal opportunities/discrimination
14. Do you perceive that everyone having the equal opportunities in the company?
70
15. Does women have the same opportunities as men?
16. Has there been any cases of discrimination towards employees in the last three years?
17. Are there people with disabilities working in the company?
Health and safety
18. Have you read the company’s policy on health and safety?
19. Do you know how to protect yourself from accidents at work?
20. Are you familiar with the emergency procedures for accidents and injuries?
21. Has there been any work related accidents or injuries in the last three years?
Social benefits/ social security
22. Which social benefits are provided for you?
☐Social Security benefits
☐Retirement
☐Disability
☐Dependents
☐Survivors’ benefits
☐Paid maternity and paternity leave (parental leave)
☐Paid sick leave
☐Education and training,
☐Medical insurance
☐Dental insurance
☐Paramedical insurance, including preventive medicine
☐Medication insurance
☐Wage insurance.
72
Appendix B – Social Hotspot Assessment sheet and technical notes
Evaluation criteria Hotspot Assessment
Table 14. Evaluation sheet with assessment criteria for hotspot assessment
Subcategory Indicator Good- Very good
performance/no-low
risk
Satisfactory
performance/Medium risk
Inadequate
performance/high risk
Bad performance/Very
high risk Source
Freedom of association
and collective
bargaining
Corroboratio
n of
International
Conventions
and
Agreements
Ratified the
fundamental ILO
Conventions no 87
and no 98 the
additional convention
related to the indicator
(no 135 and no 154)
Ratified the fundamental
ILO Conventions no 87 and
no 98
Ratified one of the
fundamental ILO
Conventions no 87 or no
98
No ratification of
fundamental ILO
Conventions no 87 or no
98
International Labour
Organization (ILO)
Information System
on International
Labour Standards
(NORMLEX)
Trade Union
Density
>69.85% <69.83% - 48.05%
<48.05% - 26.28% <26.28% OECD.Stat (OECD
2019b)
Collective
bargaining
coverage
>75.25%
<75.25% - 52.5% <52,5% - 29.75% <29.75%
OECD.Stat (OECD
2019b)
Workers’
Rights
Rating 1 – Sporadic
violations of rights
Rating 2 – Repeated
violations of rights
Rating 3-Regular
violations of rights
Rating 4/Rating 5 –
Systematic violation of
rights/No guarantee of
rights
Global Rights Index
(ITUC 2018)
Child Labour Corroboratio
n of
International
Conventions
Ratified the
fundamental ILO
Conventions (no 138
and no 182, and the
UN Convention on the
Rights of Children
Ratified two of the
fundamental ILO
Conventions no 138, no 182
and the UN Convention on
the Rights of Children
Ratified one of the ILO
Conventions no 138, no
182 or and the UN
Convention on the Rights
of Children
No ratification of
fundamental ILO
Conventions no 138, no
182 or the UN Convention
on the Rights of Children
International Labour
Organization (ILO)
Information System
on International
Labour Standards
(NORMLEX)
Evidence of
child labour
in the
country
No reported cases.
Strict laws and
regulations
No reported cases. Weak
laws and regulations
Reported cases in the
country
Reported cases in the
sector
US Department of
State (2017)
Forced labour Risk of
forced labour
UN Slavery
Convention and ILO
UN Slavery Convention and
ILO no29 or no105 has
been ratified
UN Slavery Convention
has been ratified
UN Slavery Convention
has not been ratified
ILO Information
System on
International Labour
73
no29 and no105 has
been ratified
Standards
(NORMLEX)
UN Slavery
Convention
Evidence of
forced labour
in the
country
No reported cases.
Strict laws and
regulations
No reported cases. Weak
laws and regulations
Reported cases in the
country
Reported cases in the
sector
US Department of
State (2017; 2018)
Fair Salary Minimum
wage and
living wage
National minimum
wage are above the
living wage for typical
family
National minimum wage are
equal to the living wage of a
typical family
Minimum wage are above
the living wage for
National minimum wage
are below the living wage
for a single adult
Wage Indicator
(2018), Country
economy (2019)
Working
poverty
<6.1% 6.1% - <7.8% 7.8% - <10% >10% EUROSTAT
(2019b)
Working time/Hours of
work
Excessive
working time
<10%
10-29% 30-50% >50% ILOSTAT (2019)
Working
time
conditions
Evidence show
fulfilment conditions:
Working-time
restricted to
48hours/week,
overtime are
compensated,
compulsory daily rest
of 11 hours, a 24 hour
period of weekly rest.
Evidence show fulfilment of
three conditions: Working-
time restricted to
48hours/week, overtime are
compensated, compulsory
daily rest of 11 hours, a 24
hour period of weekly rest
Evidence show fulfilment
of two conditions:
Working-time restricted to
48hours/week, overtime
are compensated,
compulsory daily rest of
11 hours, a 24 hour period
of weekly rest
No evidence of fulfilment
of working conditions:
Working-time restricted to
48hours/week, overtime
are compensated,
compulsory daily rest of
11 hours, a 24 hour period
of weekly rest
EURES (2018)
Equal
opportunities/Discrimi
nation
Female
participation
in labour
force
>0.75 0.75->0.5 0.5->0.25 <0.25 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF
2018a)
Economic
Participation
and
Opportunity
>0.75 0.75->0.5 0.5->0.25 <0.25 Global Gender Gap
Index (WEF 2018b)
Health and safety Occupational
health and
safety
Score 100-80 Score 79-60
Score 59-30 Score 30-0 UL Safety Index
Social benefits/social
security
Social
expenditure
>25.6% 25.6->20% 20->13,75% <13.75% OECD.Stat (OECD
2019c)
Employment
insecurity
<2.5 2.5->4 4->5.5 >5.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF
2018a)
74
Access to material
resources
Water stress <10% 10 - <25% 25- <70% >70% SDG Indicator 6.4.2
– Water stress (FAO
2017)
Improved
sanitation
facilities
>80%
80 - >60% 60- > 40% <40% WASH data
(WHO/UNICEF
2015)
Property
Rights
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF
2018a)
Access to immaterial
property rights
Freedom of
the press
0-15 15.01-25 25.01-35 35.01-100 The World Press
Freedom Index
(RSF)
FDI and
technology
transfer
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2017)
Delocalisation and
migration
Migration
rate
>8.25
8.25 - >0 0 - > -13.35 <-13.45 Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA
2016a)
Cultural Heritage and
indigenous rights
Human
rights
15-18 ratifications 10-14 ratifications 5-9 ratifications 0-4 ratifications UN Human Rights
Office of the High
Commissioner
(OHCHR n.ab)
Evidence of
racial
discriminatio
n
- There are no evidence of
concerns related to
discrimination of minority
or indigenous groups
There are evidence of
racial discrimination to
minority and/or
indigenous groups
There are evidence of
racial discrimination to
minority and/or
indigenous groups
exposed by government
Human rights
reports (Department
of state 2017; 2018;
Amnesty
International 2018),
Minority Rights
Group International
(2018)
Safe and healthy living
conditions
Burden of
disease
DALYs
<13%
13 - <17% 17 - <24% >24% World Health
Organization (WHO
2016)
Pollution
levels
<10µg/m3 10 µg/m3 - <22.5µg/m3 22.5µg/m3-<35 µg/m3 >35µg/m3 WHO Air Quality
Guidelines and
Interim Targets
(WHO 2005)
Secure living
conditions
Safety and
security
Score
<1.75
1.75- <2.5 2.5-<3.75 >3.75 Global Peace Index
(IEP 2018)
Strength of
public
security
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competiveness
75
Report (WEF
2018a)
Local employment Unempoyme
nt rate
<3.3 3.3- <6.3 6.3-<28.15 >28.15 Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA
2016b)
Local
suppliers
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2017)
Community
engagement
Transparenc
y of
government
policy
making
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2017)
Public trust
of politicians
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2017)
Public commitment to
sustainability issues
Existence of
(legal)
obligation on
public
sustainability
reporting
Additional
requirements has been
implemented in
national law
All legal requirements have
been implemented in
national law
Any legal requirements
have a been omitted in
national law
No legal obligation on
public sustainability
reporting
Directive
2013/34/EU
Prevention and
mitigation of conflicts
Ongoing
conflicts
Score
<1,75
1,75- <2,5 2,5-<3,75 >3,75 Global Peace Index
(IEP 2018)
Contribution to
Economic development
Economic
situation of
the country
free (100-80) mostly free (79,9-70) moderately free (69.9-60) mostly unfree /repressed
(59,9-0)
Economic Freedom
Index (The Heritage
Foundation 2019)
Corruption Risk of
corruption
>75 75->50 50->25 >25 Corruption
Perception Index
(Transparency
International 2018)
Technology and
Development
Company
spending on
Research and
Development
(R&D)
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2017)
Collaboratio
ns in R&D
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2017)
Fair competition Anti-
monopoly
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2017)
76
Respect of intellectual
property rights
Intellectual
property
protection
>5.5 5.5->4 4->2.5 <2.5 Global
Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2018)
77
Technical notes for Social Hotspot Indicators
Corroboration of International
Conventions and Agreements
The Methodological Sheets (UNEP/SETAC
2013) presents international conventions and
agreements related to the subcategory. Those
are Freedom of Association and Protection of
the Right to Organize Convention (no87),
Right to organize and Collective Bargaining
Convention (no98), Worker’s Representatives
Convention (no 135) and Collective
Bargaining Convention (no154), of which no
87 and 89 are identified as fundamental due
to their coverage of subjects that are
considered fundamental (ILO 2017h).
Therefore, the assessment of this indicator are
using the ratification of the fundamental
conventions as a baseline, where countries
that have ratified the both conventions are
considered to have a “Satisfactory
performance” on the indicator. Further,
countries that have ratified the additional
conventions related to the subcategory are
considered to have “Very good performance”.
If one of the fundamental conventions are
ratified by a country the performance are
considered to be “Inadequate” and if neither
of the fundamental are ratified the country
performance are assessed as “bad”.
Trade Union Density
The indicator measure the number of a
country’s employees that are member of a
trade union defined by the ratio of union
members divided by the total number of
employees (OECD 2019a). For evaluation
purposes the indicators world maximum and
world minimum were identified as reference
values. Due to variations of available data for
each year, reference values where collected
from 2015-2016 (ibid.). The indicator
assessment where performed by
establishment of assessment intervals
between the identified world maximum
(91.6%), world minimum (4.5%) (OECD
2019a) and mean (48.05%), using quartile
calculation.
Collective bargaining coverage
The indicator corresponds to the ratio of
employees covered by collective agreements
divided by all wage earners with the right to
bargaining, expressed as a percentage of
employees with the right to bargaining
(OECD 2019b). As for the trade union
indicator, world maximum and world
minimum were identified as reference values.
