Agricultural Economics and Development

Agricultural Economics and Development

Studying Different Dimensions of Social Sustainability from the Perspective of Stakeholders in Rice Production in Langrud County of Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Fatemeh Feizi 1
reza esfanjari kenari 2
Mohamad Karim Motamed 3
1 Graduated MSc, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan.
3 Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan
10.30490/aead.2025.367377.1656
Abstract
Introduction: Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is an emerging methodology designed to evaluate the social impacts of products and services throughout their life cycles. Particularly pertinent to sectors like agriculture and food production, SLCA provides a framework for assessing how products influence various social aspects, including labor conditions, community well-being, and human rights. In the context of sustainable development, SLCA serves as a vital tool for producers and consumers alike, enabling more informed decision-making that considers not only environmental but also social dimensions. By integrating social considerations into the life cycle assessment, stakeholders can identify areas for improvement, promote ethical practices, and contribute to the overall enhancement of societal welfare. The publication of the UNEP/SETAC guidelines for SLCA in 2009 marked a significant milestone in standardizing the assessment process. These guidelines provided a structured approach to evaluating social impacts, facilitating consistency and comparability across studies.  As a result, researchers and practitioners gained a clearer understanding of how products and services affect social systems, leading to more effective strategies for mitigating negative impacts and enhancing positive outcomes. Beyond its role in improving social conditions, SLCA also fosters greater awareness among individuals and organizations regarding the social implications of their choices.  This heightened consciousness encourages the adoption of socially responsible practices, thereby advancing social sustainability objectives.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in Langrud County, located in Guilan province of Iran, during 2024.  The primary objective of the study was to assess the social impacts of rice production using the SLCA methodology. A total of 417 participants were selected through random sampling from five distinct stakeholder groups including 51 rice mill managers, 81 rice mill workers, 95 rice farmers, 95 rice field workers, and 96 local community members. These groups were chosen to capture a comprehensive range of perspectives on the social impacts associated with rice production. The assessment focused on four key social indicators including (1) human rights, (2) working conditions, (3) cultural heritage and community development, (4) socio-economic consequences. These indicators were selected to provide a holistic view of the social dimensions of rice production, encompassing aspects such as labor rights, community cohesion, and economic well-being.

Results and Discussion: The study findings revealed that overall, the social conditions governing the rice production cycle in Langrud County were favorable.  However, disparities existed among different stakeholder groups concerning specific social indicators. Notably, rice field workers reported poor working conditions, highlighting issues such as inadequate safety measures, long working hours, and insufficient access to protective equipment. These conditions not only jeopardize the health and well-being of workers, but also contravene basic labor rights standards. In the realm of cultural heritage and community development, the local community expressed concerns about the migration of indigenous people.  The outflow of local populations threatens the preservation of traditional knowledge, cultural practices, and community identity. This trend underscores the need for policies that promote community retention and cultural sustainability. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach, including the implementation of labor rights protections, community engagement initiatives, and policies that support sustainable development practices.  By fostering an environment that values and upholds social well-being, the rice production sector can contribute to broader social sustainability goals.
 
