Addressing the social life cycle inventory analysis data gap: Insights from a case study of cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Abstract

Evaluating the human health and well-being effects of emerging technologies is essential. Yet, data to support rigorous evaluation of these effects through social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) are lacking, especially at local or regional rather than national scales. As a consequence, technologies and policies that use emerging technologies may drive inequality and detract from quality of life even if environmental life cycle assessments point to likely environmental benefits. Therefore, this Perspective describes our exploratory fieldwork in cobalt mining communities in Lualaba Province, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), to identify barriers to and opportunities for collecting better data for conducting S-LCA. Our recommendations apply to the S-LCA of cobalt mining and other systems and, overall, enable more holistic evaluations of emerging technologies' effects on social well-being that are insufficiently robust for use in policy. Evaluating the human health and well-being effects of emerging technologies is essential. Yet, data to support rigorous evaluation of these effects through social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) are lacking, especially at local or regional rather than national scales. As a consequence, technologies and policies that use emerging technologies may drive inequality and detract from quality of life even if environmental life cycle assessments point to likely environmental benefits. Therefore, this Perspective describes our exploratory fieldwork in cobalt mining communities in Lualaba Province, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), to identify barriers to and opportunities for collecting better data for conducting S-LCA. Our recommendations apply to the S-LCA of cobalt mining and other systems and, overall, enable more holistic evaluations of emerging technologies' effects on social well-being that are insufficiently robust for use in policy. Environmental life cycle analysis (ELCA) is a mature, widely used tool that has been formalized by the International Standards Organization (ISO)1International Standards OrganizationEnvironmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework.1997Google Scholar,2International Standards OrganizationEnvironmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and Guidelines.2006Google Scholar to systematically evaluate the environmental effects of products, processes, and systems.1International Standards OrganizationEnvironmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework.1997Google Scholar In an ELCA, material and energy flows for a product, process, or system are cataloged at each stage of a supply chain, including raw material extraction and processing, transportation and distribution to a consumer, use, and end-of-life. There are four phases of an ELCA (Figure 1): 1) definition of goal and scope, including, for example, specifying the system boundary; 2) life cycle inventory analysis, in which system inputs and outputs are identified and quantified using empirical data (e.g., electricity consumption) or engineering models; 3) life cycle impact assessment, in which system-level indicators are evaluated (e.g., global warming potential), using data collected from the prior phase; and 4) interpretation, in which analysts use Phase 3 results to identify the most significant life cycle impacts and communicate strategies for addressing them to relevant stakeholders.1International Standards OrganizationEnvironmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework.1997Google Scholar,3United Nations Environment ProgramGuidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020.2020Google Scholar This four-stage process permits a holistic assessment of a system's associated environmental impacts, including GHG emissions, water consumption, and air pollution. Within the transportation sector, ELCA has been used to examine the environmental impacts of EVs4Gómez Vilchez J.J. Jochem P. Powertrain technologies and their impact on greenhouse gas emissions in key car markets.Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 2020; 80: 102214Crossref Scopus (21) Google Scholar,5Ehrenberger S.I. Dunn J.B. Jungmeier G. Wang H. An international dialogue about electric vehicle deployment to bring energy and greenhouse gas benefits through 2030 on a well-to-wheels basis.Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 2019; 74: 245-254Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar and the cobalt-containing lithium-ion batteries that power them,6Dunn J.B. Gaines L. Kelly J.C. James C. Gallagher K.G. The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling’s role in its reduction.Energy Environ. Sci. 2015; 8: 158-168Crossref Google Scholar,7Dai Q. Kelly J.C. Gaines L. Wang M. Life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries for automotive applications.Batteries. 