The reference values where collected from
2016 and assessment intervals where
established through calculating the quartiles
using world maximum (98%), world
minimum (7%) (OECD 2019b) and the mean
(52.5%) between the values.
Workers’ Rights
The International Trade Union Confederation
(ITUC), documents governments and
employers violations of collective labour
rights through a Global Rights Index (ITUC
2018). The index rates countries into clusters
from 1 to 5 depending on their compliance
with collective labour rights such as the right
to freedom of association, the right to
collective bargaining and the right to strike. 1
are the best rating, indicating the country
have sporadic violations of rights while
countries within cluster 5 has no guarantee of
rights. The ratings has been translated in the
evaluation of the Worker’s Rights in this
study for consistency purposes. Countries
rated 1 are assessed as “low risk”, rating 2,
repeated violations of rights, are assessed as
“medium risk” and rating 3, regular violation
of rights, are assessed as “high risk”. Further,
counties rated 4, systematic violations of
rights, and 5, no guarantee of rights are
considered as “very high risk” for violations
of Workers’ Rights.
Corroboration of International
Conventions on Child Labour
As for the Freedom of Association and
Collective Bargaining Subcategory, the
Methodological Sheets (UNEP/SETAC 2013)
presents international conventions and
agreements related to Child Labour. The ILO
Conventions are the Minimum Age
Convention (no138) and the Worst Forms of
Child Labour Convention (no182). Along
with the ILO convention is the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of
Children. The evaluation of the indicator will
have the fundamental ILO conventions no
138 and no 182 (ILO 2017h) as well as the
UN Convention as a guideline and countries
that have ratified all the three conventions are
assessed with “Very good performance”. For
78
“Satisfactory performance” two conventions
have to be ratified, for “Inadequate
performance” one is ratified and if none of
the convention have been ratified the country
are assessed with “Bad performance”
Evidence of child labour in the country
The indicator measures the possibility to
encountering child labour in a county and
sector based on the presence of the cases
reported in human rights reports from US
Department of State (2017a; b; c; d; e; 2018
a; b) and through a web search. Assessment
are based on the evidence of child labour
found and laws and regulations ensuring low
possibilities of child labour occurrence. If the
laws are considered strict and there are no
reported cases in the country, the possibilities
of child labour are considered low and the
country are assessed as “low risk”, if there are
no reported cases but child labour in the
specific sector are considered possible due to
weak laws the country are assessed with
“medium risk”. If there are at least one
mention of child labour in the country the
assessment is “high risk” and is any case are
related to the specific sector in which the
organisation operates, the possibilities of
child labour are considered to be at “very
high risk”.
Risk of forced labour
For the risk evaluation of this indicator the
UN Slavery Convention (1926) are
considered a basic requirement. If only the
UN Slavery convention have been ratified by
the country it is considered as “high risk”,
and if it has not been ratified, the indicator
are considered to have “very high risk” of
forced labour. To be assessed as a “medium
risk” county, the country have ratified one of
the ILO conventions no 29 (Forced Labour
Convention) or no 105 (Abolition of Forced
Labour Convention). If all three conventions
are ratified, the country are assessed as “low
risk”.
Evidence of forced labour in the country
The indicator measures the possibility of
forced labour exploitation in a county and
sector based on the presence of the cases
reported in human rights reports from US
Department of State (2017a; b; c; 2018a; b)
and through a web search. Assessment are
based on the evidence of cases found and
laws and regulations ensuring low
possibilities of forced labour. If the laws are
considered strict and there are no reported
cases in the country, the possibilities of child
labour are considered low and the country are
assessed as “low risk”, if there are no
reported cases but forced in the specific
sector are considered possible due to weak
laws the country are assessed with “medium
risk”. If there are at least one mentioned case
of forced labour in the country the assessment
is “high risk” and is any case are related to
the specific sector in which the organisation
operates, the possibilities of forced labour are
considered to be at “very high risk”.
Living wage and minimum wage
The assessment is a comparison between the
country minimum wage and living wage. The
minimum wage is the legally lowest salary
while a living wage is the minimum income
necessary for a worker to meet basic needs. If
evidence indicate the minimum wage are
above the living wage of a typical family the
country are assessed with “good
performance”, if it equal to living wage it is
assessed with “Satisfactory performance” and
it the minimum wage are below the living
wage of a typical family but above the living
wage of a single adult, it is assessed with
“inadequate performance”. If the minimum
wage are below the living wage of a single
adult the country it is assessed with “bad
performance”.
Working poverty
The poverty rate indicates the percentage of
people in employment whose income prose a
risk of poverty (EUROSTAT 2019a).
Evaluating the risk of poverty rates among
the working-age (18-65 years) population is
assumed to reflect income distribution in the
countries, where high values indicates a need
of improvement. To establish the assessment
intervals, the values among 36 European
countries during 2016-2018 (ibid.) where
used to identify the quartile points for risk
evaluation.
Excessive hours of work
Work exceeding 48 hours per week are
considered excessive working time.
Therefore, the share of employees working
more than 48 hours per week are considered
in this indicator. To evaluate the risk of
excessive working hours in the country a
world max and world minimum where
79
identified in order to establish assessment
intervals. The identified world max and world
minimum are 58.8% and 0.8% from 2017
(ILOSTAT 2019a) resulting in the
assessment scale ranging from below 10% for
“low risk” to above 50% for “very high risk”.
Working time conditions
The indicator describes information with
regards to working conditions and rights of
workers in the country and/or sector. The
assessment are of qualitative characteristics
where performance evaluation are based on
working conditions, by law, in terms of
overtime restrictions, overtime pay, rest days,
rest between workdays and holidays. The
more beneficial requirements that are
fulfilled, the better performance assessment.
Female participation in labour force
The indicator illustrates the ratio of women to
men aged 15-64 holding paid employment
jobs (WEF 2018a). Four assessment intervals
where established based on the minimum
value “0” and maximum value of “1” where 1
indicates the women participation in labour
force are the same as men.
Economic participation and opportunity
The Global Gender Gap Index (WEF 2018b)
reports the gender gap performance in the
aspect of Economic participation and
opportunity among 149 countries. The
indicator includes labour force participation;
wage equality for similar work; estimated
earned income (PPP); legislators, senior
officials and managers; and professional and
technical workers. Each country are assigned
with a score representing the performance on
closing the gender gap, ranging from 1
(gender parity) to 0 (imparity) (WEF 2018b).
The rankings of the countries performance set
out in the Global Gender Gap Index (ibid.)
are used in the evaluation of the indicator
where countries in the top quarter of the total
countries are assessed to be “good
performers”. ”. When the country rank are
less than the quarter of the total countries
included in the ranking the indicators are
considered as “satisfactory-”, “Inadequate-”
or “bad performance” if they rank in the
second, third or last quarter.
Occupational health and safety
For the Occupational health and Safety
indicator, the UL Safety Index (n.a) have
been used. The indicator addresses the extent
to which a country have implemented
necessary mechanisms to ensure proper
protection of its workforce (ibid). For
establishment of the evaluation intervals, the
minimum value “0”, maximum value “100”
and average safety score “60” (ibid.) where
used for quartile calculation. Higher numbers
indicates better indicator performance.
Social expenditure
The indicator defines a country’s spending
with social purposes provided by the general
government. The measure unit is public social
expenditures of the country’s GDP and
assumptions are made that higher values of
social expenditures are indicating a better
country performance. The assessment are
performed by identifying world max, world
minimum and world average values. From the
reference values, the quartiles where
calculated to establish the assessment levels
for the indicator evaluation. Due to lack of
available data, the reference values were
collected from 2016-2018. The identified
values are, maximum 31.2%, minimum 7.5%
and average 20% (OECD 2019c) which
through a quartile calculation established the
assessment intervals.
Employment insecurity
The indicator measures the employment
insecurity by evaluating hiring and firing
practices in a country. The Global
Competiveness Index (WEF 2018a) value the
firing and hiring practices depending to what
extent regulations allow for flexible hiring
and firing of workers on a scale from 1-7
where 1 indicates no flexibility and 7 a great
extent of flexibility (ibid). For evaluation of
the indicator in this study, flexibility of hiring
and firing practices are interpreted as a threat
to employment security. Evaluation scale
where established through quartile calculation
using the highest, lowest and median value in
the 1-7 range where high values are assessed
as bad performance in employment security.
Water stress
The level of water stress defines the fresh
water withdrawal as a proportion of available
freshwater resources, were high water stress
levels are associated to hinder sustainability
of natural resources and socio-economic
development by inefficient water-use (FAO
2017). High water stress levels may be an
80
effect of irresponsible industrial use. The
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
(2017), aggregates water stress levels into
four intervals with 25% as a threshold, which
is used for the evaluation of the country
performance for the indicator.
Improved sanitation facilities
To ensure access to safe sanitation facilities
are part of the sixth SDG goal. Indicator data
are collected and monitored by
WHO/UNICEF (n.a) Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and
Hygiene (JMP) to compare sanitation services
across countries. Different levels of sanitation
services are defined by a sanitation ladder.
Improved facilities, designed to separate
excreta from human contact, are considered
are considered as a basic service while
services where excreta are safely disposed are
considered as Safely Managed, Limited
services refers to improved facilities that are
shared between households while
Unimproved- and Open defecation services
are at the bottom of the ladder
(WHO/UNICEF n.a). Access to safely
managed facilities are used as a basic
requirement in the indicator evaluation. To be
assessed as “very good performance” more
than 80% of the population must have access
to safely managed facilities, while for
“Satisfactory performance” the coverage
must be between 80-60%, “Inadequate
performance” 60-40%. If less than 40%
percentage of the population have access to
safely improved facilities, the country are
assessed as “bad performers” on the indicator.
Property Rights
Data for property rights defines to what
extent property rights, including financial
assets are protected in a country (WEF
2018a). The Global Competitiveness Report
(ibid.) has valued and ranked 140 countries
depending on the extent of protection. The
values are on the scale 1-7 where 1 indicates
a non-existence of property rights protection
while 7 indicated property rights are
protected to a great extent. To evaluate the
country performance in this study, scale are
divided into four assessment intervals by
identifying the quartiles.
Freedom of the press
Protection of press freedom and ensure access
to information are crucial for sustainable
development (UNESCO 2016). Reporters
without Borders (RSF) (2018b) have
measured the degree of freedom in 180
countries scaling from 0 (good) to 100 (very
bad). The indicator measures the degree to
which opinions are represented in a country;
media independence; legislative framework;
transparency; infrastructure and abuses and
analysis the operating environment of news
and information providers (ibid.). The
countries are scored and categorized
according to the situation of the country as
follows: good situation (score 0-15) –
satisfactory situation (score 15.01-25) –
problematic situation (score 25.01-35) –
difficult situation (score 35.01-55)– very
serious situation (score 55.01-100). The
categorization are used for the indicator
assessment by translating the level
distribution into the assessment intervals of
this study, where the difficult situation and
very serious situation are incorporated into
the one interval for “bad performance”.
