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

Feeding a growing, increasingly affluent population while limiting environmental pressures of food production is a central challenge for society. Understanding the location and magnitude of food production is key to addressing this challenge because pressures vary substantially across food production types. Applying data and models from life cycle assessment with the methodologies for mapping cumulative environmental impacts of human activities (hereafter cumulative impact mapping) provides a powerful approach to spatially map the cumulative environmental pressure of food production in a way that is consistent and comprehensive across food types. However, these methodologies have yet to be combined. By synthesizing life cycle assessment and cumulative impact mapping methodologies, we provide guidance for comprehensively and cumulatively mapping the environmental pressures (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, spatial occupancy, and freshwater use) associated with food production systems. This spatial approach enables quantification of current and potential future environmental pressures, which is needed for decision makers to create more sustainable food policies and practices.

Roughly since 2004, there has been an ever increasing interest in developing and using social life cycle assessment (SLCA). A quick overview of the SLCA publications indexed by SCOPUS shows a small but stable increase from 2004 (Fig. 1). With regard to scientific publications, the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment has been the leading journal covering this field with around 85 % of the above publications, to a large extent probably due to the very early explicit interest from the journal and the announcement of a dedicated subject editor, David Hunkeler, whose role was later taken over by Tom Swarr. Thanks to these persons, the authors who have contributed and the timely interest from the journal, it seems that a new field of research has been established which is growing year by year—a development I will do my best to sustain during my time as subject editor on the SLCA area on the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Despite this activity, it seems fair to state, as it has been so many times before, that SLCA is still in its infancy. But the ‘infant’ is now close to a decade, so how come it has not matured more? My claim is that SLCAwill continue to be considered in its infancy until it has more profoundly ‘proven to work’. But what does it mean that the SLCAworks? I would guess that for many a solid ‘proof’ would depend on at least two aspects: First of all that the methodology actually does ‘what it is supposed to do’ and secondly, that what SLCA does has to be unique or at least that the SLCA has to ‘do what it is supposed to do’ better than other comparable tools. If SLCA does not do what it is supposed to do, then at least the motivation for developing it needs to be reconsidered, and if what SLCA does is not unique in some way, there seems to be little point in developing a new tool for doing the same as some other tool is already doing. But what is SLCA supposed to do? From a first glance, it seems that SLCA is to deliver decision support relating to the social impacts of products (or services, systems or technologies—here termed products), to be used either for comparing products or identifying hotspots (Benoit and Mazijn 2009). In this regard, it may seem that SLCA already delivers. For example, case studies have already been conducted relating to, e.g. cut roses (Franze and Ciroth 2011), tomatoes (Evans et al. 2009) or laptop computers (Ekener-Petersen and Finnveden 2012). These studies do, indeed, provide an assessment of social impact of products which could be used for decision support. The question is, however, what decisions the decision support provided through SLCA is to support? The only obvious answer seems to be decisions leading to more beneficial social conditions throughout the product life cycles. If the use of SLCA in decision making does not lead to an improvement of these social impacts, then it seems as a rather pointless affair to develop, carry out and consider the SLCA result in a decision context. Thus, SLCA is to deliver decision support which improves the social impacts in the product life cycles when considered in a decision context. However, this idea of developing decision support in improving social conditions is far from new. Take, for Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:296–299 DOI 10.1007/s11367-012-0517-5

Charting the Future of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Special Issue