2019; 5: 48Crossref Scopus (105) Google Scholar as well as other potentially low-GHG-emitting transportation options including biofuels,8Dunn J.B. Biofuel and bioproduct environmental sustainability analysis.Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2019; 57: 88-93Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar fuel cell vehicles,9Yang Z. Wang B. Jiao K. Life cycle assessment of fuel cell, electric and internal combustion engine vehicles under different fuel scenarios and driving mileages in China.Energy. 2020; 198: 117365Crossref Scopus (43) Google Scholar,10Chen Y. Hu X. Liu J. Life cycle assessment of fuel cell vehicles considering the detailed vehicle components: Comparison and scenario analysis in China based on different hydrogen production schemes.Energies. 2019; 12: 3031Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar and vehicles using natural gas.11Bicer Y. Dincer I. Life cycle environmental impact assessments and comparisons of alternative fuels for clean vehicles.Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018; 132: 141-157Crossref Scopus (87) Google Scholar The environmental effects of these options are then compared against those of a well-characterized baseline, such as conventional gasoline- or diesel-fueled transportation, to understand whether these systems offer advantages (e.g., lower GHG emissions per mile) or how they might be tailored to enhance environmental benefits.12Elgowainy A. Han J. Ward J. Joseck F. Gohlke D. Lindauer A. Ramsden T. Biddy M. Alexander M. Barnhart S. et al.Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Analysis of U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment of Current (2015) and Future (2025-2030) Technologies. Argonne National Laboratory, 2016Google Scholar As such, ELCA provides an evidence base for policymakers, corporations, and consumers to incentivize, develop, or purchase vehicle technologies that reduce GHG emissions and minimize broader environmental effects (e.g., on water and air quality). Accordingly, findings from ELCA have been used to develop policies and regulatory standards in the US13United States Environmental Protection AgencyRenewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010Google Scholar and Europe.14European Union Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources.2018Google Scholar ELCA does not, however, consider how a technology impacts human health and well-being beyond environmental quality and resource use. For example, ELCA does not consider safe living conditions or fair wages. Social LCA (S-LCA) has the potential to complement and expand upon the information generated by ELCA. Analogous to ELCA, S-LCA aims to assess the impacts of a product, process, or system on the health and well-being of humans and their surrounding communities (Figure 1).3United Nations Environment ProgramGuidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020.2020Google Scholar,15Jørgensen A. Le Bocq A. Nazarkina L. Hauschild M. Methodologies for social life cycle assessment.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008; 13: 96-103Crossref Scopus (342) Google Scholar,16Tokede O. Traverso M. Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020; 25: 1910-1929Crossref Scopus (15) Google Scholar S-LCA and ELCA differ, though, in their Phase 2 and 3 aims, methods, and indicators. For example, Phase 2 (inventory analysis) of ELCA involves characterization of material and energy flows through direct measurement or estimation with engineering models, whereas information about the health and well-being of stakeholders in a supply chain is collected for S-LCA. Data from the inventory analysis are then used to create aggregate indicators (Phase 3). Information sources and data collection methods for Phases 2 and 3 of ELCA have been standardized by ISO,1International Standards OrganizationEnvironmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework.1997Google Scholar,2International Standards OrganizationEnvironmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and Guidelines.2006Google Scholar allowing for comparison of results across studies and systems. In contrast, indicators for S-LCA have yet to be formalized,17Moltesen A. Bonou A. Wangel A. Bozhilova-Kisheva K.P. Social life cycle assessment: An introduction.in: Hauschild M.Z. Rosenbaum R.K. Olsen S.I. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing), 2018: 401-422Crossref Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 18Chhipi-Shrestha G.K. Hewage K. Sadiq R. ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method.Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy. 2015; 17: 579-596Crossref Scopus (92) Google Scholar, 19Wu R. Yang D. Chen J. Social life cycle assessment revisited.Sustainability. 