FDI and technology transfer
Technology transfer refers to national and
international cooperation’s with regard to
hardware, software and knowledge which are
important for climate change stabilisation and
socio-economic development worldwide
(United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs 2008). The indicator measures
the extent of foreign direct investment (FDI)
bring new technology into the country on a
scale 1-7 where 1 indicates a no extent of FDI
and 7 a great extent (WEF 2017). The scale
of distribution where divided into four
assessment intervals for evaluation purposes
of this study.
Migration rate
The net migration rate is the difference value
between the number of persons immigrating
and emigrating to and from a country (CIA
2016a). For the evaluation of the indicator it
is assumed that negative net migration rates,
when more number of persons leaving the
country exceeds the immigration, indicates
lack of opportunities for the local community
for a safe and healthy life. The assessment
intervals were established using the world
maximum (16.5), world minimum (-26.70)
migration per 1000 population (CIA 2016a)
and “0” for stable migration to calculate the
quartiles used in the determination of the
assessment levels for evaluating the indicator.
81
Human rights The indicator refers to the expression by the
country of its consent to be bound by
international human rights treaties through
ratification, accession or succession. It covers
18 treaties including: the International
Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights (1966) and its Optional protocol
(2008); the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1965); International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
and the first Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (1966); the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (1979); the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984);
the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(1989); the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death
penalty (1989); the International Convention
on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of Their Families
(1990); the Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women (1999); the
Optional Protocols to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child on the involvement of
children in armed conflict (2000), and on the
sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography (2000;) the Optional Protocol to
the Convention against Torture (2002); the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (2006) and its Optional Protocol
(2006); the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance (2006); and the Optional
Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child on a communications procedure in
(2011) (United Nations Human Rights Office
of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) n.aa).
The assessment are based on a mapping of
ratifications status by country made by UN
Human Rights Office of the High
Commissioner (OHCHR n.ab), which are
updated every sixth month. The status of
ratifications are divided into of intervals of
15-18; 10-14; 5-9; and 0-4 number of
ratifications in each country (ibid.), which are
incorporated into the assessment intervals of
this study where 15-18 indicates good
performance; 10-14 satisfactory performance;
5-9 inadequate performance; and 0-4 bad
performance.
Evidence of racial discrimination
The assessment of the indicator are based on
qualitative information. The information
consists of evidence of racial discrimination
towards minority groups and indigenous
peoples and are mainly found in sources such
as the Minority Rights Group International
(2009; 2018a; b; c), Human Rights reports
from US Department of State (2017a; b; c; d;
e; 2018a; b) and Amnesty International
(2018). If there are no evidence in of any
racial discrimination towards minority or
indigenous groups, the country are assessed
as “satisfactory performance” for the
indicator. If there are evidence of racial
discrimination from the public towards the
social groups, the country are assessed as
“inadequate” while countries where
discrimination are exposed by government
the performance are evaluated as “very bad”.
The assessment level of “very good
performance” are left out of this indicator
since the information are not considered to be
sufficient enough to make such statement.
Burden of disease
The burden of disease are measured using
disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) across
the country’s population. It is suggested to
give a more complete picture of the burden of
disease borne by different communities,
taking into account both the years of life due
to early death (YLL) and years lost due to
disability (YLD) (WHO n.aa). Data used are
percentage of total DALYs that are
attributable to the environment, representing
burden of disease that could have been
avoided by improving the environment
(WHO n.ab) In the assessment, countries with
high values are considered to indicate poor
performance in ensuring safe and healthy
living conditions for the local community.
The identified world maximum, minimum
and median 31%, 9% and 17% (WHO 2016)
where used to calculate the quartiles in order
to determine the assessment intervals.
Pollution levels
Particulate matter (PM) is an air pollutant of
solid and liquid particles (WHO 2013). In this
study, concentration of fine particles PM2.5
be used as measure for assessing the pollution
levels. PM2.5 refers to particles of less than
82
2.5µm in diameter (WHO 2013) that pose the
greatest risks to human health (Climate &
Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) 2018). The unit
used are the mean population exposure to
PM2.5 in a year and the evaluation were
based on the air quality guidelines and
interim targets provided by the World Health
Organization (WHO 2006) The Air Quality
Guideline (AQG) are not to exceed an annual
mean PM2.5 concentration of 10 µg/m3, a
level which are expected to significantly
reduce health risks (ibid.). Further interim
targets are 15 µg/m3, 25 µg/m3, 35 µg/m3
associated with health benefits and are
considered as achievable. For assessing the
indicator and the countries performance of
reducing pollution levels, the targets levels
and AQG are used as reference values where
countries with mean population exposure less
than AQG are assessed as “Good performers”
and countries exceeding 35 µg/m3 are
considered as “bad performers” in need of
improvements. For organisations where
region are known, the assessment are based
on regional data at macro level.
Safety and Security
The Global Peace Index (Institute for
Economics & Peace (IEP) 2018) measures
the absence of violence or fear of violence
across the globe through a safety and security
domain. The domain evaluates the level of
harmony or discord within a country by
assessing ten indicators that can be equated
with peacefulness, such as homicide,
incarceration, terrorism and internally
displaced people (ibid.). The evaluated
countries are scored on a scale 1-5 where a
lower score indicates a higher level of
peacefulness, on which the assessment of this
study is based upon. Assessment intervals
were established through calculating the
quartiles between 1 and 5.
Strength of public security
This indicator evaluates the extent police
services can be relied upon to enforce law
and order (WEF 2018a). It is based on the
results from the Global Competiveness
Report (ibid.) where countries are measured
by the extent of reliability on a scale from 1-7
where 7 indicates a high extent of reliability
of police service. For evaluation purposes,
the scale of distribution are divided into
assessment intervals by calculating the
quartiles. High values indicates better country
performance on the indicator.
Unemployment
The indicator evaluates the country
performance on employment by comparing
the percentage of the labour force that are
unemployed. The assessment were performed
by identifying the latest available values for
world maximum (50%), world minimum
(0.3%) and world median (6.3%)
unemployment rates among 149 countries
during the years 2015-2017 (CIA 2016b) to
determine assessment levels through quartile
calculation. Low levels of unemployment are
interpreted as good performance.
Local suppliers
Supporting local suppliers enhances the local
employment. This indicator evaluates the
quantity of local suppliers in a country, and
assumptions that a high value indicates
enhancement of local employment are made.
Used for the assessment is the Global
Competiveness Report (WEF 2017), where
137 countries are assigned a value from 1-7
depending on the existence of local suppliers.
The assessment levels for this study are
determined by dividing the distribution scale
1-7 into four quarters where 1 indicates a low
quantity of local suppliers and 7 indicates a
great extent of local suppliers.
Transparency of government policy
making
The indicator evaluates the transparency of
government policy making by measuring the
easiness to obtain information about changes
in government policies and regulations
affecting the community (WEF 2017). Low
units of measures defines difficulties in
access to information and it is assumed it
suffocates the possibilities for community
engagement. The assessment is based on the
Global Competiveness Report (WEF 2017),
where 137 countries are assigned a value
between 1 and 7 depending on the access to
governmental information. The 1-7 scale are
divided into four assessment levels for this
study, where 1 indicates extreme difficulties
in obtaining information from the
government while 7 indicates it is extremely
easy. High values are interpreted as positive
performance of the indicator.
83
Public trust in politicians
As for the previous indicator, public trust in
politicians are assumed to reflect the
encouragement of community engagement,
by rating the ethical standards of politicians
in the country (WEF 2017). For the
assessment, global country values on the
indicator from the Global Competiveness
Report (WEF 2017) are used to establish
assessment intervals for evaluation of the
country performance. Countries are valued on
a scale from 1 to 7 depending on their
performance on the indicator where high
values indicates higher trust in politicians.
The distribution scale are divided into four
assessment intervals for evaluation purposes
of this study.
Existence of (legal) obligation on public
sustainability reporting
The indicator measures the countries take on
sustainability reporting and non-financial
statement disclosure. Countries without and
legal obligation of non-financial reporting
towards business and organisations are
assessed with “bad performance” on the
indicator. Through the EU Directive
2014/95/EU of 22 October 2014 amending
Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure
of non-financial and diversity information by
certain large undertakings and groups, large
public interest companies with more than 500
employees within the member states, are
required report non-financial statements from
2018 onwards. It requires companies to report
on actions and policies related to the
protection of the environment, respects of
human rights, anti-corruption and bribery and
information about diversity on company
boards. The Directive allows for state specific
requirements for implementation in national
laws and regulations upon which the
assessment of this study are based upon. If
information found indicating or state that a
member country have omitted any
requirements in the Directive, the country are
assessed with “inadequate performance”, if
the requirements are successfully
implemented in national law the country are
assessed with “satisfactory performance” and
if the country also have implemented
additional or extended requirements it is
assessed with “good performance”, due to
proactive behaviour.
Ongoing conflicts
The Global Peace Index are mapping the
peacefulness across the domain Ongoing
Conflicts by analysing countries’ internal and
external armed conflicts, deaths from armed
conflicts, political instability and relations
with neighbouring countries (IEP 2018). The
evaluated countries are scored on a scale 1-5
where a lower score indicates a higher level
of peacefulness and absence of ongoing
domestic and international conflicts. The
scale were used to calculate the quartiles
contributing the assessment intervals, used
for performance evaluation.
Economic situation of the country
To evaluate the economic situation of the
countries, the economic freedom are used as a
measurement assuming it reflects the state of
the society. Economic freedom are based on
factors related to rule of law, government size
and scope, regulatory efficiency and the
openness of markets (The Heritage
Foundation 2019) . High levels of economic
freedom are suggested to bring greater
prosperity, and a positive relation to GDP per
capita (ibid.). Economic Freedom Index (The
Heritage Foundation 2019) have ranked 180
countries by their levels of economic freedom
on a scale from 100-0, and established
scoring clusters as assessment intervals: free
(100-80), mostly free (79,9-70), moderately
free (69.9-60), mostly unfree (59,9-50) and
repressed (49,9-0). The intervals are used in
the assessment of this study by incorporate
mostly unfree and repressed into the same
assessment interval translated as “bad
performance”.
Risk of corruption
Failure in controlling corruption may
contribute to crisis in democracy
(Transparency International 2018a). For
evaluation of the indicator, the 2018
Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) are used,
which capture perceptions of corruption from
different data sources and institutions in the
public sector, including available mechanism
of corruption prevention in a country
(Transparency International 2018b). The
index score and rank 180 countries based on
the level of corruption perceptions on a scale
from 0-100 where 0 equals a highly corrupt
country and 100 indicates a very clean
country with the lowest levels of perceived
corruption. The indicator assessment are
84
based on the scores and assessment intervals
where determined by calculating the quartiles
between 0-100.