PurposeWe evaluate methodological approaches of different methods that can offer social assessments of product value chains. By analyzing both product-oriented social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methods and qualitative, organization-, and project-oriented methods, we provide recommendations towards a clearer, harmonized method to better integrate the social dimension into sustainability assessments of products. This could help make S-LCA more analogous to environmental LCA (E-LCA) and more suitable for implementation in frameworks as life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA).MethodsWe apply two quantitative S-LCA methods side-by-side with three qualitative social assessment methods on the same case-study of a textile’s value chain. The two quantitative S-LCA methods adopt a quantitative functional unit (FU) approach, use similar data structures and calculation principles as E-LCA and are based on the product social impact life cycle assessment (PSILCA) database. The three qualitative methods applied include two social due diligence approaches — one based on the OECD Due Diligence and UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the other on the IFC Performance Standards — and the Subcategory Assessment Method (SAM), a semi-quantitative performance evaluation assessment method based on the UNEP S-LCA Guidelines.ResultsNone of the approaches to S-LCA described in the UNEP S-LCA Guidelines can, at present, fully achieve the equivalent goals and scope of E-LCA, specifically in the social domain. Our evaluation of five social assessment methods, including two S-LCA methods, highlights their significant differences in basic structure and logic. Consequently, results differ considerably in nature, depth, and social aspects covered. Current product-oriented S-LCA approaches encounter important limitations as they require quantifiable aspects, whereas many social impacts are often qualitative in nature. Qualitative, organization-focused methods, conversely, make it difficult to link organizational social performance to specific products. Instead, these methods are typically used for social due diligence on suppliers in the company’s supply chain and cover only a small part of the product’s life cycle.ConclusionFor the purpose of computational integration, LCSA frameworks need an S-LCA method with a quantitative FU approach. However, only some S-LCA approaches are able to comply with this requirement, and these will only be able to cover a limited set of scalable quantitative impact indicators. We conclude by emphasizing the equal importance of product-oriented S-LCA and organization-oriented social assessment methods, while appreciating their fundamentally different goals and scopes.

Purpose Input–output tables describe monetary relationships between producers and consumers within an economy and have been used to assess the effects on job creation and gross domestic product (GDP). The objective of this study was to apply the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) to assess direct social risks in national economies and explore whether S-LCA can replace or support beyond-GDP metrics. Methods S-LCA was applied in three ways. First, a hotspot assessment was conducted using the Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database to assess the direct social risks of monetary outputs of the Dutch and Greek economies in 2018. Classification 1 regarded the comparison of the Dutch and Greek economies based on direct social risks classified as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Classification 2 grouped the calculated social risks into sub-sub-topics of the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Standards (CSRS) directive. In each classification, the calculated risks were normalized by the total monetary output of the national economy. Results and discussion This study showed that the Dutch economy results in lower normalized risk values for all S-LCA stakeholders and impact subcategories, except for “Respect of indigenous rights” and “Health and safety (Workers).” The main contributing parameters were sectorial monetary output and the risk levels of the indicators. Classification 1 showed that using input–output tables and PSILCA to simplify the calculation of SDGs was partially successful, because the SDGs also consider environmental aspects and PSILCA is limited to social aspects. Classification 2 showed that the Greek economy resulted in higher normalized risk values than the Dutch economy for almost all sub-sub-topics of the CSRS. Conclusions The results indicate that input–output tables can be extended to incorporate social dimensions with S-LCA and PSILCA. However, the nature of the SDGs means that S-LCA is not capable of simplifying the evaluation of countries’ societal progress, but S-LCA combined with PSILCA can assist national governments in taking targeted actions to reach SDG targets and enforce European CSRS directive compliance in the most impactful economic sectors for social performance monitoring and reporting.

This paper takes a critical review of the UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of products. This paper, therefore, poses the question: how can the future version(s) of the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines address the challenges associated with implementing case studies in the S-LCA? A systematic mapping review to investigate case studies in the S-LCA has been carried out in which the S-LCA was applied in order to analyse the application of the stages of the methodology. We appraise 58 case studies published between 2009 and 2019 in peer-reviewed international journals and analysed the trends and contributions in relation to the practice of the S-LCA. More published papers were collected between July 2018 and June 2019 (because of the publication of a Special Issue on the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment in March 2018), and critically reviewed to identify key patterns and insights from the case studies. It was found that only 47% of the subcategories specified by the current UNEP/SETAC Guidelines are implemented in the case studies examined. Our review suggests four main initiatives that future S-LCA Guidelines should consider. Firstly, there is a need to encourage case studies that focus on the social impacts of “consumers” and “value chain actors” to understand better the opportunities for enhancing social sustainability considerations of marginalised stakeholder groups. Secondly, indicators cannot be homogenised across all sectors and disciplines, and the relevance of each indicator needs to be localised and justified in respective studies. Thirdly, there is a need for a robust theoretical orientation in the S-LCA—one that is more inclusive and flexible—to improve on contextual relevance in future case studies. Lastly, the revised Guidelines should aspire to provide more clarity on justifying the context and choice of functional units in S-LCA studies. The insights developed in this study are useful for practitioners and scholars involved in the S-LCA. The revision of the Guidelines can ensure that the S-LCA in future case studies can better create opportunities for improving the well-being of all stakeholders. It is instructive that both local contextualisation of indicators and establishing stakeholder concerns through participatory approaches will facilitate an improved understanding of the social impact assessment of products and their potentially positive and negative impacts along their life cycle. Addressing the challenges with the current Guidelines will ultimately strengthen the S-LCA by improving an understanding of relevant indicators, thus allowing for an improvement in social conditions for all stakeholders.