2014; 6: 4200-4226Crossref Scopus (115) Google Scholar making it difficult to determine the relative impacts of different processes and thereby limiting the tool's utility. Some groups, such as the Roundtable of Product Social Metrics, have developed standardized indicators, but methodological differences and data unavailability, particularly at high resolution, remain as challenges.16Tokede O. Traverso M. Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020; 25: 1910-1929Crossref Scopus (15) Google Scholar There are multiple, and sometimes divergent, frameworks and methodologies applied to S-LCA.16Tokede O. Traverso M. Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020; 25: 1910-1929Crossref Scopus (15) Google Scholar, 17Moltesen A. Bonou A. Wangel A. Bozhilova-Kisheva K.P. Social life cycle assessment: An introduction.in: Hauschild M.Z. Rosenbaum R.K. Olsen S.I. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing), 2018: 401-422Crossref Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 18Chhipi-Shrestha G.K. Hewage K. Sadiq R. ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method.Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy. 2015; 17: 579-596Crossref Scopus (92) Google Scholar, 19Wu R. Yang D. Chen J. Social life cycle assessment revisited.Sustainability. 2014; 6: 4200-4226Crossref Scopus (115) Google Scholar, 20Huertas-Valdivia I. Ferrari A.M. Settembre-Blundo D. García-Muiña F.E. Social life-cycle assessment: A review by bibliometric analysis.Sustainability. 2020; 12: 6211Crossref Scopus (23) Google Scholar These differ in terms of the overall goal (e.g., identifying hotspots in a supply chain versus comparing the social effects of multiple product options), social impacts measured, type of data included (e.g., qualitative or quantitative), method of data collection (e.g., from a database or interviews), and techniques to aggregate data into comparable indicators. Further, some frameworks guide the evaluation of social impacts for a single corporation, which has limited use for guiding policy development.21Lehmann A. Zschieschang E. Traverso M. Finkbeiner M. Schebek L. Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA).Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013; 18: 1581-1592Crossref Scopus (99) Google Scholar,22Dreyer L.C. Hauschild M.Z. Schierbeck J. Characterisation of social impacts in LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010; 15: 385-402Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar In contrast, frameworks that develop indicators using a “functional unit,” such as impacts per mile traveled or per product produced,23Ekener-Petersen E. Moberg Å. Potential hotspots identified by social LCA–Part 2: Reflections on a study of a complex product.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013; 18: 144-154Crossref Scopus (31) Google Scholar,24Franze J. Ciroth A. A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011; 16: 366-379Crossref Scopus (108) Google Scholar are easier to compare across studies and often more actionable for governmental decision makers. For S-LCA to reach its potential in the policy arena as a preferred decision-making tool as ELCA has done, the data that are the basis for S-LCA must be robust, efficient, transparent, and sufficiently specific to the regions that are relevant to the supply chain. The lack of guidance on best practices for conducting S-LCA, including a dearth of information about which data collection methods should be used, among which populations, and at which timepoints, has ultimately made it difficult to collect high-quality data that are comparable across settings, time, and studies. Furthermore, interviews and focus group discussions—which are often promoted in S-LCA guidelines—are resource intensive, yet there is little discussion of opportunities to use other data sources. Although it is well recognized that data for S-LCA are scarce,15Jørgensen A. Le Bocq A. Nazarkina L. Hauschild M. Methodologies for social life cycle assessment.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008; 13: 96-103Crossref Scopus (342) Google Scholar,17Moltesen A. Bonou A. Wangel A. Bozhilova-Kisheva K.P. Social life cycle assessment: An introduction.in: Hauschild M.Z. Rosenbaum R.K. Olsen S.I. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing), 2018: 401-422Crossref Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 18Chhipi-Shrestha G.K. Hewage K. Sadiq R. ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method.Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy. 2015; 17: 579-596Crossref Scopus (92) Google Scholar, 19Wu R. Yang D. Chen J. Social life cycle assessment revisited.Sustainability. 2014; 6: 4200-4226Crossref Scopus (115) Google Scholar most research to date has focused on the development of new frameworks for conceptualizing S-LCA, rather than identifying available data sources or methods for collecting data necessary for conducting S-LCA.19Wu R. Yang D. Chen J. Social life cycle assessment revisited.Sustainability. 