Skip to main content

Socioeconomic LCA of Milk Production in Canada

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Life Cycle Assessment

Abstract

Over the years, the agricultural sector, and the livestock and dairy sectors in particular, have been increasingly criticized for their environmental impacts, especially with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, there has been a growing awareness that farm activities equally induce significant social and economic impacts over a wide range of stakeholders. In order to face the new challenges arising from this context and to clarify the path towards sustainable milk production in Canada, the Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) commissioned the realization of a Social and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (SELCA) of Canadian Milk. Launched in 2010, this project, which ended in September 2012, was conducted as part of the Dairy Research Cluster. The study was conducted by three partners, two consulting firms (Groupe AGECO and Quantis) and a research center (CIRAIG), based at the Montreal Polytechnic, with a section dedicated to socioecomic life cycle assessment based at the University of Quebec in Montreal. It aimed at providing a comprehensive assessment of the Canadian milk production sector with respect to sustainability. The main deliverables include an environmental profile of the average kilogram of milk produced in Canada, as well as an evaluation of the socioeconomic performance of the Canadian dairy sector. This chapter addresses the social and socioeconomic dimensions of the global project. It presents the methodological choices made, such as combining a specific analysis and a potential hotspots analysis (PHA) for two parts of the system under study. It then presents the economic contributions of the Canadian dairy sector, which has generated over 127,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs in 2009, contributed approximately $7.2 billion to the national GDP, and procured almost $1.4 billion in total tax revenue. Canadian dairy farmers are also corporate citizens whose behaviors—individually and collectively—impact their stakeholders. This SLCA provides a detailed picture of this socioeconomic performance. It appears from this assessment that the Canadian dairy farms perform positively overall. The dairy farmers’ engagement towards their local communities is significant, with the vast majority involved in their communities in many different ways. However, more could be done in terms of cohabitation, with producers adopting practices minimizing the spreading of odors, for example. The picture is also contrasted with regard to farm workers. Although dairy farmers provide overall working conditions that go beyond labor standards—to which they are mostly not legally subjected—there is room for improvement regarding various issues, such as professional training and communication of working conditions. The same holds true with respect to their suppliers and business partners, given that a majority of dairy producers do not usually consider their suppliers’ performance in regards to social responsibility in their procurement decisions.

AGECO is a Quebec (Canada)-based consulting firm established in 2000 as a spin-off from Laval University in Quebec City by a group of professors well recognized in Quebec and Canada in the domain of socioeconomic analysis applied to the agrifood sector, natural resources, and the environment. AGECO performs impact assessment studies, policy and regulatory analyses, socioeconomic studies, surveys, structural analyses, studies of management tools as well as strategic channel planning. First and foremost, AGECO is a team trained in economics and the social sciences, specializing in agrifood, and natural and environmental resources. The team is known for its ability to understand the socioeconomic, political and strategic situations. Over the last 5 years, AGECO has developed expertise in SLCA, both in theory and practice.

The Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes, and Services (CIRAIG) was founded initially by the École Polytechnique de Montréal, in collaboration with the Université de Montréal and HEC Montréal. The CIRAIG was created to meet the demands of industry and governments to develop leading-edge academic expertise on sustainable development tools. The CIRAIG now includes a team from the Department of Strategy, Social and Environmental Responsibility that is located within the School of Management Sciences of the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM). This team deals specifically with the social and socioeconomic dimensions of life cycle assessment. The CIRAIG is the only university research centre on life cycle in Canada; it is also one of the largest internationally. It hosts the International Life Cycle Chair, supported by 14 industrial partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The milk CoP database is a sample of farms (stratified by region and size and randomly selected to represent the population) used by provincial Dairy Boards and the CDC each year to establish the cost of production of 1 hl of milk. The P5 database (Quebec, Ontario, Maritimes) is supervised by AGECO.

  2. 2.

    While part of the socioeconomic system in which the milk production sector and its business partners operate, the institutional, sectorial, social and political organizations or associations operating with and around the economic actors involved in milk production are excluded from this system.

  3. 3.

    The dairy industry has been analyzed by AGECO from various points of view over the years and at different industry levels (farm level, processing activities, domestic and international dairy policies, etc.): supply system management, financial situation of Canadian dairy farms, dairy farm production costs, and labor problems at the farm and processor levels are some of the subjects that have been studied. New opportunities in marketing settings and dairy products marketing were also studied. AGECO has also animated a few years ago a reflection session within the Premium Milk Innovation project. Therefore, AGECO is familiar with each actor as well as with the stakes of the Canadian dairy industry on a national and international level.

  4. 4.

    In order to obtain a representative national average score, the individual answers have been weighted according to each province’s relative importance in the Canadian sector, in terms of the number of milk producers they host.

  5. 5.

    Surveys were sent in provinces where at the beginning of the project the board showed an interest in participating in the data collection process.

  6. 6.

    In the Guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009), a social hotspot is defined as an activity “located in a region where a situation occurs that may be considered as a problem, a risk or an opportunity, in function of a social theme of interest”. As suggested by Parent et al. (2012) “for the sake of consistency in the use of concepts in LCA and SLCA, social hotspots are therefore defined as areas where an improvement is required. This definition is also more consistent with the hypothesis that an organization uses SLCA to enhance enterprises’ behaviors as a way to reach the ultimate goal of improving social conditions along the product life cycle, as implicitly suggested in the Guidelines”. National and regional context influences businesses’ behaviors, but at the end it is those behaviors that are of interest. Therefore, a country’s situation is considered to be a factor influencing the possibility of encountering—or not—companies behaving in such ways that they can cause negative social impacts.

  7. 7.

    The Social Hotspot Database is now fully operational and can be accessed at www.socialhotspot.org.

  8. 8.

    An activity was considered to be taking place fully abroad when, for a given input, imports accounted for 60 % or more of the total domestic consumption. The same activity was considered to be taking place fully in Canada when the import level accounted for 40 % and less of the total domestic consumption. When the import level was similar to the domestic production level, the activity was considered as taking place in Canada as well as abroad. Data were collected in the Canadian Trade. by industry database (data for 2010 were collected online from the Canadian Industry Statistic database between February and June 2012 [http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/tdo-dcd.nsf/eng/Home]). Data for 2009 were collected online between February and June 2012 from CANSIM, Table 379–0025. [http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cis-sic.nsf/eng/Home]. Data for 2007 collected online in February [http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a01?lang=eng] from CANSIM.

  9. 9.

    Only countries holding a share of 30 % or more of the total value of imports have been included in the system. Data were collected in the Canadian Trade See above by industry database (data for 2010 were collected online between February and June 2012 [http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/tdo-dcd.nsf/eng/Home]).

  10. 10.

    Canadian Industry Statistics (CIS). Hosted by Industry Canada, available online [http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cis-sic.nsf/eng/Home], accessed from February to May 2012.

  11. 11.

    Business and Human Rights Resource Center, online library available [http://www.business-humanrights.org/], accessed from March to June 2012.

  12. 12.

    Except for the US, as no report on human rights is available. The issues of concern (freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labor, working hours and forced labor) were assessed at the country level when no better information was found through the web and libraries search.

  13. 13.

    The Task Force for the integration of social aspects to LCA has gathered a broad range of national data sources in their Methodological Sheets (Benoît-Norris et al. 2011). Indicators that could apprise a possibility of encountering businesses not behaving in compliance with accepted social norms were selected through a review of those sources.

  14. 14.

    http://www.dairyfarmers.ca/what-we-do/programs/environment-and-sustainable-development/dairy-farm-sustainability-award.

References

  • AGECO. (2010) Étude sur les conditions de travail en 2009 dans les productions laitière, porcine et serricole. Report commissioned by AgriCarrières, 51 pp. http://www.agricarrieres.qc.ca/pages/Rapport_AgriCarrieres2010_CondTravailMOsalariee_110314-2.pdf.

  • Amnesty International. (2011). Annual report 2011—the state of the world’s human rights. Retrieved March–June, 2012 http://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report/2011/country-data

  • Anker, R., & Chernyshev, I., et al. (2002). Measuring decent work with statistical indicators. Working paper No. 2. Geneva, ILO: International Labor Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. A., & Vanclay, F. (2003). The international handbook of social impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît, C., & Norris, G., et al. (2010). Social hotspots database: Risk and opportunity table development, New Earth. http://socialhotspot.org/userfiles/SHDB_Risk_And_Opportunity_Tables_–_Final_Fall_2010.pdf.