Company spending in Research and
Development (R&D)
The indicator measures the extent to which
companies in the country invest in research
and development (WEF 2017). Investments
in research and development may foster
sustainable solutions. The indicator are
assessed based on the Global Competiveness
Report (ibid.) were countries are valued on a
scale from 1-7 were 1 indicates that
companies do not invest at all while 7
indicates heavy investments in R&D. The
distribution of scale are divided into four
assessment intervals used for indicator
evaluation in this study, where low values
indicates negative indicator performance.
Collaborations in R&D
The indicator measures the extent business
and universities collaborate in research and
development (WEF 2017). Engaging in
partnerships are of social concern and
opportunity to obtain different knowledge for
a faster contribution of technology
development (UNEP/SETAC 2009). The
countries are assigned values on a 1-7 scale
based on the extent of collaboration, were 1
indicates no collaborations and 7 extensive
collaborations (WEF 2017). Assessment
levels are established by identification of the
quartiles between 1 and 7.
Anti-monopoly
The basis of a sound economy is fair
competition (UNEP/SETAC 2009). The
indicator measures the effectiveness of anti-
monopoly policy evaluate the proactivity of a
country’s legislation to ensure competitive
activities are conducted in a fair way. The
countries are valued from 1-7 based on data
from the Global Competiveness Report (WEF
2017), where 1 equals that the anti-monopoly
policies has no effect and 7 indicates the
policies are extremely effective. The value
scale are divided into four assessment
intervals from evaluation of the indicator of
this study where high value indicates positive
performance.
Intellectual property protection
Intellectual property refers to creations of the
mind protected by law by, for example
patents and copyright (World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) n.a) The
indicator expresses the extent of which
intellectual property are protected in a
country (WEF 2018a). The assessment are
proceeded using the values assigned to 140
countries in the Global Competitiveness
Report (WEF 2018a). The scale of values
ranging from 1-7 where 1 equals non
protection of intellectual property and 7 that
intellectual property are protected to a great
extent in the county. For evaluation purposes
of the indicator in this study, the scale of
distribution are divided into four assessment
intervals where high values are interpreted as
positive performance.
85
Appendix C – SAM evaluation table
Assessment levels of the Subcategory Assessment Method
The tables outlines the method scale for the five stakeholder groups: Workers; Local Community;
Society; Consumer; and Value Chain Actors, adopted from Ramirez et al. (2014). Some adjustment
have been made due to data quality. Some sources had expired and some included limited data. In
some cases, the indicator measurement scale has changed. Modifications are expressed in the
assessment table as new indicators with description in footnote.
Table 15. Assessment table SAM (Ramirez et al. 2014) with minor modificatons
Subcategories
Workers
Basic requirement Basic Requirements not fulfilled
Level B Level C Level D
Freedom of
association and collective
bargaining
In the organization there is
evidence of workers belonging to a workers’ union, based on the ILO
Convention No.87
There is no evidence of workers
belonging to a workers’ union and NEW: Rated 3-5 in the
Global Rights Index (ITUC
2018)6
There is no evidence of
workers belonging to a workers’ union and NEW:
Rated 1-2 in the Global
Rights Index (ITUC 2018)
Child Labour There is a policy to avoid child labour and no evidence of child
labour. (For developed countries
Minimum Age for Admission to Employment is 15. For
Developing and least developed
countries, the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment is 14)
There is no policy related to child labour as defined by ILO
Convention No. 138 in a context
where child labour is a common practice, but does not qualify as
the “worst forms of child labour”
ILO Convention 182 or the child attends school
D - There is no policy related to child labour as
defined by ILO Convention
No. 138 in a context where child labour is a common
practice and conforms to
the “worst forms of child labour” as defined by ILO
Convention No. 182 or the
child does not attend school
Working hours Average weekly hours worked do not exceed eight in the day and
forty-eight in the week ILO
Convention No. 1 and ILO Convention No. 30
The average weekly hours worked exceed forty-eight (48)
but are less than the average
weekly hours worked in the sector/country
The average weekly hours worked exceed forty-eight
(48) and exceed the average
weekly hours worked in the sector/country
Forced labour The organization has a policy
against forced labour, in
compliance with ILO Conventions No.29 and No.105 or there is no
use of forced labour
There is evidence in the
organization of the use of forced
labour as well as in the country where the organization is located
There is evidence in the
organization of the use of
forced labour but there is no evidence of forced labour in
the country where the organization is located
6 According to Ramirez et al (2014) assessment of organisations not fulfilling the basic requirement are distinguished based on the Workers’
rights score used by the human rights data project CIRI. However, the data hasn’t been updated since 2012. Instead, for in this study, the
Global Rights Index (ITUC 2018) are used to difference between a level C or D assessment. The index ranks countries into clusters from 1-5,
with the highest rank representing the worst violations of workers’ rights. In following the method presented in Ramirez et al (2014), the
countries where divided into two levels according to the rating in the Global Rights Index: those in the 1-2 cluster and those in the 3-5
cluster. The organisations that does not meet the basic requirement and operated in a country ranked in the 1-2 cluster is assessed at level D,
otherwise it is assessed at level C.
86
Equal opportunities/
discrimination
The organization has a management system, policy or
actions to prevent discrimination
and promotes equal opportunities for workers, according to ILO
Conventions No.100, No. 111 and
No. 169
NEW: There is evidence in the organization of discrimination
and the country where the
organization is located has a gender gap value in economic
participation and opportunity
between 0-0.49 (WEF 2018b)7
NEW: There is evidence in the organization of
discrimination and the
country where the organization is located has
a gender gap value in
economic participation and opportunity 0.5-1 (WEF
2018b)
Health and
Safety
The organization has a policy/
guidelines or programme related to
health and safety, in compliance with ILO Conventions No.115 and
No. 161
Occupational accidents of the
organization (rates of injuries
and occupational injuries - , in compliance with ILO
Conventions No.115 and No.
161) are lower than the occupational accidents of the
country/sector (rates of injuries
and occupational fatal injuries) where the organization is located
Occupational accidents of
the organization (rates of
injuries and occupational fatal injuries) are equal to or
higher than the
Occupational accidents of the country/sector (rates of
injuries and occupational
fatal injuries) where the organization is located
Fair Salary The lowest salary is equal to or
higher than the minimum wage in
the sector/country where the organization is located
When the LWppp(cf)8 is higher
than or equal to the GDPppp(cf)9
When the LWppp(cf) is
lower than the GDPppp(cf)
Social benefits/
social security
The BR is that the organization
provides more than two of the
following benefits: Social Security benefits,
Retirement, Disability,
Dependents, Survivors benefits, Paid maternity and paternity leave
(parental leave), Paid sick leave,
Education and training, for all countries and additionally,
Medical insurance, Dental
insurance, Paramedical insurance, including preventive medicine,
Medication insurance, Wage
insurance
The organization provides at
least 2 social benefits/social
security basic requirement
The organization does not
provide any social
benefits/social security basic requirement
Subcategories
Society
Basic requirement Basic Requirements not fulfilled
Level B Level C Level D
Public
commitments to
sustainability
issues
There is evidence of commitments
or agreements related to
sustainability, which are
disseminated through the
organization's website,
promotional materials or other
means
There is no record of proven
cases that the organization has
violated its commitments to
sustainability within the last
three years
There is a record of proven
cases that the organization
has violated its
commitments to
sustainability within the
last three years
Economic
development
The organization provides a
contribution to the economy,
which is disseminated through the
organization's website,
promotional materials or other
means
There is no record of proven
cases that the organization has
damaged years or restrained the
economic development of the
region within the last three years
There is a record of proven
cases that the organization
has damaged or restrained
the economic development
of the region within the last
three years
7 Since the proposed Gender Equity Index (GEI) proposed by Ramirez et al (2014) are no longer available, the indicator “Economic
participation and opportunity” from Global Gender Gap Index (WEF 2018b) were used to difference between a C or D level assessment. The
index ranges from 0-1 where 1 indicate the country are gender party. Translating the new index into the proposed methodology, an
organisation not fulfilling the basic requirement and operating in a country valued between 0-0.49 in the index are assessed at level C while
organisations in counties valued between 0.5 and 1 are assessed at level D.
8 LWppp(cf) =living wage*average currency exchange*purchasing power parity conversation factor 9 GDPppp(cf)=(Gross Domestic Product* purchasing power
87
Prevention and
mitigation of
armed conflicts
There is evidence of related to the
prevention and mitigation of
armed conflicts, which is
disseminated through the
organization's website,
promotional materials or other
means
There is no record of proven
cases that the organization
provokes or assists armed
conflicts in any region of the
planet within the last three years
There is a record of proven
cases that the organization
has provoked or assisted
armed conflicts in any
region of the planet within
the last three years
Technology
development
The organization participates in
joint research and development for
efficient and environmentally
sound technologies, which is
disseminated through the
organization's website,
promotional materials or other
means
The county or sector where the
organization is located has a low
investment (percentage ranges
from 0 to 2.35%) in research and
development expenditure
(UNDP 2017b)
The county or sector where
the organization is located
has a high investment
(percentage ranges from
2.35 and 4.75%) in research
and development
expenditure (UNDP 2017b)
Corruption The organization has implemented
measures to prevent corruption,
which are disseminated through
the organization's website,
promotional materials or other
means
NEW: The CPI score of the
country is between 0 and 50
(Transparency International
2018a)10
NEW: The CPI score of the
country is between 51 and
100 (Transparency
International 2018a) or
there is a record that the
organization was involved
in litigation related to
corruption, within the last
three years
Subcategories
Local
Community
Basic requirement Basic Requirements not fulfilled
Level B Level C Level D
Access to material
resources
There are internal management
systems that ensure the sustainable
use of natural resources, the
prevention of pollution and the
recycling of wastes
The Human Development
Index HDI (UNDP 2017a) of
the country where is located
the organization is between 0
and 0.5
The HDI (UNDP 2017a) of
the country where the
organization is located
between 0.51 and 1
Access to
immaterial
resources
There are internal management
systems that promote: 1)
community services, such as health
care, education and lending
programs; and/or 2) sharing
information and knowledge and
transferring technology and skills
to the community
The technological readiness
score (WEF 2017) of the
country where the
organization is located is
between 1 and 3.5, and
(NEW:) the freedom of the
press score (RSF 2018a) of the
country is between 50.1-100 11
The technological readiness
score (WEF 2017) of the
country the organization is
located is between 3.6 and 7
and (NEW:) the freedom of
the press score (RSF 2018a)
of the country is between 0-
50
Delocalization and
migration
There is an internal management
system that prevents involuntary
resettlement (where involuntary
resettlement exists) or where there
is no evidence of resettlement
caused by the organization
The organization is located in
a region with a net migration
rate from negative to ZERO
(NEW: (CIA 2016a))
The organization is located
in a region with a positive
net migration rate (NEW:
(CIA 2016a))
Cultural heritage Evidence that the organization
contributes to the preservation of
cultural heritage through
contributions with cultural and
artistic organizations, network or
internal programs
The country where the
organization operates has no
cultural heritage site in danger
(UNESCO 2019)
The country where the
organization operates does
have cultural heritage site
in danger (UNESCO 2019)
10 The corruption index does now range from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean) after which the assessment levels have been adjusted
(Transparency International 2018)
11 Requires country scores on technological readiness available from the Global Competiveness Report (WEF 2017) and Freedom of
expression suggested to be collected from Bertelsmann Stifung’s Transformation Index- However, the last index cover a limited number of
countries. Therefore, the scores from Reporters without Borders (RSF 2018a) on freedom of the press are used to difference between a C and
D level assessment. Translated into the assessment method (Ramirez et al 2014), countries with freedom of the press score 0-50 are assessed
at level D and countries scoring 50.1-100 are assessed at level D.