2014; 6: 4200-4226Crossref Scopus (115) Google Scholar For example, Tokede and Traverso16Tokede O. Traverso M. Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020; 25: 1910-1929Crossref Scopus (15) Google Scholar review the different theories, methodologies, and indicators used in the recent S-LCA literature, but the scope of their review did not include a discussion of specific techniques to improve life cycle inventory analysis. Correspondingly, unlike ELCA, S-LCA remains mostly theoretical and has not yet become a widely accepted methodology or evaluation framework.25Kühnen M. Hahn R. Indicators in social life cycle assessment: A review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience: indicators in social life cycle assessment.J. Ind. Ecol. 2017; 21: 1547-1565Crossref Scopus (85) Google Scholar To expand our understanding of the barriers and opportunities to improving data collection in S-LCA life cycle inventory analysis (Phase 2), we developed a social-natural science collaboration to identify generalizable methods, using cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) as a case study. The exploratory fieldwork for our brief case study, which afforded greater insights into our objectives than we could obtain from literature review alone, was carried out among cobalt mining communities in Lualaba Province, the DRC. We employed key informant interviews and focus group discussions in this work. Rather than producing a comprehensive dataset for S-LCA, we sought to identify the most salient human health and well-being effects of mining in the Province as well as existing and potential data sources for use in S-LCA among the two stakeholders groups most likely to be adversely affected by cobalt extraction: miners (classified as “workers” using terminology developed by the United Nations Environment Program) and local communities. Based on our findings, we suggest a number of quantitative and qualitative techniques that draw on social science methodologies, in addition to emerging data sources, including high-frequency, high-resolution satellite imagery, that have the potential for use in Phase 2 of S-LCA. Ultimately, the ability to incorporate efficient, low-cost methods that draw on interdisciplinary expertise and capture local-scale effects will expand the utility and comparability of S-LCA for policy. The quality of information collected in Phase 2 of an S-LCA dictates the quality of the indicators generated in Phase 3, which in turn are the basis for the conclusions drawn and communicated to decision makers in Phase 4. Accordingly, the lack of regionally or locally specific data and guidance for collecting them are significant barriers to robust and effective S-LCA. To provide context, the S-LCA guidelines3United Nations Environment ProgramGuidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020.2020Google Scholar developed by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) comprehensively describe S-LCA utility, methodology, and data sources. These guidelines include six distinct stakeholders: the local community, workers, society, consumers, value chain actors, and children. For each of these groups, “stakeholder subcategories” have been proposed for impact assessment (Phase 3).26United Nations Environment ProgramThe Methodological Sheets for Sub-categories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA).2013Google Scholar For example, delocalization and migration are suggested subcategories for local community stakeholders compared to health and freedom of association for worker stakeholders. Within each stakeholder subcategory, generic and site-specific indicators are recommended for assessing impact.26United Nations Environment ProgramThe Methodological Sheets for Sub-categories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA).2013Google Scholar Suggested data sources for generating such indicators include the Social Hotspot Database27Social hotspots database.http://www.socialhotspot.org/Google Scholar and the Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment Database (PSILCA),28Green delta product social impact life cycle assessment (PSILCA).https://psilca.netGoogle Scholar which mostly use information on employees' hours of work to infer broader social impacts,29Norris C.B. Norris G.A. The social hotspots database.in: The Sustainability Practitioner’s Guide to Social Analysis and Assessment. Common Ground, 2015: 52-73Google Scholar and the UN's country-level International Migrant Stock data.30International migrant stocks migration data portal.http://migrationdataportal.org/themes/international-migrant-stocksGoogle Scholar Importantly, many of these data sources3United Nations Environment ProgramGuidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020.2020Google Scholar report information at the country or regional level, which masks heterogeneity within regions or subpopulations. As a result, there remains an urgent need to develop and incorporate additional indicators that reflect local perspectives.17Moltesen A. Bonou A. Wangel A. Bozhilova-Kisheva K.P. Social life cycle assessment: An introduction.in: Hauschild M.Z. Rosenbaum R.K. Olsen S.I. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing), 2018: 401-422Crossref Scopus (9) Google Scholar To generate critical site-specific information, the UNEP guidelines and methodological sheets most commonly recommend conducting stakeholder interviews. Yet, there is little guidance in the report or other S-LCA literature about how to conduct such interviews (Phase 2) or how to generate comparable indicators from these qualitative findings (Phase 3). There is also little guidance on how to use and analyze data from stakeholder surveys. This may be due, in part, to the fact that S-LCA has been conceptualized and formalized by natural scientists who often do receive training on procedures for accurately collecting and analyzing data related to human health and well-being.17Moltesen A. Bonou A. Wangel A. Bozhilova-Kisheva K.P. Social life cycle assessment: An introduction.in: Hauschild M.Z. Rosenbaum R.K. Olsen S.I. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing), 2018: 401-422Crossref Scopus (9) Google Scholar We identified cobalt mining in Lualaba Province as an effective case study for motivating improvements in the Phase 2 of S-LCA given global promotion of electric vehicles (EVs), which rely on cobalt as a core ingredient in the batteries that power them. Many governments worldwide are considering or actively promoting electrification to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change.31García-Olivares A. Solé J. Osychenko O. Transportation in a 100% renewable energy system.Energy Convers. Manag. 2018; 158: 266-285Crossref Scopus (150) Google Scholar, 32Burandt T. Xiong B. Löffler K. Oei P.-Y. Decarbonizing China’s energy system – modeling the transformation of the electricity, transportation, heat, and industrial sectors.Appl. Energy. 2019; 255: 113820Crossref Scopus (50) Google Scholar, 33Bartholdsen H.-K. Eidens A. Löffler K. Seehaus F. Wejda F. Burandt T. Oei P.-Y. Kemfert C. Hirschhausen C.von Pathways for Germany’s low-carbon energy transformation towards 2050.Energies. 2019; 12: 2988Crossref Scopus (31) Google Scholar, 34Bauer G. Zheng C. Greenblatt J.B. Shaheen S. Kammen D.M. On-demand automotive fleet electrification can catalyze global transportation decarbonization and smart urban mobility.Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020; 54: 7027-7033Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar EVs have been promoted based, in part, on results from ELCAs that indicate that EVs emit fewer GHGs per mile than conventional cars.7Dai Q. Kelly J.C. Gaines L. Wang M. Life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries for automotive applications.Batteries. 2019; 5: 48Crossref Scopus (105) Google Scholar,8Dunn J.B. Biofuel and bioproduct environmental sustainability analysis.Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2019; 57: 88-93Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar Previous ELCAs have found that EVs offer lower GHG emissions per mile than conventional, internal combustion engine vehicles, even when accounting for the environmental burdens (particularly GHG emissions) associated with lithium-ion battery production.6Dunn J.B. Gaines L. Kelly J.C. James C. Gallagher K.G. The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling’s role in its reduction.Energy Environ. Sci. 2015; 8: 158-168Crossref Google Scholar,7Dai Q. Kelly J.C. Gaines L. Wang M. Life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries for automotive applications.Batteries. 2019; 5: 48Crossref Scopus (105) Google Scholar,35Kelly J.C. Dai Q. Wang M. Globally regional life cycle analysis of automotive lithium-ion nickel manganese cobalt batteries.Mitig Adapt Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2020; 25: 371-396Crossref Scopus (17) Google Scholar However, cobalt mining—a key part of the battery supply chain—is known to have adverse environmental impacts beyond GHG emissions at the mining site,36Banza Lubaba Nkulu C. Casas L. Haufroid V. De Putter T. Saenen N.D. Kayembe-Kitenge T. Musa Obadia P. Kyanika Wa Mukoma D. Lunda Ilunga J.-M. Nawrot T.S. et al.Sustainability of artisanal mining of cobalt in DR Congo.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 495-504Crossref PubMed Scopus (132) Google Scholar, 37Cheyns K. Banza Lubaba Nkulu C. Ngombe L.K. Asosa J.N. Haufroid V. De Putter T. Nawrot T. Kimpanga C.M. Numbi O.L. Ilunga B.K. et al.Pathways of human exposure to cobalt in Katanga, a mining area of the D.R. Congo.Sci. Total Environ. 2014; 490: 313-321Crossref PubMed Scopus (66) Google Scholar, 38Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural ResourcesMapping of the Artisinal Copper-Cobalt Mining Sector in the Provinces of Haut-Katanga and Lualaba in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.2019Google Scholar, 39Mancini L. Eslava N.A. Traverso M. Mathieux F. Assessing impacts of responsible sourcing initiatives for cobalt: Insights from a case study.Resour. Policy. 