Social life cycle assessment in current and future Norwegian livestock production

Abstract

Abstract Purpose This study is a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of per capita consumption of animal protein in Norway in 2019. The animal protein consisted of milk, beef, pork, poultry and egg. Based on the 2019 results, two scenarios, TrendProd and ChangeProd, were qualitatively assessed. The TrendProd scenario is a continuation of the current trend towards highly efficient livestock production, whilst ChangeProd focuses on using livestock feed based on bioresources that are unsuitable for human consumption. Methods The assessment of current livestock production followed the updated version of the social LCA guidelines by UNEP (2020). A survey amongst stakeholders was conducted for the selection of subcategories. The product system was divided into the following steps: imported feed, domestic off-farm feed, livestock production, manufacturing, distribution and use. A total of 25 subcategories across six stakeholder groups (i.e. workers, local community, society, value chain actors, consumers and children) were included in the assessment. A reference scale approach was used with a scale from 1 to 4. The assessment included quantitative and qualitative data from statistics, indices, surveys, etc. The social performance of the scenarios was assessed by the authors’ expert evaluation using the Delphi approach, comparing performance of indicators relative to the current production. Results and discussion The life cycle for the current Norwegian livestock production had an acceptable or high social performance for 17 of the selected subcategories. Five subcategories had a low performance (fair salary, equal opportunities, animal welfare, food security, promoting social responsibility) and three had a very low performance (health and safety, cultural heritage, fair competition). The assessment of the scenarios indicated that anticipated improvements in skills and technology were key drivers for maintaining or enhancing social performance in certain subcategories. The use of activity variables for measuring the relative importance of each unit process is recommended as it reflects actual distribution and is consistent with the method of environmental LCA. Conclusions Overall, the social life cycle assessment of current livestock production demonstrated high social performance. A stakeholders’ survey resulted in a new subcategory, ‘food security’, which served to include societal concern for self-sufficiency and food security in social LCA. Limitations and uncertainties of the study have also been identified, some relating to data and choice of indicators and others to the application of method, e.g. activity variables, development of reference scale and aggregation of results.