88
Safety and healthy
living conditions
The organization contributes to the
health of local communities
through environmental risk
management systems or
participation with local
organizations in communicating
the potential health and safety
impacts of their operations on
surrounding communities (UNEP
and SETAC 2010).
The organization is located in
a country with a "Age-
standardized DALYs” (WHO
2016) that is higher than 20
000.
The organization is located
in a country with a "Age-
standardized DALYs”
(WHO 2016) that is equal
to or less than 20 000.
Respect of
indigenous rights
The organization has an
indigenous rights policy or a
commitment to adopt free prior
informed consultation in their
operations when its operations
involve indigenous lands, or where
there is no evidence of disputes
over indigenous land between the
local community and the
organisation
There is no indigenous rights
policy and there are no cases
in the country of
discrimination against
indigenous community
members within the last three
years
There is no indigenous
rights policy and there are
cases in the country of
discrimination against
indigenous community
members within the last
three years
Community
engagement
There is evidence that community
environment, health or welfare are
of importance to the organization
There is no record of proven
cases that community groups/
members were affected by the
actions or products of the
organization within the last
three years
There is a record of proven
cases that community
groups/ members were
affected by the actions or
products of the
organization within the last
three years
Local employment There is evidence of equal
employment opportunities for
local workers
The organization is located in
a country with an employment
to population ratio (ILOSTAT
2018) lower than 50
The organization is located
in a country with an
employment to population
ratio (ILOSTAT 2018)
equal or higher than 50
Secure living
conditions
There is no evidence of conflicts
with the local community
or/organizational actions that may
put at risk their secure living
conditions
NEW: The organization is
located in a country with a
safety and security score (IEP
2018) higher than 2.512
NEW: The organization is
located in a country with a
safety and security score
(IEP 2018) between 1-2.5
Subcategories
Consumer
Basic requirement Basic Requirements not fulfilled
Level B Level C Level D
Consumer privacy The organization has a privacy
policy through which it protects
the consumer’s right to privacy as
defined by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
N/A13 N/A
Health and safety The organization has a procedure
regarding consumer product health
and safety standards
The organization has no
proven cases that violate
consumer health and safety
within the last 3 years
The organization has a
record of proven cases that
violate consumer health and
safety within the last 3
years
12 Since the indicator proposed to difference the C and D level assessment could not be found, the safety and security domain used in the
Global Peace Index (IEP 2018) will be used instead. The index scores countries based on the level of perceived peacefulness on a scale from
1-5 where 1 indicates high levels of peacefulness. Translated into the SAM assessment methodology, countries scored 1-2.5 are assessed at
level D while countries with higher scores are assessed with level C.
13 Suggested data source are no longer available. Due to difficulties in finding a suitable indicator to use as a proxy, further assessment of the
subcategory will not be possible, thus organisations that does not fulfil the basic requirement will not be assessed.
89
Feedback
mechanism
The organization has a customer
feedback mechanism and practices
related to customer satisfaction
The organization has no
record of consumers’
complaints regarding the lack
of a feedback mechanism
The organization has a
record of consumers’
complaints regarding the
lack of a feedback
mechanism
Transparency The organization has a report that
communicates its social
responsibility. For example:
Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR), Social Balance Report,
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI),
Accountability 1000,Social
Accountability 8000, ISO 26000 or
any other document internationally
recognized
The organization has ways of
showing their consumer new
technologies, good practices
and management conduct. For
example: through events or
web site information
The organization has no
initiative on this topic
End- of- life
responsibility
There are internal management
systems that provided clear
information to consumers on end-
of-life options such as: Product
Responsibility Performance
Indicators, PR4 (GRI 2006) or take
back policy or Design For
Disassembly, Design For
Recycling
There is a possibility of a
recycling process at the end of
life of the product
There is no possibility of a
recycling process at the end
of life of the product
Subcategories
Value Chain
Actors
Basic requirement Basic Requirements not fulfilled
Level B Level C Level D
Fair competition There is evidence that the
organization competes fairly and
in compliance with anti-trust
legislation, or monopoly practices
There is no record of proven
cases that the organization has
engaged in anti-competitive
behaviour, or has not
complied with anti-trust
legislation, or monopoly
practices within the last three
years
There is a record of proven
cases that the organization
has engaged in anti-
competitive behaviour and
has not complied with anti-
trust legislation, or
monopoly practices within
the last three years
Supplier
relationships
The organization has a code of
conduct with defined standards of
ethical behaviour expected from its
N/A14 N/A
14 For assessing C and D levels, the method requires the organisations to perform a “supplier satisfaction survey”, and are not included in the
frame of this study.
90
suppliers and communicates it to
them
Respect of
intellectual property
rights
The organization has evidence of
respect for intellectual property
There is no record of proven
cases that the organization has
violated intellectual property
rights within the last three
years
There is a record of proven
cases that the organization
has violated intellectual
property rights within the
last three years
91
Appendix D – Inventory generic data
Inventory generic country-level data
Table 16. Generic inventory data, stakeholder group Worker
Subcategory Indicators Cotton cultivation,
California, United
States
Fabric
manufacturing,
Italy
Thread
production,
Romania
Thread
production,
Hungary
Button manufacturing/
Assembling, Portugal
Distribution,
Sweden
Freedom of
association an
collective
bargaining
Corroboratio
n of
International
Conventions
United States has
not ratified any ILO
conventions related
to the indicator (ILO
2017a)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention no.
87 Freedom and
Association and
protection
ILO Convention no.
98 Rights to
Organize and
collective
bargaining
ILO Convention no.
135 Worker´s
Representative
Convention (ILO
2017b)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention
no. 87 Freedom
and Association
and protection
ILO Convention
no. 98 Rights to
Organize and
collective
bargaining
ILO Convention
no. 135 Worker´s
Representative
Convention
ILO Convention
no. 154 Collective
Bargaining
Convention (ILO
2017c)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention no.
87 Freedom and
Association and
protection
ILO Convention no.
98 Rights to
Organize and
collective
bargaining
Rights to Organize
and collective
bargaining
ILO Convention no.
135 Worker´s
Representative
Convention
ILO Convention no.
154 Collective
Bargaining
Convention (ILO
2017d)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention no. 87
Freedom and Association
and protection
ILO Convention no. 98
Rights to Organize and
collective bargaining
ILO Convention no. 135
Worker´s Representative
Convention (ILO 2017e)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention
no. 87 Freedom
and Association
and protection
ILO Convention
no. 98 Rights to
Organize and
collective
bargaining
Rights to Organize
and collective
bargaining
ILO Convention
no. 135 Worker´s
Representative
Convention
ILO Convention
no. 154 Collective
Bargaining
Convention (ILO
2017f)
Trade Union
density
Trade union density
2015: 10.3%
(OECD 2019a).
Trade union density
2016: 34.4%
(OECD 2019a).
The rate in 2013
was 25.2%
(ILOSTAT
2019b).
Trade union density
2016: 8.5% (OECD
2019a).
Trade union density 2015:
16.1% (OECD 2019a).
Trade union
density 2015:
66.8% (OECD
2019a).
Collective
bargaining
coverage
Collective
bargaining coverage
Collective
bargaining coverage
N/A
Collective
bargaining coverage
Collective bargaining
coverage 2015: 72.3%
(OECD 2019b)
Collective
bargaining
coverage 2015:
92
2015: 15% (OECD
2019b)
2015: 80% (OECD
2019b)
2014: 22.8%
(OECD 2019b)
90% (OECD
2019b)
Worker’
Rights
Rating 4 –
systematic
violations of rights
(ITUC 2018)
Rating 1- Sporadic
violations of rights
(ITUC 2018)
Rating 4 –
systematic
violations of rights
(ITUC 2018)
Rating 3 – Regular
violations of rights
(ITUC 2018)
Rating 2 – Repeated
violations of rights (ITUC
2018)
Rating 1- Sporadic
violations of rights
(ITUC 2018)
Child labour Corroboratio
n of
International
Conventions
Ratifications:
ILO Convention no
182 Worst form of
Child Labour (ILO
2017g)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention no.
138 Minimum Age
Convention
ILO Convention no
182 Worst form of
Child Labour (ILO
2017b)
UN Convention on
the Rights of the
Child (1989)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention
no. 138 Minimum
Age Convention
ILO Convention
no 182 Worst
form of Child
Labour (ILO
2017c)
UN Convention
on the Rights of
the Child (1989)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention no.
138 Minimum Age
Convention
ILO Convention no
182 Worst form of
Child Labour (ILO
2017d)
UN Convention on
the Rights of the
Child (1989)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention no. 138
Minimum Age
Convention
ILO Convention no 182
Worst form of Child
Labour (ILO 2017e)
UN Convention of the
Right of Children
(Convention on the Rights
of the Child 1989)
Ratifications:
ILO Convention
no. 138 Minimum
Age Convention
ILO Convention
no 182 Worst form
of Child Labour
(ILO 2017f)
UN Convention on
the Rights of the
Child (1989)
Evidence of
child labour
in the
country
The Minimum Age
Standards for
Agricultural
Employment
accepts youths from
the age of 16 to
work in any farm.
Youths below 16 are
allowed to perform
jobs that are not
declared as
hazardous, with
some restrictions
(Department of
Labor 2016)
The law prohibits
employment of
children younger
than 16 years.
Several cases of
child labour where
reported during
2016, mainly in the
manufacturing and
service industries
(Department of State
2017a)
The minimum
working age
depends on the
form of
employment, but
16 years are most
common but 18
for employment in
hazardous
conditions.
Children between
15 and 18 are not
allowed to work
more than six
hours a day or 30
hours a week and
their education
should not be
affected. 337 cases
of child labour
were reported in
2016 (Department
of State 2017b)
The law prohibits
employment of
children younger
than 16 years,
except for temporary
work during
vacations from
school as long as it
does not involve
physical hard
labour, overtime or
nightshifts. Eleven
cases involving
youths between 15
and 18 were
reported in 2016
(Department of State
2017c)
The minimum working
age in the country is 16
years.
Child labour occurred in
limited cases during 2017
(Department of State
2017d). No evidence was
found on child labour in
the manufacturing sector
The law permits
full-time
employment from
the age of 16
under the
supervision of
local authorities.
No reported cases
of child labour
(Department of
State 2017e)
93
Forced labour Risk of
forced
labour
Ratifications:
ILO no 105
Abolition of Forced
Labour Convention
(ILO 2017g)
UN Slavery
Convention (1926)
Ratifications:
ILO no 29 Forced
Labour Convention
ILO no 105
Abolition of Forced
Labour Convention
(ILO 2017b)
UN Slavery
Convention (1926)
Ratifications:
ILO no 29 Forced
Labour
Convention
ILO no 105
Abolition of
Forced Labour
Convention (ILO
2017c)
UN Slavery
Convention (1926)
Ratifications:
ILO no 29 Forced
Labour Convention
ILO no 105
Abolition of Forced
Labour Convention
(ILO 2017d)
UN Slavery
Convention (1926)
Ratifications:
ILO no 29 Forced Labour
Convention
ILO no 105 Abolition of
Forced Labour
Convention (ILO 2017e)
UN Slavery Convention
(1926)
Ratifications:
ILO no 29 Forced
Labour
Convention
ILO no 105
Abolition of
Forced Labour
Convention (ILO
2017f)
UN Slavery
Convention (1926)
Evidence of
forced
labour in the
country
Forced labour
occurs in the United
states. Agriculture
are a vulnerable
sector for forced
labour (Global
Slavery Index 2018)
The law of
prohibiting all forms
of forced or
compulsory labour
are effectively
enforced. Forced
labour occurred
during 2017 where
workers were
subjected to debt
bondage
(Department of State
2018a). No cases
related to the
manufacture or
industrial sector
where found
The law prohibits
forced and
compulsory
labour, however,
limited measures
are taken by the
government to
effectively enforce
the law, resulting
in continuous
practices of forced
labour. Men,
women and
children are
victims of forced
labour in the
manufacturing
sector among
others
(Department of
State 2017b)
Forced or
compulsory labour
are prohibited by the
law. However, the
law are not
effectively enforced
and men are victims
for forced labour in
agriculture, factories
and constructions
(Department of State
2017c)
There are cases of forced
labour in the country
(Department of State
2017d). No evidence of
forced labour in the
manufacturing industry
could be found
The law prohibits
all forms of forced
or compulsory
labour. However,
forced labour
involving
trafficked men and
women occurred
during 2017 and
according to police
estimations 5000
persons worked
under slave-like
conditions
(Department of
State 2018b). No
cases related to the
sector of the
organisation where
found
Fair Salary Living wage
and
minimum
wage
Living wage
Single Adult: 1130-
1660$/month
Typical family:
1540-2370$/month
(Wage Indicator
2018d)
Living wage
Single Adult: 650-
935€/month
Typical family:
1040-1440 €/month
(Wage Indicator
2018e)
Living wage
Single Adult: 900-
1300 Leu/month
Typical family:
1530-2160
Leu/month (Wage
Indicator 2018a)
Minimum wage:
Living wage
Single Adult:
99500-146100
Forint/month
Typical Family:
156600-224400
Forint/month (Wage
Indicator 2018b)
Living wage
Single Adult: 510-670
€/month
Typical family: 725-
980€/month (Wage
Indicator 2018c)
Living wage
Single Adult:
8130-12400
SEK/month
Typical family:
11900-17200
SEK/month (Wage
Indicator 2018f)
94
Minimum wage:
1257$/month
(Country economy
2019e)
Minimum wage: No
minimum wage by
law (Wage Indicator
2019)
2080 Lei/month
(Country economy
2019b)
Minimum wage:
149000
Forint/month
(Country economy
2018c)
Minimum wage: 700
€/month (Country
economy 2019d)
Minimum wage:
N/A
Risk of
working
poverty
At risk of poverty:
4.9% of population
in labour force 2016
(Bureau of Labor
(BLS) 2018)
At risk of poverty:
12.3% of employed
population in 2017
(EUROSTAT
2019a)
At risk of poverty:
17.2% of
employed
population in 2017
(EUROSTAT
2019a)
At risk of poverty:
8.5% of employed
population in 2018
(EUROSTAT
2019a)
At risk of poverty: 10.7%
of employed population in
2017 (EUROSTAT
2019a)
At risk of poverty:
6.9% of employed
population in 2017
(EUROSTAT
2019a)
Hours of work Excessive
working
time
Share of employees
working more than
48h/week: 13.5% in
2018 (ILOSTAT
2019a)
Share of employees
working more than
48hours/week: 4.2%
in 2017 (ILOSTAT
2019a)
Share of
employees
working more
than
48hours/week:
2.6% in 2017
(ILOSTAT 2019a)
Share of employees
working more than
48hours/week: 4.1%
in 2017 (ILOSTAT
2019a)
Share of employees
working more than
48hours/week: 7.4% in
2017 (ILOSTAT 2019a)
Share of
employees
working more than
48hours/week:
4.7% in 2017
(ILOSTAT 2019a)
Working
time
conditions
There is no
limitations in
overtime hours for
employees over 16
years. The Fair
Labour Standards
Act (FLSA) require
covered non-exempt
employees to be
monetary
compensated for
hours exceeding a
40 hours workweek.
The act does not
require overtime pay
for work on
Saturdays, Sundays,
holidays or regular
days of rest
(Department of
Labor 2008a).
Farmworkers are
exempted from
Hours worked per
week may not
exceed 48 hours,
including overtime
hours. An employer
may require
additional work but
overtime hours shall
be compensated by
increased hour
salary. Workers are
entitled to a 24
hours rest period
every 7 days and
daily rest must be 11
hours (EURES
2018a)
Full-time working
hours are 8 hours
a day and 40 hours
per week with
exception from
shift work where
the working week
may not exceed 48
hours. Overtime
may neither
exceed 48 hours a
week and should
be compensated
by paid time off or
an appropriate
additional pay not
less than 75% of
the base salary.
Lunch breaks,
daily rest, weekly
rest and public
holidays are rest
periods granted to
Full-time work is
eight hours a day.
Longer working
hours may occur in
special agreements
but may never
exceed 12 hours a
day or 48 hours a
week. In most cases,
Sundays are not
classified as a
working day and a
50% supplement
shall be paid for
Sunday work.
Employees are
entitled two rest
days a week and at
least one Sunday a
month. All
employees must
have at least 11
hours of rest
Normal working hours by
law limited to eight hours
per day or 40 hours per
week. However, the law
allows for special
agreements but where 12
hours per day or 60 hours
per week may never be
exceeded.
Employees are obligated
to work overtime unless
there are justifiable
grounds for dispensation.
Maximum overtime hours
per year are 150 or 175
hours depending on the
size of the organisation.
Overtime are
compensated with
increased payment.
Sunday is as a rule the
compulsory rest day and
employees must have a
Overtime hours
are limited to 48
hours (EURES
2018e). All
employees are
entitled to 11
hours daily rest,
and at least a 36
hours rest period
every 7th day
(Arbetsmiljöverket
2018). Overtime
compensations are
regulated by
collective
agreements
(EURES 2018e)
95
overtime pay
requirements
(Department of
Labor 2008b). No
information could
be found with
regards to rest
periods
employees
(EURES 2018b)
between working
days (EURES
2018c)
minimum for 11 hours of
rest between working
days (EURES 2018d).
Equal
opportunities/
Discriminatio
n
Female
participation
in labour
force
Female participation
in labour force, ratio
to men: 0.88 (WEF
2018a)
Female participation
in labour force, ratio
to men:
0.77 (WEF 2018a)
Female
participation in
labour force, ratio
to men: 0.75
(WEF 2018a)
Female participation
in labour force, ratio
to men: 0.81 (WEF
2018a)
Female participation in
labour force, ratio to men:
0.95 (WEF 2018a)
Female
participation in
labour force, ratio
to men:
1.00 (WEF 2018a)
Economic
Participation
and
opportunity
Gender gap:
Score 0.782
Rank 19/149
(WEF 2018b)
Gender gap:
Score 0.592
Rank 118/149 (WEF
2018b)
Gender gap:
Score 0.705
Rank 53/149
(WEF 2018b)
Gender gap:
Score 0.680
Rank 68/149
(WEF 2018b)
Gender gap:
Score 0.721
Rank 44/149
(WEF 2018b)
Gender gap:
Score 0.808
Rank 9/149 (WEF
2018b)
Health and
safety
Occupationa
l safety and
health
UL safety index
score: 84 (2019f)
UL Safety Index
score 82 (2019a)
UL Safety Index
score: 71 (2019b)
UL Safety Index
score: 80 (2019c)
UL safety index score: 83
(2019d)
UL Safety Index
score: 90 (2019e)
Social
benefits/social
security
Social
expenditures
Social expenditure
(%) of GDP:
18.7% in 2018
(OECD 2019c)
Social expenditure
(%) of GDP:
27.9% in 2018
(OECD 2019c)
Social expenditure
(%) of GDP:
14.6% in 2016
(EUROSTAT
2019b)
Social expenditure
(%) of GDP:
19.4% in 2018
(OECD 2019c)
Social expenditure (%) of
GDP:
22.6% in 2018 (OECD
2019c)
Social expenditure
(%) of GDP:
26.1% in 2018
(OECD 2019c)
Employment
insecurity
Hiring and firing
value: 5.6 (WEF
2018a)
Hiring and firing
value: 3.0 (WEF
2018a)
Hiring and firing
value: 4.7 (WEF
2018a)
Hiring and firing
value: 4.2 (WEF
2018a)
Hiring and firing value:
3.1 (WEF 2018a)
Hiring and firing
value: 3.8 (WEF
2018a)
Local community
Table 17. Generic inventory data, stakeholder group Local community
Subcategory Indicator Cotton
cultivation,
Fabric
manufacturing,
Italy
Thread
production,
Romania
Thread
production,
Hungary
Button
manufacturing/Assembling,
Portugal
Distribution,
Sweden
96
California,
United States
Access to
material
resources
Water stress
Level of water
stress: 22.61 % in
2010
(FAO 2016)
Levels of water
stress: 44.83 % in
2008 (FAO 2016)
Level of water
stress: 13.22 % in
2007,
(FAO 2016)
Level of water
stress: 8.205 % in
2012,
(FAO 2016)
Level of water stress: 17.04
% in 2007,
(FAO 2016)
Level of water
stress: 2.88 % in
2008,
(FAO 2016)
Improved
sanitation
facilities
Coverage of total
population:
Access to safely
managed facilities:
89.5%
Access to basic
sanitation
facilities:
10.5%
(WHO/UNICEF
2015)
Coverage of total
population:
Access to safely
managed facilities:
95.43%
Access to basic
sanitation
facilities:
3.86%
Access to
unimproved
sanitation
facilities: 0.62%
(WHO/UNICEF
2015)
Coverage of total
population:
Access to safely
managed facilities:
57.08%
Access to basic
sanitation
facilities:
24.73%
Access to
unimproved
sanitation
facilities: 17.95%
(WHO/UNICEF
2015)
Coverage of total
population:
Access to safely
managed facilities:
75.64%
Access to basic
sanitation
facilities:
22.35%
Access to limited
sanitation
facilities: 2.01%
(WHO/UNICEF
2015)
Coverage of total population:
Access to safely managed
facilities:
61.7%
Access to basic sanitation
facilities: 37.8%
(WHO/UNICEF 2015)
Coverage of total
population:
Access to safely
managed facilities:
92.31%
Access to basic
sanitation
facilities:
6.99%
Access to limited
sanitation
facilities: 0.69%
(WHO/UNICEF
2015)
Property rights
Value: 5.8
Rank: 16/140
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 4.4
Rank: 71 /140
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 4.8
Rank 43/140
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 3.8
Rank 108/140
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 4.9
Rank: 40/140
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 5.7
Rank: 18/140
(WEF 2018a)
Access to
immaterial
resources
Freedom of the
press
Score: 23.73
(RSF 2018a)
Score: 24.12
(RSF 2018a)
Score: 23.65
(RSF 2018a)
Score: 29.11
(RSF 2018a)
Score: 14.17
(RSF 2018a)
Score: 8.31
(RSF 2018a)
FDI and
technology
transfer
Value 5.6
(WEF 2017)
Value 4.0
(WEF 2017)
Value 4.1
(WEF 2017)
Value 4.7
(WEF 2017)
Value 5.3
(WEF 2017)
Value 5.3 (WEF
2017)
Delocalisation
and migration
Migration rate Estimated net
migration rate
2017:
3.9 (/1000
population)
(CIA 2016a)
Estimated net
migration rate
2017:
3.7 (/1000
population)
(CIA 2016a)
Estimated net
migration rate
2017:
-0.2 (/1000
population)
(CIA 2016a)
Estimated net
migration rate
2017:
1.3 (/1000
population)
(CIA 2016a)
Estimated net migration rate
2017:
2.5 (/1000 population)
(CIA 2016a)
Estimated net
migration rate
2017:
5.3 (/1000
population)
(CIA 2016a)
Cultural
heritage and
indigenous
rights
Human Rights Ratification of 5
International
Human Rights
Treaties (OHCHR
n.aa)
Ratification of 17
International
Human Rights
Treaties (OHCHR
n.aa)
Ratification of 13
International
Human Rights
Treaties (OHCHR
n.aa)
Ratification of 14
International
Human Rights
Treaties (OHCHR
n.aa)
Ratification of 17
International Human Rights
Treaties (OHCHR n.aa)
Ratification of 14
International
Human Rights
Treaties (OHCHR
n.aa)
97
Evidence of
racial
discrimination
Racial profiling
are widespread in
the country
(Minority Rights
Group
International
2018a)
Discrimination,
violence and abuse
towards Native
Americans (Indian
Law Resource
Center n.a; Omish-
Lucero 2018).
Governmental and
societal violence
and discrimination
against Roma,
Sinti, Carminati
and other
minorities are a
problem
(Department of
State 2018a)
Discrimination and
segregation of the
Roma minority
group occurs in the
country (Amnesty
International
2018). Romani
groups are exposed
to police
harassment and
brutality and are
denied to access
public places
(Department of
State 2017b)
Asylum seekers
are repeatedly
depicted as
criminals or
terrorist due to the
government’s
hardened attitude
towards refugees
and migrants. A
new law targeting
foreign-funded
civil society
organisations,
threatens to
weaken the
protection of
minority rights
(Minority Rights
Group
International
2018b)
Incidents of racial treatment
towards minority groups,
especially Roma and African
descents (Minority Rights
Group International 2018c).
A large number of the
Romani population are
segregated and isolated in
poos living conditions and
police harassment are
common (Department of
State 2017d)
A large number of
crimes with a
majority of
xenophobic
motives were
reported during
2016. Racist hate
crimes towards
Afro-Swedes,
Jews, Muslims and
Roma are common
(Department of
State 2018b)
Safe and
healthy living
conditions
Burden of
disease
DALYs
attributable to the
environment:
12% in 2012
(WHO 2016)
DALYs
attributable to the
environment:
13% in 2012
(WHO 2016)
DALYs
attributable to the
environment:
18% in 2012
(WHO 2016)
DALYs
attributable to the
environment:
16% in 2012
(WHO 2016)
DALYs attributable to the
environment:
16% in 2012 (WHO 2016)
DALYs
attributable to the
environment:
12% in 2012
(WHO 2016)
Pollution
levels
Mean population
exposure to
PM2.5:
Country: 7.4
µg/m3 in 2017
Region of
organisation: 8.4
µg/m3
(OECD 2019d)
Mean population
exposure to PM2.5
in the country:
16.5 µg/m3 in
2017
Region of
organisation: 22.8
µg/m3 in 2017
(OECD 2019d)
Mean population
exposure to PM2.5
in the country:
14.6 µg/m3 in
2017 (OECD
2019d)
Mean population
exposure to PM2.5
in the country:
16.1 µg/m3 in
2017
(OECD 2019d)
Mean population exposure to
PM2.5:
Country: 8.1 µg/m3 in 2017
Region of organisation: 6.0
µg/m3 in 2017 (OECD
2019d)
Mean population
exposure to PM2.5
in the country: 6.1
µg/m3 in 2017
Region of
organisation: 5.8
µg/m3 in 2017
(OECD 2019d)
Secure living
conditions
Safety and
security
Score:
2,161 (IEP 2018)
Score: 2.190 (IEP
2018)
Score: 1,938 (IEP
2018)
Score: 1,811 (IEP
2018)
Score:
1,496 (IEP 2018)
Score: 1.367 (IEP
2018)
98
Strength of
public security
Reliability of
police service: 5.8
(WEF 2018a)
Reliability of
police service: 4.6
(WEF 2018a)
Reliability of
police service: 4.8
(WEF 2018a)
Reliability of
police service: 4.4
(WEF 2018a)
Reliability of police service:
5.8
(WEF 2018a)
Reliability of
police service: 5.2
(WEF 2018a)
Local
employment
Unemployment
rate
Unemployment
rate:
4.0% (BLS 2019).
Unemployment
rate: 10.5% in
2019 (Country
economy 2019a)
Unemployment
rate: 3.9% in 2019
(Country economy
2019a)
Unemployment
rate: 3.6% in 2018
(Country economy
2019a)
Unemployment rate: 6.7 %
(INE 2019)
Unemployment
rate: 6.0% in 2019
(Country economy
2019a)
Local suppliers Value: 5.7 (WEF
2017)
Value: 5.2 (WEF
2017)
Value: 3.8
(WEF 2017)
Value: 3.6 (WEF
2017)
Value: 4.5 (WEF 2017) Value: 4.8 (WEF
2017)
Community
engagement
Transparency
of Government
policymaking
Value: 5.6
(WEF 2017)
Value: 3.1 (WEF
2017)
Value: 3.4
(WEF 2017)
Value 3.1 (WEF
2017)
Value: 3.9
(WEF 2017)
Value:5.5 (WEF
2017)
Public trust of
politicians
Value: 4.8 (WEF
2017)
Value: 1.9 (WEF
2017)
Value: 2.0
(WEF 2017)
Value 2.2 (WEF
2017)
Value: 3.2
(WEF 2017)
Value: 5.2 (WEF
2017)
Table 18. Generic inventory data, stakeholder group Society
Subcategory Indicator Cotton cultivation,
California, United
States
Fabric
manufacturing,
Italy
Thread production,
Romania
Thread production,
Hungary
Button
manufacturing,
Portugal
Distribution,
Sweden
Public
commitment
to
sustainability
issues
Existence of
(legal)
obligation on
public
sustainability
reporting
Sustainability
reporting are
currently voluntary
(D’Aquila 2018)
Companies with
more than 500
employees are
required to submit a
non-financial
statement in the
management report
(CSR Europe & GRI
2017)
Companies
exceeding an
average of 500
employees during
the financial year are
obligated to submit a
non-financial
statement (KPMG
2018)
Companies meeting
the certain
requirements, such
as having more than
500 employees
during the business
year, a corporate
responsibility
section shall be
included in the
financial report
(Szarvas 2018)
Companies
classified as “large”,
“public-interest
entities” or have an
average of 500
employees are
required by the
Decree-Law to
publicly report a
non-financial
statement (João
Riberio Mata &
Meireles 2017).
Companies with
over 250 employees
are required to
present non-financial
information in their
annual report (CSR
Europe & GRI 2017)
Prevention
and mitigation
of conflicts
Ongoing
conflict
Score: 1.991 (IEP
2018)
Score: 1.094 (IEP
2018)
Score: 1.096 (IEP
2018)
Score: 1.445 (IEP
2018)
Score: 1.079 (IEP
2018)
Score: 1.295 (IEP
2018)
99
Contribution
to Economic
development
Economic
situation of the
country
Economic freedom
score: 76.8 (The
Heritage Foundation
2019)
Economic freedom
score: 62.2 (The
Heritage Foundation
2019)
Economic freedom
score: 68.6 (The
Heritage Foundation
2019)
Economic freedom
score: 65.0 (The
Heritage Foundation
2019)
Economic freedom
score: 65.3 (The
Heritage Foundation
2019)
Economic freedom
score: 75.2 (The
Heritage Foundation
2019)
Corruption Risk of
corruption
Corruption
perception:
Score 71
(Transparency
International 2018a)
Corruption
perception
Score: 50
(Transparency
International 2018a)
Corruption
perception
Score: 47
(Transparency
International 2018a)
Corruption
perception
Score: 46
(Transparency
International 2018a)
Corruption
perception
Score: 64
(Transparency
International 2018a)
Corruption
perception
score 84
(Transparency
International 2018a)
Technology
development
Company
spending in
Research and
Development
(R&D)
Value: 5.9 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.9 (WEF
2017)
Value 2.8 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.1 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.5 (WEF
2017)
Value 5.6 (WEF
2017)
Collaborations
in R&D
Value 5.7 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.8 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.1 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.4 (WEF
2017)
Value 4.2 (WEF
2017)
Value 5.2 (WEF
2017)
Table 19. Generic inventory data, stakeholder group Value Chain Actors
Subcategory Indicator Cotton cultivation,
California, United
States
Fabric
manufacturing,
Italy
Thread production,
Romania
Thread production,
Hungary
Button
manufacturing,
Portugal
Distribution,
Sweden
Fair
competition
Anti-
monopoly
Value 5.6 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.9 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.4 (WEF
2017)
Value 3.7 (WEF
2017)
Value 4.0 (WEF
2017)
Value 5.5 (WEF
2017)
Respect of
intellectual
property
rights
Intellectual
property
protection
Value: 5.9
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 4.6
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 5.0
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 4.0
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 5.1
(WEF 2018a)
Value: 5.8 (WEF
2018a)
100
101
Appendix E – Social Hotspot Assessment
Social Hotspot Assessment Results
Table 20. Indicator assessment and subcategory aggregation - Cotton cultivation, United States
Stake-
holder Subcategory Indicators
Indicator
Assessment
Subcategory
assessment
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Trade Union density
Collective bargaining coverage
Workers’ Rights
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Evidence of child labour in the country
Risk of forced labour
Evidence of forced labour in the
country
Living wage and minimum wage
Risk of working poverty
Excessive working time
Working time conditions
Female participation in labour force
Economic Participation and
opportunity
Health and safety Occupational safety and health
Social expenditures
Employment insecurity
Water stress
Improved sanitation facilities
Property rights
Freedom of the press
FDI and technology transfer
Delocalisation and
migrationMigration rate
Evidence of racial discrimination
Burden of disease
Pollution levels
Safety and security
Strength of public security
Unemployment rate
Local suppliers
Transparency of Government
policymaking
Public trust of politicians
Public commitment to
sustainability issues
Existence of (legal) obligation on public
sustainability reporting
Prevention and
mitigation of conflictsOngoing conflicts
Contribution to
Economic Economic situation of the country
Corruption Risk of corruption
Company spending in Research and
Development (R&D)
Collaboration in R&D
Fair competition Anti-monoploy
Respect of intellectual
propertyIntellectual property protection
Social benefits/ social
security
Safe and healthy living
conditions
Secure living
conditions
Local employment
Community
engagement
Loca
l co
mm
unity
Human RightsCultural heritage and
indigenous rights
Access to immaterial
resources
Work
er Forced labour
Val
ue
chai
n
acto
rs
Freedom of association
and collective
bargaining
Child labour
Fair Salary
Working time
Equal opportunities/
Discrimination
Access to material
resources
Technology
development
Soci
ety
102
Table 21. Indicator assessment and subcategory aggregation - Button production and Assembling, Portugal
Stake-
holder Subcategory Indicators
Indicator
Assessment
Subcategory
assessment
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Trade Union density
Collective bargaining coverage
Workers’ Rights
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Evidence of child labour in the country
Risk of forced labour
Evidence of forced labour in the
country
Living wage and minimum wage
Risk of working poverty
Excessive working time
Working time conditions
Female participation in labour force
Economic Participation and
opportunity
Health and safety Occupational safety and health
Social expenditures
Employment insecurity
Water stress
Improved sanitation facilities
Property rights
Freedom of the press
FDI and technology transfer
Delocalisation and
migrationMigration rate
Evidence of racial discrimination
Burden of disease
Pollution levels
Safety and security
Strength of public security
Unemployment rate
Local suppliers
Transparency of Government
policymaking
Public trust of politicians
Public commitment to
sustainability issues
Existence of (legal) obligation on public
sustainability reporting
Prevention and
mitigation of conflictsOngoing conflicts
Contribution to
Economic Economic situation of the country
Corruption Risk of corruption
Company spending in Research and
Development (R&D)
Collaboration in R&D
Fair competition Anti-monoploy
Respect of intellectual
propertyIntellectual property protection
Social benefits/ social
security
So
ciet
y
Technology
development
Secure living
conditions
Local employment
Community
engagement
Safe and healthy living
conditions
Equal opportunities/
Discrimination
Lo
cal
com
mu
nit
y
Access to material
resources
Access to immaterial
resources
Cultural heritage and
indigenous rights
Human Rights
Wo
rker
Freedom of association
and collective
bargaining
Child labour
Forced labour
Fair Salary
Working time
Val
ue
chai
n
acto
rs
103
Table 22. Indicator assessment and subcategory aggregation - Thread manufacturing, Hungary
Stake-
holder Subcategory Indicators
Indicator
Assessment
Subcategory
assessment
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Trade Union density
Collective bargaining coverage
Workers’ Rights
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Evidence of child labour in the country
Risk of forced labour
Evidence of forced labour in the
country
Living wage and minimum wage
Risk of working poverty
Excessive working time
Working time conditions
Female participation in labour force
Economic Participation and
opportunity
Health and safety Occupational safety and health
Social expenditures
Employment insecurity
Water stress
Improved sanitation facilities
Property rights
Freedom of the press
FDI and technology transfer
Delocalisation and
migrationMigration rate
Evidence of racial discrimination
Burden of disease
Pollution levels
Safety and security
Strength of public security
Unemployment rate
Local suppliers
Transparency of Government
policymaking
Public trust of politicians
Public commitment to
sustainability issues
Existence of (legal) obligation on public
sustainability reporting
Prevention and
mitigation of conflictsOngoing conflicts
Contribution to
Economic Economic situation of the country
Corruption Risk of corruption
Company spending in Research and
Development (R&D)
Collaboration in R&D
Fair competition Anti-monoploy
Respect of intellectual
propertyIntellectual property protection
Social benefits/ social
security
Work
er
Freedom of association
and collective
bargaining
Child labour
Forced labour
Fair Salary
Working time
Equal opportunities/
Discrimination
Soci
ety
Technology
development
Val
ue
chai
n
acto
rsL
oca
l co
mm
unity
Access to material
resources
Access to immaterial
resources
Cultural heritage and
indigenous rights
Human Rights
Safe and healthy living
conditions
Secure living
conditions
Local employment
Community
engagement
104
Table 23. Indicator assessment and subcategory aggregation – Thread manufacturing, Romania
Stake-
holder Subcategory Indicators
Indicator
Assessment
Subcategory
assessment
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Trade Union density
Collective bargaining coverage
Workers’ Rights
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Evidence of child labour in the country
Risk of forced labour
Evidence of forced labour in the
country
Living wage and minimum wage
Risk of working poverty
Excessive working time
Working time conditions
Female participation in labour force
Economic Participation and
opportunity
Health and safety Occupational safety and health
Social expenditures
Employment insecurity
Water stress
Improved sanitation facilities
Property rights
Freedom of the press
FDI and technology transfer
Delocalisation and
migrationMigration rate
Evidence of racial discrimination
Burden of disease
Pollution levels
Safety and security
Strength of public security
Unemployment rate
Local suppliers
Transparency of Government
policymaking
Public trust of politicians
Public commitment to
sustainability issues
Existence of (legal) obligation on public
sustainability reporting
Prevention and
mitigation of conflictsOngoing conflicts
Contribution to
Economic Economic situation of the country
Corruption Risk of corruption
Company spending in Research and
Development (R&D)
Collaboration in R&D
Fair competition Anti-monoploy
Respect of intellectual
propertyIntellectual property protection
Social benefits/ social
security
Community
engagement
So
ciet
y
Technology
development
Val
ue
chai
n
acto
rs
Safe and healthy living
conditions
Secure living
conditions
Local employment
Lo
cal
com
mu
nit
y
Access to material
resources
Access to immaterial
resources
Cultural heritage and
indigenous rights
Human Rights
Fair Salary
Working time
Equal opportunities/
Discrimination
Wo
rker
Freedom of association
and collective
bargaining
Child labour
Forced labour
105
Table 24. Indicator assessment and subcategory aggregation - Fabric manufacturing, Italy
Stake-
holder Subcategory Indicators
Indicator
Assessment
Subcategory
assessment
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Trade Union density
Collective bargaining coverage
Workers’ Rights
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Evidence of child labour in the country
Risk of forced labour
Evidence of forced labour in the
country
Living wage and minimum wage
Risk of working poverty
Excessive working time
Working time conditions
Female participation in labour force
Economic Participation and
opportunity
Health and safety Occupational safety and health
Social expenditures
Employment insecurity
Water stress
Improved sanitation facilities
Property rights
Freedom of the press
FDI and technology transfer
Delocalisation and
migrationMigration rate
Evidence of racial discrimination
Burden of disease
Pollution levels
Safety and security
Strength of public security
Unemployment rate
Local suppliers
Transparency of Government
policymaking
Public trust of politicians
Public commitment to
sustainability issues
Existence of (legal) obligation on public
sustainability reporting
Prevention and
mitigation of conflictsOngoing conflicts
Contribution to
Economic Economic situation of the country
Corruption Risk of corruption
Company spending in Research and
Development (R&D)
Collaboration in R&D
Fair competition Anti-monoploy
Respect of intellectual
propertyIntellectual property protection
Social benefits/ social
security
Loca
l co
mm
unity
Access to material
resources
Local employment
Community
engagement
Work
er
Freedom of association
and collective
bargaining
Child labour
Forced labour
Fair Salary
Working time
Equal opportunities/
Discrimination
Cultural heritage and
indigenous rights
Human Rights
Soci
ety
Secure living
conditions
Val
ue
chai
n
acto
rs
Technology
development
Access to immaterial
resources
Safe and healthy living
conditions
106
Table 25. Indicator assessment and subcategory aggregation - Distribution, Sweden
Stake-
holder Subcategory Indicators
Indicator
Assessment
Subcategory
assessment
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Trade Union density
Collective bargaining coverage
Workers’ Rights
Corroboration of International
Conventions
Evidence of child labour in the country
Risk of forced labour
Evidence of forced labour in the
country
Living wage and minimum wage
Risk of working poverty
Excessive working time
Working time conditions
Female participation in labour force
Economic Participation and
opportunity
Health and safety Occupational safety and health
Social expenditures
Employment insecurity
Water stress
Improved sanitation facilities
Property rights
Freedom of the press
FDI and technology transfer
Delocalisation and
migrationMigration rate
Evidence of racial discrimination
Burden of disease
Pollution levels
Safety and security
Strength of public security
Unemployment rate
Local suppliers
Transparency of Government
policymaking
Public trust of politicians
Public commitment to
sustainability issues
Existence of (legal) obligation on public
sustainability reporting
Prevention and
mitigation of conflictsOngoing conflicts
Contribution to
Economic Economic situation of the country
Corruption Risk of corruption
Company spending in Research and
Development (R&D)
Collaboration in R&D
Fair competition Anti-monoploy
Respect of intellectual
propertyIntellectual property protection
Social benefits/ social
security
Forced labour
Fair Salary
Working time
Equal opportunities/
Discrimination
Val
ue
chai
n
acto
rs
Human Rights
Safe and healthy living
conditions
Secure living
conditions
Local employment
Work
er
Freedom of association
and collective
bargaining
Child labour
Community
engagement
Soci
ety
Technology
development
Loca
l co
mm
unity
Access to material
resources
Access to immaterial
resources
Cultural heritage and
indigenous rights
71
