Implementing sustainability frameworks at a product-level – Exploring the usability

IF 5.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental and Sustainability Indicators Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.indic.2025.100593
Paule Bhérer-Breton , Anna Woodhouse , Bente Aspeholen Åby , Hilke Bos-Brouwers , Melanie Kok , Hanne Fjerdingby Olsen
{"title":"Implementing sustainability frameworks at a product-level – Exploring the usability","authors":"Paule Bhérer-Breton ,&nbsp;Anna Woodhouse ,&nbsp;Bente Aspeholen Åby ,&nbsp;Hilke Bos-Brouwers ,&nbsp;Melanie Kok ,&nbsp;Hanne Fjerdingby Olsen","doi":"10.1016/j.indic.2025.100593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Product-level assessments are for targeted and effective sustainability improvements both in downstream and upstream agrifood supply chains. Current frameworks for sustainability assessments often lack the integration of both social and environmental considerations for product-specific assessment. This study explores the usability of existing frameworks designed for both social and environmental assessments, with a focus on their application at the product level. Based on the development of usability criteria and applying a waterfall selection process, we identified two frameworks (Food System Sustainable framework and Sustainable Nutrition Security framework) for further analysis. To test against usability, both frameworks were applied towards a case study of seven food products produced in Norway: milk, greenhouse tomatoes, greenhouse cucumbers, wheat, beef, sheep and pork. The criteria included the following: data availability, data correctness, ease of use, transparency, effectiveness or relevance, and complexity of use. The selected frameworks provided a holistic and comprehensive approach to assessing social and environmental sustainability. However, their usability was limited due to lower data accuracy and a lack of user-friendliness for researchers, who were the primary target user group. The study revealed a trade-off: frameworks with higher usability tended to sacrifice depth and comprehensiveness in the information provided about food products. Both frameworks faced significant challenges in distinguishing social and ethical issues at the product level, largely due to data limitations. These findings underscore the need for the development of a purpose-built framework that accounts for these trade-offs, while enhancing usability, is essential to progress toward a more sustainable food supply chain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36171,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100593"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972725000145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Product-level assessments are for targeted and effective sustainability improvements both in downstream and upstream agrifood supply chains. Current frameworks for sustainability assessments often lack the integration of both social and environmental considerations for product-specific assessment. This study explores the usability of existing frameworks designed for both social and environmental assessments, with a focus on their application at the product level. Based on the development of usability criteria and applying a waterfall selection process, we identified two frameworks (Food System Sustainable framework and Sustainable Nutrition Security framework) for further analysis. To test against usability, both frameworks were applied towards a case study of seven food products produced in Norway: milk, greenhouse tomatoes, greenhouse cucumbers, wheat, beef, sheep and pork. The criteria included the following: data availability, data correctness, ease of use, transparency, effectiveness or relevance, and complexity of use. The selected frameworks provided a holistic and comprehensive approach to assessing social and environmental sustainability. However, their usability was limited due to lower data accuracy and a lack of user-friendliness for researchers, who were the primary target user group. The study revealed a trade-off: frameworks with higher usability tended to sacrifice depth and comprehensiveness in the information provided about food products. Both frameworks faced significant challenges in distinguishing social and ethical issues at the product level, largely due to data limitations. These findings underscore the need for the development of a purpose-built framework that accounts for these trade-offs, while enhancing usability, is essential to progress toward a more sustainable food supply chain.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
49
审稿时长
57 days
期刊最新文献
Soil quality dynamics in response to land-use management types and slope positions in northeastern highlands of Ethiopia Understanding flood and drought extremes under a changing climate in the Blue Nile Basin: A review Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions in technology revolution 5.0: New insights in Vietnam The carbon footprint of football fans: Emotional and rational correlates of home and away game travel Fisheries performance indicators for assessing the ecological sustainability of wild-caught seafood products in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1