Analysis of Worker Category Social Impacts in Different Types of Concrete Plant Operations: A Case Study in South Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)
2.2. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA)
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Analysis Targets
3.2. Analysis Methdod
3.3. Data Collection
4. Results and Discussion
- (1)
- Freedom of association and collective bargaining: It was reported that concrete plants A and B do not have labor unions that exercise the rights of workers, but concrete plant C do. Concrete plants A and B have not had any organizations that represent the interests of employees and have never allowed collective bargaining. On the other hand, concrete plant C allowed active collective bargaining through a labor union and had a labor council, which guarantees the regular articulation of the opinions of workers. Therefore, concrete plants A and B were assigned “−2”, and concrete plant C was evaluated as “+2”.
- (2)
- Child labor: According to the 2013 United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) report [41] that surveyed the reality of child labor in 104 countries, this study assumed no child labor at any workplace in South Korea. Accordingly, concrete plants A, B, and C were all evaluated as “+2”.
- (3)
- Fair salary: It was reported that concrete plant A, which is a typical small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME), pays the legal minimum standard wages but no additional living expenses. Concrete plants B and C, which are large companies or belong to a conglomerate, pay the legal minimum standard wages and a variety of living expenses, such as factory allowances, qualification allowances, communication costs, and tuitions. As a result, concrete plant A was given a zero, and concrete plants B and C were given “+2”.
- (4)
- Working hours: Concrete plant A introduced a 40-h work week, but their employees work from dawn to evening during the week and even on most legal holidays and Sundays due to the nature of the industry. Concrete plants B and C also introduced a 40-h workweek, but their employees also work on holidays depending on the operation status of the factory. However, in concrete plants B and C, when an employee works during holidays, he or she can take a compensatory day off. Concrete plant A was given “−2” and concrete plants B and C were given “−1”.
- (5)
- Forced labor: We referred to South Korea’s labor rights report [42] of the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) surveyed in 2011 and assumed no forced labor in any workplace in South Korea. It was also determined that employers and suppliers directly related to products do their best to prevent forced labor by complying with the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. As a result, concrete plants A, B, and C were all given “+2”.
- (6)
- Equal opportunities and discrimination: Based on South Korea’s labor rights report [42] of the USDOL surveyed in 2011, we assumed no discrimination in any workplace in South Korea. As a result, concrete plants A, B, and C were all given “+2”.
- (7)
- Health and safety: In accordance with South Korea’s Occupational Safety and Health Act [43], we determined that the three concrete plants conduct regular safety and health inspections as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. Additionally, they have a safety and health manager, supervisor, and senior safety manager who are responsible for the workers’ health and safety. However, it was difficult to have workers participate in the design, development, and review of the training programs for health and safety or to determine whether a concrete plant establishes and manages reduction targets and disaster levels. Therefore, additional scores were not given. Concrete plants A, B, and C were all given scores of zero.
- (8)
- Social benefits: Concrete plant A grants social benefits outlined in the Labor Standards Act but has no employee welfare system. On the other hand, Concrete plants B and C provide factory allowances, office allowances, qualification allowances, tuitions, and social benefits specified by law. Concrete plant A was given zero and concrete plants B and C were given “+2”.
- (9)
- Training and education: Concrete plant A has not built its own education system and has only conducted the minimum training specified in the Korean Industrial Standards (KS) regulations. Concrete plants B and C periodically operate online and provide classroom training related to the job. In addition, they provide their employees with training that considers various cultures, languages, and jobs by operating a corporate educational credit system. Accordingly, Concrete plant A was given “−1” and concrete plants B and C were given “+2”.
- (10)
- Employment relationship: The three concrete plants provide all workers with employment contracts in accordance with the Labor Standards Act, and more than 25% of their employees are full-time workers. All concrete plants were given “+2”.
- (11)
- Job satisfaction: The annual turnover of concrete plant A ranges from 15% to 20% and that of concrete plant B varies from 8.3% to 15%. On the other hand, the service years of the employees of concrete plant C range from 15 to 20 years, which is quite long, and their turnover rates are very low. Concrete plant A was given “−1”, concrete plant B was given zero, and concrete plant C was given “+2”.
5. Conclusions
- The worker category social impact by concrete plants in South Korea analyzed in the following order (−1 ≤ social impact ≤ 1): operated by cement suppliers (0.77), operated by dedicated concrete manufacturers (0.50), and direct operation (0.09). A higher social impact (closer to one) is better in terms of S-LCA than a value close to −1. It was attributed to the differences of the systematic degree of operation and benefits to the workers depending on the company’s scale.
- All the concrete plants in South Korea received low scores in terms of working hours, irrespective of the operation type. It was partially inferred to the variability in concrete production, which is seasonally dependent and fluctuates with the demands of the construction business.