Conclusion and Suggestions: The study underscores the importance of integrating social considerations into the life cycle assessment of agricultural products. While Langrud County’s rice production cycle exhibits overall favorable social conditions, significant challenges persist, particularly concerning working conditions and community development. To address these challenges, the following recommendations are proposed: enhancing labor rights awareness: implementation of training programs for workers to educate them about their rights and available protections; improving working conditions: introduction of safety protocols, provision of protective equipment, and regulation of working hours to safeguard worker health and well-being; promoting community retention: development of policies that incentivize local populations to remain in their communities, thereby preservation of cultural heritage and fostering community development; and encouraging the stakeholder collaboration: facilitation of dialogue among the stakeholders, including producers, workers, and community members, to collaboratively address social issues and develop sustainable solutions. By implementing these recommendations, the rice production sector in Langrud County can enhance its social sustainability, contributing to the overall well-being of its stakeholders and the preservation of its cultural heritage
Keywords
Social Responsibility
Langrud (County)
Human Rights
Cultural Heritage and Community Development.
1.       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, 143, 1069-1080. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.012.
2.       Ahmadzadeh, S. (2020). Determining the environmental efficiency of rice farmers of the Guilan province with emphasis on directional nutrient surplus. PhD Thesis, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University. Iran. [In Persian] 
3.       Arcese, G., Lucchetti, M. C., Massa, I., & Valente, C., (2018). State of the art in S-LCA: integrating literature reviewand automatic text analysis. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 394-405. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-1082-0.
4.       Benoît, C., & Mazijn, B. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Sustainable Product and Consumption Branch Paris, France.
5.       Benoît, C., Norris, G. A., Valdivia, S., Ciroth, A., Moberg, A., Bos, U., ... & Beck, T. (2010). The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15, 156-163.‏ DOI: 10.1007/s11367-009-0147-8.
6.       Chang, Y. J., Nguyen, T. D., Finkbeiner, M., & Krüger, J. (2016). Adapting ergonomic assessments to social life cycle assessment. Procedia CIRP, 40, 91-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.064.
7.       Chen, W., & Holden, N. M. (2017). Social life cycle assessment of average Irish dairy farm. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(9), 1459-1472.
8.       Colantonio, A., Dixon, T., Ganser, R., Carpenter, J., & Ngombe, A. (2009). Measuring socially sustainable urban regeneration in Europe. Project Report. Oxford Brookes University.
9.     de Carvalho Araújo, C. K., Salvador, R., Moro Piekarski, C., Sokulski, C. C., de Francisco, A. C., & de Carvalho Araújo Camargo, S. K. (2019). Circular economy practices on wood panels: a bibliographic analysis. Sustainability, 11(4), 1057. DOI: 10.3390/su11041057.
10.   de Oliveira, A. C., Sokulski, C. C., da Silva Batista, A. A., & de Francisco, A. C. (2018). Competencies for sustainability: a proposed method for the analysis of their interrelationships. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 14, 82-94.‏ DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2018.01.005.
11.   Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Riesgo, L. (2009). Alternative approaches to the construction of a composite indicator of agricultural sustainability: an application to irrigated agriculture in the Duero basin in Spain. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11), 3345-3362. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.023.
12.   Ihuah, P. W., Kakulu, I. I., & Eaton, D. (2014). A review of Critical Project Management Success Factors (CPMSF) for sustainable social housing in Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 3(1), 62-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.08.001.
13.   Khani, M., Esfanjari, R., & Payman, S. H. (2023). Economic analysis of modern and traditional transplanting systems in rice production (case study: Rasht County). Journal of Research in Mechanics of Agricultural Machinery, 12(1), 41-56. DOI: 10.22034/jrmam.2023.13891.590. [In Persian]
14.   Lehmann, A., Zschieschang, E., Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M., & Schebek, L. (2013). Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies — challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1581-1592. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0594-0.
15.   Macombe, C., Loeillet, D., & Gillet, C. (2018). Extended community of peers and robustness of social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 492-506. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-1226-2.
16.   MAJ (2022). Report on the area, production and yield of crops in the cropping year 2020-2021. Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad (MAJ), Information and Communication Technology Center. [In Persian]
17.   Manik, Y., Leahy, J., & Halog, A. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi province of Indonesia. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1386-1392. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0581-5.
18.   Pourtaheri, M., Zal, A., & Rokneddin Eftekhari, A. (2018). An evaluation and prioritization of social sustainability in rural areas: a case study of villages in Khorrambid County of Fars province. Village and Development, 14(3), 19-49. DOI: 10.30490/rvt.2018.59150. [In Persian]
19.   Prasara-A, J., & Gheewala, S. H. (2019). Social life cycle assessment of agricultural products: experiences on rice, sugarcane and cassava in Thailand. In: Social life cycle assessment (pp. 1-37), Springer, Singapore. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-3236-4.
20.   Rivera-Huerta, A., Rubio Lozano, M. D. L. S., Padilla-Rivera, A., & Güereca, L. P. (2019). Social sustainability assessment in livestock production: a social life cycle assessment approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4419. DOI: 10.3390/su11164419.
21.   Safeie-Noghlbari, B., Amiri, Z., Allahyari, M. S., Nikkhah, A., Ben Hassen, T., & Bacenetti, J. (2024). Social life cycle assessment of the olive oil industry: a case study in Guilan province, Iran. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(6), 14553-14599. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-024-04463-2.
22.   Salmanzadeh, S. (1992). Sustainable agriculture, an approach in the development of agriculture, a mission for the extension of Iran. Proceedings of the Sixth Scientific Seminar on Agricultural Education and Extension, Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad (MAJ), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREERO), pp. 29-50. [In Persian]
23.   Sawaengsak, W., Olsen, S. I., Hauschild, M. Z., & Gheewala, S. H. (2019). Development of a social impact assessment method and application to a case study of sugarcane, sugar, and ethanol in Thailand. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(11), 2054-2072. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-019-01624-8. 
24.   Shamsodini, A. , Jamini, D., & Jamshidi, A. (2016). Measurement and analyses of social stability in rural area (case study: Javanrood Township). Journal of Rural Research, 7(3), 486-503. DOI: 10.21859/jjr-07035. [In Persian]
25.   Singh, R. K., & Gupta, U. (2018). Social life cycle assessment in Indian steel sector: a case study. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(4), 921-939.
26.   Tavakkoli, J. (2014). Socio-economic sustainability assessment of rural settlements of north and south Khave rural districts, Lorestan province.‏ Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences (JARGS), 14(32), 71-92. Available at http://jgs.khu.ac.ir/article-1-1830-fa.html. [In Persian]
27.   Vinci, G., Ruggeri, M., Gobbi, L., & Savastano, M. (2024). Social life cycle assessment of cocoa production: evidence from West Africa. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202408.0467.v1.
28.   Vinci, G., Ruggieri, R., Ruggeri, M., & Prencipe, S. A. (2023). Rice production chain: environmental and social impact assessment: a review. Agriculture, 13, 340.‏  DOI: 10.3390/agriculture13020340.
29.   Voglhuber-Slavinsky, A., Zicari, A., Smetana, S., … Behrs, E. (2022). Setting Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in a future-oriented context: the combination of qualitative scenarios and LCA in the agri-food sector. European Journal of Futures Research, 10, Article Number 15. DOI: 10.1186/ s40309-022- 00203-9.
30.   Zamagni, A., Pesonen, H. L., & Swarr, T. (2013). From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: concept, practice and future directions. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1637-1641.‏ DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0648-3.