Access, affordability and sustainability of raw material supply chains are crucial to the sustainable development of the European Union (EU) for both society and economy. The study investigates whether and how the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodology can support responsible sourcing of raw materials in Europe. The potential of social indicators already available in an S-LCA database is tested for the development of new metrics to monitor social risks in raw material industries at EU policy level. The Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database was identified as a data and indicators source to assess social risks in raw material industries in EU-28 and extra-EU countries. Six raw material country sectors in the scope of the European policy on raw materials were identified and aggregated among those available in PSILCA. The selection of indicators for the assessment was based on the RACER (Relevance, Acceptance, Credibility, Ease, Robustness) analysis, leading to the proposal of 9 social impact categories. An S-LCA of the selected raw material industries was, thus, performed for the EU-28 region, followed by a contribution analysis to detect direct and indirect impacts and investigate related supply chains. Finally, the social performance of raw material sectors in EU-28 was compared with that of six extra-EU countries. Considering the overall social risks in raw material industries, “Corruption”, “Fair salary”, “Health and safety” and “Freedom of association and collective bargaining” emerged as the most significant categories both in EU and extra-EU. EU-28 shows an above-average performance where the only exception is represented by the mining and quarrying sector. An investigation of the most contributing processes to social impact categories for EU-28 led to the identification of important risks originating in the supply chain and in extra-EU areas. Therefore, the S-LCA methodology confirmed the potential of a life cycle perspective to detect burdens shifting and trade-offs. However, only a limited view on the sectoral social performance could be obtained from the research due to a lack of social data. The S-LCA methodology and indicators appear appropriate to perform an initial social sustainability screening, thus enabling the identification of hotspots in raw material supply chains and the prioritization of areas of action in EU policies. Further methodological developments in the S-LCA field are necessary to make the approach proposed in the paper fully adequate to support EU policies on raw materials.

BackgroundThe social impacts generated by industrial waste treatment processes have not been studied enough, as shown in the literature. Social life cycle assessment studies have mainly focused on the assessment of products and less on industrial waste, especially wastewater, although potentially relevant from an environmental point of view, and also from a social one for various stakeholders.PurposeThis case study concerns the social assessment of an innovative technology to treat the wastewater of a microelectronics company. In order to produce electronic components and semiconductors, the company has to treat and dispose of relevant wastewater streams containing various toxic substances. The wastewater streams need to be treated in order to protect the eco-system, representing a high cost for the company and a potential impact on the environment.For this reason, the company developed a LIFE project to demonstrate the viability to decrease the burdens on water bodies. The positive outcome of the test on the pilot plant paved the way for the construction of the full-scale plant that will treat all the wastewater generated by the company.The objective of this paper is the socio-economic assessment of a full-scale plant designed to treat three different kinds of wastewater.MethodsThe assessment of socio-economic potential impacts of a new technology has been carried out through the PSILCA (Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment) database implementation to evaluate 65 social indicators of a wastewater treatment plant.ResultsThe line with the highest impact is the one which treats tetramethylammonium hydroxide; this is because this wastewater flow is the most abundant (14 and 43 times greater than the other wastewaters, respectively).The most affected stakeholder is the Local Community, followed by the Actors of the Value Chain; in fact, the results referred to the functional unit considered exceed 300,000 medium risk hours in both cases. For the Local Community this result arises from the indicator “Contribution to environmental load,” which is understandable considering the object of the study since this indicator includes health effects. As far as the Value Chain Actors stakeholder is concerned, the two indicators most impacted are “Corruption” and “Social responsibility along the supply chain”.The analysis conducted has also shown that upstream has a fundamental relevance for the social risks detected.ConclusionsConsidering the current lack of studies on both environmental and social impacts of wastewater treatment, and the fact that Social Life Cycle Assessment has not been widely used in this field, as emerged from literature review, this work is the first use of the PSILCA database to assess an industrial wastewater plant. The use of a social life cycle assessment database allows the value chain of a product system to be considered: the results show that most of the overall social risk derives from upstream sectors.

Transitioning to Environmentally Sustainable, Climate-Smart Radiation Oncology Care

The word “sustainability” is often used to refer to equity within and between generations, as explained in the Brundtland Report (1987). The clarification of the concept in the triple bottom line is often used to illustrate the need to investigate the social, environmental, and economic decisions. The classification of stakeholders is still controversial and not universally agreed upon in the various analysis models, are a common point balance categories: customers, staff, suppliers, and the local community (Hinna 2005; Schwartz 2006a). The Social Life Cycle Assessment (SCLA) methodology can be described as a tool that allows a strategic vision and management of the social sustainability of the product and takes the form of an analysis that lets the company observe the social impact of the product through its sustainability evaluation throughout its life cycle (Benoit et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 156–163, 2010). The possible solution to this gap can be represented by models of assessment of social impacts based on Life Cycle Thinking, and especially through the application of the Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methodology that is suitably integrated with the models until now mentioned in the literature (UNEP/SETAC, United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment Programme, 2009b). The evaluation of the life cycle for the social aspects (social LCA) is a framework that allows the generation, organization, evaluation and communication of social impacts on the life cycle of a product, process, or service. The aim of this study is to create a framework for the social impact evaluation in the cultural heritage sector, through the association of existing Social Life Cycle Assessment tools with data resulting from social evaluation of the relationship between cultural services and stakeholders in order to point out the criticalities of the cultural heritage sector. This study introduced a theoretical framework for the evaluation of social impact on the cultural heritage sector, through the application of SLCA methods, and shows how it could be possible to classify the stakeholder subcategories in order to consistency. It is the preliminary approach of an integrative support to the SAM methods for SLCA.KeywordsSocial life cycle assessmentStakeholders’ managementSocial evaluation toolsCultural heritage sectorCase study

Purpose The objective of this study is to assess the potential social risks and benefits of EV Li-ion batteries by combining the S-LCA framework with gender aspects throughout all the life cycle phases of the battery. Methods The social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodology has been applied to determine social concerns about a lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery pack design for electric vehicles (EVs) from cradle to grave. A questionnaire based on UNEP S-LCA guidelines and literature case studies of S-LCA on batteries and the energy industry has been prepared for each of the stakeholder categories and distributed among experts in the Li-ion battery sector (more than 21 industrial and academic experts representing the whole battery value chain). Furthermore, the social assessment also includes updated gender aspects to provide wider and more comprehensive social impacts to ensure a gender-neutral approach. Results and discussion The Li-ion battery presents a positive social impact in all the stakeholder categories evaluated, where the worker category has the best social performance driven by the highest score (scores range from 0 to 1, where 0 is the worst social performance and 1 is the best) in 13 indicators out of 23. Furthermore, local community, consumers, and society categories have a good social performance attributed to the absence of involuntary resettlement of individuals, the possibility of the product being reused for other purposes and technology accessible and affordable to developing countries, among others. Four out of seven indicators to evaluate the gender aspects and impacts have the highest score, demonstrating a commitment to fostering an inclusive and equitable work environment. The end-of-life phase presents a positive social performance with a score of 0.77 out of 1 attributed to the presence of infrastructure to dispose of product components other than landfill and incineration responsibly, the possibility of the product to be reused for other purposes and clear information provided to consumers on end-of-life options, among others. Conclusions The study presents generally good social impact and gender neutrality on the battery pack design. It gives an insight into the actual status of Li-ion battery social and gender impacts, and the results can be useful to policymakers to design and implement strategies for the welfare of various stakeholders.

Olive oil production has severe environmental consequences, including resource depletion, land degradation, carbon emissions, and waste generation. As a result, for over two decades, environmental life cycle assessment (ELCA) has been applied to the olive oil industry to identify environmental issues and reduce the environmental effects. However, little is known regarding the social sustainability of this industry. Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) has been established as one of the most effective methodologies for assessing the social implications of products throughout their life cycles. Accordingly, based on the S-LCA approach, this study aims to assess the social impacts of the olive oil extraction industry in Roudbar County in Guilan Province in Iran, the major producer of olives and olive oil. The S-LCA model adopted in this paper is built in four major phases (UNEP/SETAC in Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, 2009): (1) Definition of Goal and Scope: outlines the intended use and the goal pursued and specifies the scope of the research. The research will then be defined to fulfill that purpose within any constraints. (2) Life Cycle Inventory analysis: is the phase at which data are collected, systems are modeled, and LCI results are generated. (3) Life Cycle Impact Assessment: a collection of steps to obtain data categorization, aggregation, and characterization based on performance reference points. (4) Life Cycle Interpretation: considers all important aspects of the research when drawing results, offering recommendations, and reporting. The findings suggested that the social conditions governing the olive oil extraction cycle in the study area are almost adequate. However, other categories of social impacts, such as cultural heritage, community development, and working conditions, were rated unsatisfactory by olive orchard workers and need improvement. Adopting the cause-and-effect chain in this study favors identifying specific indicators based on social issues in the study location. On the other hand, a scale-based assessment may result in the subjectivity of the results, which adds to the uncertainty. An impact-based assessment may be applied to analyze social impacts such as occupational health and safety, employment, pay, and benefits to get more credible social impact data. Consequently, integrating the scale-based approach with an efficient path-based method may improve its effectiveness.

Motivated by the shift toward sustainable mobility and increased demand for ethically sourced raw materials, this study examines the social sustainability of different sourcing strategies for aluminium and cobalt in electric vehicle (EV) products. These materials are essential components for batteries and lightweight parts in EVs. A Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) was conducted in conjunction with OpenLCA and the Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database. The assessment is based on the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Guidelines from 2020 with a focus on key stakeholder categories. In this study, four cradle-to-gate sourcing strategies are evaluated and labelled as Case 1 through Case 4 in the assessment. The results show significant differences across the scenarios. The local sourcing strategy for aluminium in Australia (Case 1) is associated with lower social risks, whereas the local sourcing of cobalt in Russia (Case 2) indicates higher social risks. Global sourcing strategies involving Guinea and Brazil for aluminium (Case 3) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and China for cobalt (Case 4) demonstrate increased social risks. The impacts can be up to 15 times greater, depending on the location. These findings highlight regional variations in social risks associated with the sourcing of raw materials. The results highlight the importance of implementing corporate due diligence and socially responsible procurement practices within raw material supply chains through integrating an S-LCA into sourcing strategies. This approach also supports some of the Sustainable Development Goals. Overall, this study provides practical insights for industry and policymakers, thereby enriching our understanding of social sustainability.

Past and future of Social Life Cycle Assessment: Historical evolution and research trends

Purpose Aluminium is among the most energy-intensive industries in the world and is produced from mining operations in bauxite mines. The effects on the environment of the entire aluminium supply chain, especially mining, also entail social risks. This article aims to understand the potential social risks along the supply chain of aluminium by focusing on a semi-finished frame for windows through the use of the Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database. Method Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) was implemented by following the Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products And Organizations 2020, to analyse the potential social risks and opportunities associated with the aluminium sector. Specifically, the PSILCA database, designed for S-LCA, was used to evaluate the background processes of the aluminium supply chain of an Italian company specialized in surface treatment of aluminium semi-finished products used in the production of doors and windows. Results The primary social risks manifest in the background processes. Comparing these findings with the literature review, it is straightforward to attribute them to the mining phase of bauxite, which constitutes the initial stage in aluminium production and occurs in various regions globally. Specifically, the highest social risk is associated with “Corruption in the public sector”, likely linked to Italy. Additionally, the study reveals a positive impact in terms of “Contribution to economic development” as also revealed by the literature review. Conclusions An analysis of the potential social risks within the aluminium supply chain was provided, addressing the research gap between the utilization of S-LCA methodology and its application within the sector. Additionally, the PSILCA database was employed for investigating the background processes in the case study. However, a social performance assessment using primary data would be required to enhance the representation of the evaluated production system.