- Direct operation and operated by dedicated concrete plants received low scores for freedom of association and collective bargaining, likely due to the relatively conservative culture and working environment in the industry.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Urbaniec, K.; Mikulčić, H.; Wang, Y.; Duić, N. System integration is a necessity for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laprise, M.; Lufkin, S.; Rey, E. An indicator system for the assessment of sustainability integrated into the project dynamics of regeneration of disused urban areas. Build. Environ. 2015, 86, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broman, G.I.; Robèrt, K.H. A framework for strategic sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagheri, A.; Hjorth, P. Planning for sustainable development: A paradigm shift towards a process-based approach. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 15, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celik, K.; Meral, C.; Petek Gursel, A.; Mehta, P.K.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P.J.M. Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and limestone powder. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 56, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prem, P.R.; Verma, M.; Ambily, P.S. Sustainable cleaner production of concrete with high volume copper slag. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gursel, A.P.; Maryman, H.; Ostertag, C. A life-cycle approach to environmental, mechanical, and durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 823–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higuchi, T.; Morioka, M.; Yoshioka, I.; Yokozeki, K. Development of a new ecological concrete with CO2 emissions below zero. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 67, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, K.H.; Song, J.K.; Song, K., II. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 39, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.; Lee, S.; Chae, C.; Jang, H.; Lee, K. Development of the CO2 emission evaluation tool for the life cycle assessment of concrete. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gursel, A.P. Green Concrete LCA Web Tool. Available online: http://greenconcrete.berkeley.edu (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- Hossain, M.U.; Poon, C.S.; Dong, Y.H.; Xuan, D. Evaluation of environmental impact distribution methods for supplementary cementitious materials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petek Gursel, A.; Masanet, E.; Horvath, A.; Stadel, A. Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 51, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.; Chae, C.; Kim, G.; Jang, H. Analysis of CO2 emission characteristics of concrete used at construction sites. Sustainability 2016, 8, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S.A.; Monteiro, P.J.M.; Ostertag, C.P.; Horvath, A. Concrete mixture proportioning for desired strength and reduced global warming potential. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 128, 410–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, C.; Miller, S.A. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions for prescribed concrete compressive strength. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 167, 918–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S.A.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P.J.M.; Ostertag, C.P. Greenhouse gas emissions from concrete can be reduced by using mix proportions, geometric aspects, and age as design factors. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 114017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Younis, A.; Ebead, U.; Judd, S. Life cycle cost analysis of structural concrete using seawater, recycled concrete aggregate, and GFRP reinforcement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 175, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bostanci, S.C.; Limbachiya, M.; Kew, H. Use of recycled aggregates for low carbon and cost effective concrete construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 176–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eleftheriadis, E.; Duffour, P.; Greening, P.; James, J.; Stephenson, B.; Mumovic, D. Investigating relationships between cost and CO2 emissions in reinforced concrete structures using a BIM-based design optimisation approach. Energy Build. 2018, 166, 330–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.; Tae, S.; Roh, S. Assessment of the CO2 emission and cost reduction performance of a low-carbon-emission concrete mix design using an optimal mix design system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 729–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liew, K.M.; Sojobi, A.O.; Zhang, L.W. Green concrete: Prospects and challenges. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 156, 1063–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dreyer, L.; Hauschild, M.; Schierbeck, J. A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skouloudis, A.; Evangelinos, K.; Kourmousis, F. Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environ. Manag. 2009, 44, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hacking, T.; Guthrie, P. A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Available online: http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8001/UNEP_LifecycleInit_Dec_ FINAL.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- PRé Sustainability. Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment. Available online: http://product-social-impact-assessment.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Handbook-for-Product-Social-Impact-Assessment-3.0.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- Klöpffer, W. Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2003, 8, 157–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Zamagni, A.; Masoni, P.; Buonamici, R.; Ekvall, T.; Rydberg, T. Life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Available online: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- Norris, G. Social impact in product life cycles: Towards life cycle attribute assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunkeler, D. Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruse, S.; Flysjo, A.; Kasperczyk, N.; Scholz, A. Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—An application to salmon production system. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 14, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feschet, P.; Macombe, C.; Garrabe, M.; Loeillet, D.; Saez, A.; Benhmad, F. Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway: The case of banana industry in Cameroon. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 490–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aparcana, S.; Salhofer, S. Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling system in low income countries: Three Peruvian case studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1116–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 26000: Guidance on Social Responsibility; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Measuring Impact Framework Methodology, Version 1.0. Available online: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/7ddc9a80488552c3ac8cfe6a6515bb18/Measuring+Impact+Framework+Methodology.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=7ddc9a80488552c3ac8cfe6a6515bb18 (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Version 3.1. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP). Global Social Compliance Programme Reference Code, Version 2. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/site/agrfcn/48593463.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- Jeong, H. A Study on the Characteristics of Labor-Management Relations Depending on Operating Type of Ready Mixed Concrete Companies. Master’s Thesis, Korea University, Seoul, Korea, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Child Labor. Available online: http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/child-labour.html (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- United States Department of Labor, REPUBLIC OF KOREA LABOR RIGHTS REPORT. Available online: https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/southkorea_LRR.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2018).
- Korea Ministry of Government Legislation. Occupation Safety and Health Acts. Available online: http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=140954&efYd=20150101#0000 (accessed on 12 June 2018).
Category | Social Topics | UNEP [30] | ISO 26000 [36] | WBC SD [37] | GRI [38] | PRé [27] | GSCP [39] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Worker | Freedom of association & collective bargaining | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Child labor | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Fair salary | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
Working hours | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||
Forced labor | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Equal opportunities & discrimination | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Health & safety | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Social benefits | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
Training & education | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||
Employment relationships | ● | ● | |||||
Job satisfaction | ● | ||||||
Consumer | Health & safety | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Consumer privacy | ● | ● | ● | ● | - | ||
Transparency | ● | ● | ● | - | |||
Local community | Safe & healthy living conditions | ● | ● | ||||
Community engagement | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
Local employment | ● | ● | ● | - | |||
Society | Public commitment to sustainability issues | ● | |||||
Contribution to economic development | ● | ||||||
Technology development | ● | ● | |||||
Value chain | Fair competition | ● | ● | ● | |||
Respect of intellectual property rights | ● | ● |
Classification | Concrete Plant A | Concrete Plant B | Concrete Plant C |
---|---|---|---|
Operation type | Plant of direct operated | Plant operated by dedicated concrete manufacturer | Plant operated by cement supplier |
Location | Yongin, Gyeonggi-do Province | Goyang, Gyeonggi-do Province | Bucheon, Gyeonggi-do Province |
Number of employees | 21 | 34 | 41 |
Production capacity (m3/h) | 420 | 720 | 620 |
Cement Silo (ton) | 1000 | 2000 | 3500 |
Transit mixer truck | 55 | 87 | 101 |
Annual shipments (m3) | 300,000 | 691,000 | 638,000 |
Rate of operation (%) | 35 | 47 | 50 |
Social Topics | Criteria | Score | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+2 | +1 | 0 | −1 | −2 | ||
(1) Freedom of association & collective bargaining |
| Yes | Partial | |||
| Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | ||
(2) Child labor |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Yes | Partial | ||||
(3) Fair salary |
| All workers | All workers | All workers | ≥75% of workers | <25% of workers |
| ≥25% of workers | <25% of workers | ||||
(4) Working hours |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Peak seasons only | Usually exceeds |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Yes | Partial | ||||
(5) Forced labor |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Yes | Partial | ||||
(6) Equal opportunities & discrimination |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Achieved | Set | ||||
(7) Health & safety |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | |
| Yes | Yes | ||||
| Yes | |||||
(8) Social benefits |
| All workers | All workers | All workers | ≥75% of workers | <25% of workers |
| ≥25% of workers | <25% of workers | ||||
(9) Training & education |
| All workers | >75% of workers | ≥75% & ≤50% of workers | <50% of workers | |
(10) Employment relationships |
| All workers | All workers | All workers | >75% of workers | ≤25% of workers |
| ≥25% of workers | <25% of workers | ||||
(11) Job satisfaction |
| <5% | ≥5% & <10% | ≥10% & <15% | ≥15% & <20% | ≥20% |
Social Topics | Site Specific Data | Generic Data | Source |
---|---|---|---|
(1) Freedom of association & collective bargaining | ● | A | |
(2) Child labor | ● | B | |
(3) Fair salary | ● | A | |
(4) Working hours | ● | A | |
(5) Forced labor | ● | C | |
(6) Equal opportunities & discrimination | ● | C | |
(7) Health & safety | ● | D | |
(8) Social benefits | ● | A | |
(9) Training & education | ● | A | |
(10) Employment relationships | ● | A | |
(11) Job satisfaction | ● | A |
Social Topics | Concrete Plant A | Concrete Plant B | Concrete Plant C |
---|---|---|---|
(1) Freedom of association & collective bargaining | −2 | −2 | 2 |
(2) Child labor | 2 | 2 | 2 |
(3) Fair salary | 0 | 2 | 2 |
(4) Working hours | −2 | −1 | −1 |
(5) Forced labor | 2 | 2 | 2 |
(6) Equal opportunities & discrimination | 2 | 2 | 2 |
(7) Health & safety | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(8) Social benefits | 0 | 2 | 2 |
(9) Training & education | −1 | 2 | 2 |
(10) Employment relationships | 2 | 2 | 2 |
(11) Job satisfaction | −1 | 0 | 2 |
Total score | 2 | 11 | 17 |
Social impact (= Total score/22) | 0.09 | 0.50 | 0.77 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Roh, S.; Tae, S.; Kim, R.; Martínez, D.M. Analysis of Worker Category Social Impacts in Different Types of Concrete Plant Operations: A Case Study in South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3661. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103661
Roh S, Tae S, Kim R, Martínez DM. Analysis of Worker Category Social Impacts in Different Types of Concrete Plant Operations: A Case Study in South Korea. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3661. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103661
Chicago/Turabian StyleRoh, Seungjun, Sungho Tae, Rakhyun Kim, and Daniela M. Martínez. 2018. "Analysis of Worker Category Social Impacts in Different Types of Concrete Plant Operations: A Case Study in South Korea" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3661. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103661