ArticleThe international journal of life cycle assessment2026
Towards greater sensitivity: advancing social life cycle assessment for the coffee sector in Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Article in The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Literature on coffee sustainability focuses on environmental and economic challenges and often falls short on social factors that strongly influence overall sustainability. For coffee producers, social aspects are existentially important, while environmental concerns take lower priority. Recognizing that social aspects are critical to sustainable development, we assessed the social impacts of nine coffee case studies in Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Methods: Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) has gained interest and importance to better understand and measure the positive and negative social impacts of products on various stakeholders. However, many challenges in its applicability still exist. Therefore, in this study, we operationalized and applied the S-LCA methodology for the coffee sector, based on the UNEP guidelines and the ISO standard 14,075. We used the reference scale approach based only on primary, site-specific data and systematically involved different actors at the upstream stages of the coffee value chain to capture multiple perspectives. In total, we conducted 170 inventory interviews and included six validation interviews. Results: We found significant differences in social performance both within and across the two countries; cross-country differences are reported to contrast the two contexts rather than to rank performance. The differences we found within the two countries show that not only context but also organization matters. Especially in Brazil, the cooperative models scored higher than the commercial plantations. In the Brazilian case studies, mean performance scores were highest for the stakeholder category 'farmer', followed by 'local community', 'worker', and 'value chain actors'. In the Congolese case studies, mean performance scores were highest for the stakeholder category 'local community', followed by 'farmer', 'worker', and 'value chain actors'. The impact subcategories showing the lowest social performance scores, such as 'fair salary', 'livelihood and well-being', and 'productivity', are the ones that were ranked highest during the validation interviews. We found that workers mostly do not earn living wages, with only seven exceptions in Brazil and one in the DRC. Conclusions: This study contributes to the limited body of S-LCA research on coffee production, and, to our knowledge, is among the first to be based on primary data collected in Brazil and the DRC. It presents a novel approach for achieving greater case sensitivity in S-LCA through primary data and context-specific reference scales, going beyond generic databases. This approach makes it possible to account for differences among case studies within the same country and sector. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-026-02760-8.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.