2021; 71: 102015Crossref Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 40European Commission. Joint Research CentreResponsible and Sustainable Sourcing of Batteries Raw Materials: Insights from Hotspot Analysis, Corporate Disclosures and Field Research.2020Google Scholar such as water pollution and soil degradation; such outcomes have only been quantified in detail in a handful of ELCAs.41Farjana S.H. Huda N. Mahmud M.A.P. Life cycle assessment of cobalt extraction process.J. Sustain. Mining. 2019; 18: 150-161Crossref Scopus (43) Google Scholar,42Nuss P. Eckelman M.J. Life cycle assessment of metals: A scientific synthesis.PLoS One. 2014; 9: e101298Crossref PubMed Scopus (281) Google Scholar Over half of the world's cobalt comes from the Katanga region of the DRC, which comprises four smaller provinces including Lualaba Province, where we conducted fieldwork. Approximately 15–20% of cobalt mined here is extracted and processed by between 110,000 and 150,00043Amnesty International AfreWatch This is what we die for.https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr62/3183/2016/en/Date: 2016Google Scholar small-scale or independent miners (i.e., artisanal mining).36Banza Lubaba Nkulu C. Casas L. Haufroid V. De Putter T. Saenen N.D. Kayembe-Kitenge T. Musa Obadia P. Kyanika Wa Mukoma D. Lunda Ilunga J.-M. Nawrot T.S. et al.Sustainability of artisanal mining of cobalt in DR Congo.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 495-504Crossref PubMed Scopus (132) Google Scholar While cobalt mining can offer livelihood opportunities, it can also be deleterious to health and well-being,44Sovacool B.K. Turnheim B. Hook A. Brock A. Martiskainen M. Dispossessed by decarbonisation: Reducing vulnerability, injustice, and inequality in the lived experience of low-carbon pathways.World Dev. 2021; 137: 105116Crossref Scopus (15) Google Scholar such as elevated urinary and serum cobalt levels.36Banza Lubaba Nkulu C. Casas L. Haufroid V. De Putter T. Saenen N.D. Kayembe-Kitenge T. Musa Obadia P. Kyanika Wa Mukoma D. Lunda Ilunga J.-M. Nawrot T.S. et al.Sustainability of artisanal mining of cobalt in DR Congo.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 495-504Crossref PubMed Scopus (132) Google Scholar Cobalt mining can also undermine human rights and create conditions that increase violence.43Amnesty International AfreWatch This is what we die for.https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr62/3183/2016/en/Date: 2016Google Scholar,45Sovacool B.K. Ali S.H. Bazilian M. Radley B. Nemery B. Okatz J. Mulvaney D. Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon future.Science. 2020; 367: 30-33Crossref PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar Research on cobalt extraction and processing, in particular artisanal mining, which has pronounced social impacts, is thus a high-priority area given the global push toward EV adoption and the limited knowledge about the social impacts of EV supply chains. While there is some precedent for S-LCA of conventional vehicles,46Karlewski Lehmann Ruhland Finkbeiner A practical approach for social life cycle assessment in the automotive industry.Resources. 2019; 8: 146Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar there has been no S-LCA of EVs. Accordingly, policies that promote EVs have a significant gap in addressing the social effects of the EV supply chain. This gap extends beyond accounting for cobalt mining's human health and well-being to other EV supply chain components including lithium, nickel, and copper. As such, we focus on cobalt in this perspective only as a starting point. To carry out our field work, we assembled a research team that included an engineer, a human biologist, and two anthropologists. The team's expertise encompassed extensive experience with conducting ELCA and training in qualitative and quantitative social science and public health techniques. Further, one team member is a DRC national, which facilitated data collection and interpretation, including the elucidation of emic (cultural insider) and etic (cultural outsider) perspectives on the topic. Colleagues at the University of Lubumbashi and personal contacts also provided relevant contextual knowledge and assistance with identifying suitable individuals for interviews and focus group discussions. Local research assistants also assisted with recruiting such individuals and various aspects of data collection, including scheduling interviews, writing field observations, taking photographs, and verifying information about mining practices. To identify prevailing data collection methodologies and data sources, we initially reviewed the literature on S-LCA methodologies16Tokede O. Traverso M. Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020; 25: