Available online at ScienceDirect. Procedia CIRP 29 (2015 ) The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Transcription

1 Available online at ScienceDirect Procedia CIRP 29 (2015 ) The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering Social Life Cycle Assessment of three companies of the furniture sector Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork a, Durval João De Barba Junior b*, Jefferson de Oliveira Gomes a a Centro de Competência em Manufatura (CCM), Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica (ITA), Praça Marechal Eduardo Gomes, São José dos Campos, SP.Brasil. b Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Sul-Rio-Grandense (IFSul), Campus Sapucaia do Sul, R: Copacabana, Sapucaia do Sul, RS. Brasil * Corresponding author. Tel.: ; fax: address:debarbajr@sapucuai.ifsul.edu.br Abstract Given the high amount of resources consumed and waste generated by the construction industry it was identified the need to seek for constructive systems that take into account three aspects of sustainable development - economic, social and environmental - in a balanced way. This paper aims at comparing through sustainability assessment in different industrialized building systems to the conventional system which are used in the construction of social housing in Brazil. An assessment that provides a way to improve production processes for sustainability of buildings is looked for, stimulating lower environmental impact, meeting the needs and providing conditions for their employees and users in the best cost/benefit ratio The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the Conference 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Peer-review Engineering. under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering Keywords:Building Systems, Sustainable Construction, Sustainability Introduction When observing sustainability, from a social perspective, emphasis is given to human well-being, human condition and the means used to increase the quality of life of this condition [1]. [2] state that social benefits may be estimated with the analysis of the effects of the stakeholders on local, national and global levels and that most social indicators measure the degree in which these social values and goals in specific areas of life may be attained. In contrast to environmental and economic aspects on the sustainability assessment, social assessment still lacks a full consensus related to adequate indicators or a standardized approach. There is no generally accepted definition for the social dimension of sustainability, once this dimension distinguishes itself by particular characteristics, such as: it is bipolar (it refers both to individual and collective levels), it is reflexive (personal perceptions and interpretations of social conditions alter social behavior of individuals and of the collective) and it is immaterial (social phenomena are difficult to understand and analyze quantitatively) [3]. Compared to environmental and economic aspects, the social aspects present distinct issues that may be pondered in different manner by the various stakeholders (workers/employees; local community; national and global community; consumers, including end consumers, as well as the consumers that are part of each phase of the supply chain; and other actors of the value chain) or by different countries and regions, and the assessment is subject to rapid changes throughout time (such as, cultural changes)) [4]. The Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) assesses the impact of an organization, product of system on society, more specifically, on these different stakeholders. The SLCA does not supply information on whether a product should be produced or not, although the information obtained may offer alternative paths before decision making. The SLCA documents, for a certain product, are useful, but they do not have the capacity or the role of informing the decision makers on this level The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering doi: /j.procir

2 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 ( 2015 ) Table 1: Comparison among indicator sources (modified as per [5]) Indicators A B C D E F G H I Child / Juvenile Labor Forced labor / Adequate working hours / Labor contract / Fair labor Health and safety Maternity protection (day-care or day-care assistance) Social security Collective association / Relationship with the unions Diversities (race, gender, age and handicap) Harassment / Discrimination Remuneration Benefits Training Dismissal Working conditions Voluntary work Level of internal education Career development Marketing policies Disclosure of information (Internal and external transparency) Corruption Consumer Health and Safety Research development Intellectual property Privacy protection / Privacy of Consumer Relations with the competition External indicators Fiscal contributions / Taxes Infrastructure services Technology transfer Association with Universities Respect towards local community Sustainable development Support to suppliers (contracts, complaint and dialogues, investments) Culture, Sports and Leisure Fight against hunger Fight against armed conflicts Displacement and Migration / Local employment Preparation for retirement Relationship with outsourced workers End-of-life responsibility A Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas [6]; B International Labor Organization [7]; C - Instituto Ethos de Empresas e Responsabilidade Social [8]; D - Ethos Applied to the Global Pact Principle [9]; E Global Reporting Initiative [10]; F - Prosa Product Sustainability Assessment [4]; G - Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products [11]; H Catherine Benoît [12] and I Andreas Jørgensen [13].

3 152 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 ( 2015 ) It is certain that the information on the social conditions of production use and disposal can supply elements for reflection on the matter, but, these are rarely a sufficient basis for a decision, in accordance with [11]. In this manner, it can aid decision makers to better understand and follow-up on implications for consumption and production of products throughout their life-cycles, in terms of impacts on the quality of the work and the quality of life of people, supporting the improvement of social performance, especially in societies where social systems are more fragile [11]. Despite the fact that the Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is not new, it is still considered to be in its early years, due to the great methodological difficulties [14]. According to [14], the central difficulties of the SLCA are: (1) how to relate the social indicators quantitatively to the functional unit of the system; (2) how to obtain specific regionalized data; (3) how to decide among the large quantity of indicators, where most are qualitative; (4) how to adequately quantify the impacts; and (5) how to assess the results. He also states that the quantification of the indicators may be the greatest issue to be solved. Furthermore, the company is the fundamental unit of the life-cycle system of the product, and not the process. In this manner, the inventory is focused on the conduct of the company and in the manner in which it is organized and manages its business, which occasions the issue related to the how much of the total social impacts of the company should be allocated to the process and included in the assessed product [13; 15]. The company is assessed in the manner in which it relates with the stakeholders, which could include five main categories: (1) workers/employees, (2) local community, (3) society (national and global), (4) consumers, and (5) other actors of the value chain (ONGs, public and state authorities and future generations, etc.) [11]. Each stakeholder is assessed by means of indicators. These indicators, since they are not standardized, may vary widely depending on whom is performing the SLCA. Table 1 presents a comparison between indicator obtained from a bibliographical review from management institutes or researches, represented per letter in alphabetical order, as indicated (modified as per [5]). This comparison, among the main sources of research, demonstrates that the universe for the preparation of indicators is vast, complex and dependent on the field of activity of these (references). This makes the work of the person responsible for the conception/execution of the SLCA difficult because he could implement an analysis and, after comparing the information, verify that it is not conclusive, due to the wrong choice of indicators, or manner in which these are measured. The purpose of this paper is to compare three companies which are self-referred to as sustainable with the purpose of characterizing the process of incorporation of the social requirements regarding the sustainability of their products. In this manner, it is possible to suggest improvements in order that they may increase their performance on social sustainability and increase social benefits related to certain stakeholders. 2. Methodology This case study is a comparison among three companies: Company 1 (RS) has 170 employees, Company 2 (SC) has 21 employees and Company 3 (BA) has 38 employees. The three companies are focused on the production of modular and customized (planned) furniture made to order. Production made to order (planned) is characterized by the production of a great variety of articles in small quantities, demanding more time in the development of the products and in the planning of production, in relation to the time for manufacturing. Also these companies have a very similar machines and productive systems. Social analysis was performed with the use of the SLCA methodology, considering that the company is the fundamental unit of the life-cycle system of the product, according to [13; 15]. In this manner, the companies were assessed in the manner in which they relate to the stakeholders, which are presented in five categories: (1) Workers/Employees, (2) Government, (3) Consumers, (4) Suppliers and (5) Local Community. The construction of the SLCA derives from a hierarchical structure of e levels (Figure 1). The level Categories of impact represents the social aspect. The sub-category level represents social aspects where the indicators are aggregated, in this case the stakeholders. Categories of impact Sub-categories Indicators Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure for evaluation and application of the social assessment. Each stakeholder is assessed by means of the Impact Indicators. These indicators were based on Table 1 for the creation of two questionnaires: one for the Human Relations sector and another for production workers. The indicators of [11] were mainly used. The five sub-categories were created to make the analysis of the 20 indicators consulted easier (Table 2). In this same manner, all the indicators were considered as having the same weights because not all of the subcategories were fully evaluated due to the time and personnel available for the research. These weights are necessary for aggregating in sub-categories and for the standardization used in the presentation of the graphical format.

4 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 ( 2015 ) Table 2: Hierarchical structure with weights for social assessment. Category weight Sub-category weight Indicator weight Social 1 Workers/ Employees 0.55 Government 0.2 Child / Juvenile labor (under 18 years) 0.05 Forced Labor (overtime) 0.05 Health and Safety (occupational accident) 0.05 Maternity Protection (day-care or day-care assistance) 0.05 Collective association / Relationship with the unions 0.05 Equal opportunity /Diversity (gender preference) 0.05 Fair salary (salary in accordance with the job) 0.05 Benefits (sickness allowance, dental assistance or medical care) 0.05 Refectory 0.05 Internal training (new technologies, new jobs) 0.05 Employee satisfaction research 0.05 Operating license and environmental licenses 0.05 Job description and operational instructions (legislation) 0.05 External indicators (Fiscal contributions / Taxes) 0.05 Tax incentive 0.05 Consumers 0.1 Customer assistance service 0.05 Customer satisfaction information 0.05 Suppliers 0.05 Relationship with Suppliers (fixed suppliers, training) 0.05 Local Community 0.1 Local employment (close to the company) 0.05 Relation with the local community (visits, sponsoring events) 0.05 Table 3: Results of the performance of the three companies (RS, SC and BA) according to the indicators. Workers/ Employees Government Sub-category Indicator RS SC BA Child / Juvenile labor (under 18 years) no no no Forced Labor (overtime) yes no yes Health and Safety (occupational accident) no no no Maternity Protection (day-care or day-care assistance) yes no no Collective association / Relationship with the unions yes yes yes Equal opportunity /Diversity (gender preference) no yes no Fair salary (salary in accordance with the job) yes yes yes Benefits (sickness allowance, dental assistance or medical care) yes no yes Refectory yes yes yes Internal training (new technologies, new jobs) yes yes yes Employee satisfaction research no no no Operating license and environmental licenses yes yes yes Job description and operational instructions (legislation) yes no yes External indicators (Fiscal contributions / Taxes) yes yes yes Tax incentive yes no yes Consumers Customer assistance service no no yes Customer satisfaction information yes yes yes Suppliers Relationship with Suppliers (fixed suppliers, training) yes yes yes Local community Local employment (close to the company) no yes no Relation with the local community (visits, sponsoring events) yes yes yes

5 154 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 ( 2015 ) Results and Discussions Fig. 2. Performance of alternatives in accordance with sub-categories. Table 3 demonstrates the results of analyses made on the three companies in accordance with the indicators employed. As previously mentioned and with the purpose of making the understanding of the results easier, the graphic format was used because it serves to visually express the information (Figure 2). When indicators are used with their respective values, these should be standardized in order to expose the results, for which purpose all the graphs have the maximum weight of 5 (best option) [2; 16], ie the maximum value (5) is obtained when all Indicators are scored into the respective Sub-categories. When observing Figure 2, it is possible to observe that the companies RS and SC have practically the same performance, differing only in the sub-category Local Community, where the company SC has a better result, and Government, where the company RS presented a better performance. The company BA demonstrated a better performance in three sub-categories (Suppliers, Consumers and Government) out of the five under analysis. The company SC has two subcategories (Local Community and Suppliers) and the company RS also has two (Suppliers and Government). Furthermore, the three companies demonstrated a very close and equal performance in the sub-categories Workers and Suppliers, respectively. The methodology applied in this work was based on [11]. Nevertheless, some difficulties (limitations) were encountered in the implementation, mainly in the data collection and interpretation of results phases. The limitations encountered were: 1) Determining which impact indicators are most important for the SLCA and which can be easily acquired. 2) Reduce the number of indicators in order for the questionnaires to be answered quickly. 3) Translate the impact indicators to a language (question) which both the employee of the Human Resource sector as well as the machine operator can understand. 4) Manage that most of the questionnaires are answered, mainly those sent to machine operators once this question was directly related to the understanding of company management of the necessity of truthful answers. 5) Have all the questions of these questionnaires be answered making the employees to feel committed in their answers once these represent their opinion on the facts. 6) Group the information for a better understanding of the results (aggregating in sub-categories). 7) Decide the weights of the standardization of information, once this phase is not included in the [11] and is considered as optional in the LCA studies. 8) Assess the cultural factor may be the main point that caused the greatest differences among the surveyed companies they are in different regions of Brazil, until 3000 km away and that is not been reviewed by any SLCA methodology searched. 4. Conclusions The analysis of the Social Life Cycle Assessment of the three companies of the furniture sector demonstrates that these could incorporate social requirements for sustainability to improve their social performance, in other words, the analysis of the Impact Indicators where the company did not present a satisfactory performance could be the focus for introducing improvements. Thus, the companies could become more responsible for their business, considering the complete range of social impacts associated to their products and services (social responsibility). The three companies could search for more information/training to reduce occupational accidents and aim to obtain information on the satisfaction of their employees. Apart from these two factors, the companies could promote other improvements in the indicators:

6 Carlos Alberto Shuch Bork et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 ( 2015 ) Company RS decrease the use of overtime, not privileging the hiring of the male gender and permitting new channel of communication with customers; Company SC permit a location where the children of employees may remain/study, search mainly for medical insurance, develop job descriptions and operational instructions and also permit a new channel of communication with customers; and Company BA decrease the use of overtime and not privileging the hiring of the male gender. References [1] Saldanha, E.E. Modelo de Avaliação da Sustentabilidade Socioambiental. 122f. Tese (Doutor em Engenharia de Produção) Programa de Pós- Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina (2007). [2] Finkbeiner, M. et al. Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability. v.2, p (2010) doi: /su [3] Petti, L.; Campanella, P. The Social LCA: the state of art of an evolving methodology. The Annals of The Ştefancel Mare, Fascicle of The Faculty of Economics and Public Administration, University of Suceava. v.9, n.2(10), p (2009). [4] Griesshammer, R. et al. PROSA Product Sustainability Assessment: Guideline. Meisterdruck, Freiburg, Germany: Öko-Institut e.v. Institute for Applied Ecology. 21p. (2009). [5] Corrêa, S.R.C. Avaliação Social do Ciclo de Vida de um Produto: Estudo de caso em uma microempresa do ramo automotivo. 130f. Dissertação (Mestre em Tecnologia) - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Tecnologia, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná. (2009). [6] Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas (IBASE). Relatório IBASE p. (2009). < > [7] International Labor Organization (ILO). Giving globalization a human face. Report III (Part 1B). 1.ed. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO, 402f. (2012). < [8] Custodio, A.L.M.; Moya, R. (coordenadores) Indicadores Ethos de Responsabilidade Social Empresarial. São Paulo: Instituto Ethos, 78p. (2012). < [9] Esteves, A.M.C. et al. Indicadores Ethos Aplicados aos Princípios do Pacto Global Instituto São Paulo: Ethos de Empresas e Responsabilidade Social, 58f. (2005). <www3.ethos.org.br>. [10] Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G4): Reporting principles and standard disclosures. Amsterdam, Netherlands: GRI, 94p. (2013). < > [11] United Nations Environmental Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-SETAC). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris: UNEP, 104p. (2009) < [12] Benoît, c. et al. Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. International Journal of LCA. v.16, p (2011). doi /s y. [13] Jørgensen, A. et al. Methodologies for Social Life Cycle Assessment. International Journal of LCA. v.13(2), p (2008). doi: /lca [14] Klöpffer, W. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Products. International Journal of LCA. v.13(2), p (2008). doi: /lca [15] Dreyer, L.C.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Schierbeck, J.A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of LCA. v.11 (2) p (2006). doi: /lca [16] Traverso M. et al. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. International Journal of LCA. v.17, p (2012). doi: /s