  • Benoît-Norris, C., Vickery-Niederman, G., et al. (2011). Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(7), 682–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bienge, K., & von Geibler, J., et al. (2010). Sustainability hot spot analysis: A streamlined life cycle assessment towards sustainable food chains. Paper Presented at the 9th European IFSA Symposium, Vienna, 4–7 July, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blom, M., & Solmar, C. (2009). How to socially assess biofuels—a case study of the UNEP-SETAC code of practice for social-economical LCA. Dissertation, University of Lulea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1995). Social impact assessment: State of the art. Impact Assessment, 14(1), 57–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdge, R. J. (2004). A community guide to social impact assessment (3rd ed.). Middleton: Social Ecology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Industry Statistics (CIS). Hosted by industry Canada. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cis-sic.nsf/eng/Home

  • Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. Retrieved March–June, 2012 from http://www.cohre.org/regions.

  • Chadwick, A. (2002). Socio-economic impacts: Are they still the poor relations in UK environmental statements? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feschet, P. (2014). Analyse du cycle de vie sociale. PhD Dissertation, University of Montpellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDF. (2009). Environmental/Ecological impact of the dairy sector: Literature review on dairy products for an inventory of key issues, List of environmental initiatives and influences on the dairy sector., Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 436/2009, http://www.wds2010.com/PDF/Enviro-bulletin.pdf

  • ILO. (1919). Convention No. 1—Hours of Work (Industry). International Labor Organization. Retrieved December, 2011, from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12000:0::NO:::.

  • ITUC, CSI & IGB. (2012). Annual survey of violations of trade union rights—trade union rights violations around the World in 2011. Retrieved March–June, 2012, from http://survey.ituc-csi.org/?lang=en.

  • Grießhammer, R., Benoît, C., Dreyer, L. C., Dreyer, Flysjö, A., Manhart, A., et al. (2006). Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. 2006, UNEP SETAC Life cycle initiative official report of the Social LCA task force.

    Google Scholar 

  • LCI. (2010). Guide to social LCA: Methodological sheets. UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Retrieved October, 2010, from http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/default.asp?site=lcinit&page_id=A8992620-AAAD-4B81-9BAC-A72AEA281CB9.

  • Liberté. (2012). Le développement durable Liberté. Consulted on 12 March 2012, http://www.libertegreenactionverte.com/logo.html

  • Lundie S., Schultz M., & Peters G. (2009), Carbon footprint measurement: methodology report. University of NSW and Fonterra Co-operative Group: New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macombe, C., & Falque, A. (2013). Pour une alternative à la RSE du cycle de vie. In C. Macombe (Ed.), ACV socials. Effets socio-économiques des chaines de valeur (pp. 21–34). Montpellier: FruitTrop Thema.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macombe, C., & Feschet, P., et al. (2010). Reporting the social indicators to the functional unit for food product. Theoretical contribution regarding the collection of relevant data. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. Bari, September 22–24, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • October Inquiry Statistics. Available in Laborsta, the statistical database of the ILO. http://laborsta.ilo.org/STP/guest.

  • Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C., & Revéret, J. P. (2012). Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1–11, doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0485-9

  • Revéret, J. P., & Parent, J. (2012). L’analyse sociale et socio-économique du cycle de vie des produits: Etats des lieux et défis. In S. Brunet & B. Hamaide (Eds.) Développement durable et économie environnementale régionale (pp. 79–90). Bruxelles: Publication des FUSL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revéret, J. P., & Parent, J. (2013). L’analyse sociale et socio-économique du cycle de vie des produits, défis et enjeux. In L’école de Montréal C. Gendron & B Girard (Eds.) Repenser la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise (pp. 261–272). Paris: Armand Colin1Recherches.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevenster, M., & de Jong, F. (2008). A sustainable dairy sector. Global, regional and life cycle facts and figures on greenhouse gas emission. Report No. 08.7798.48, CE Delft (Netherlands) (p 83)

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP-SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. In C. Benoît & B. Mazijn (Eds.) United nations environment programme (UNEP) and society of environmental toxicology and chemistry (SETAC) (p. 104).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of State. (2011). Country reports on human rights practices for 2011. Retrieved March–June, 2012, from http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper.

  • WEF. (2011). The global competitiveness report 2011–2012. Geneva: K. Schwab., World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Pierre Revéret .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Revéret, JP., Couture, JM., Parent, J. (2015). Socioeconomic LCA of Milk Production in Canada. In: Muthu, S. (eds) Social Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-296-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics