Assessing social implications of circular economy by integrating circularity in S- LCA

Even though circular economy (CE) is crucial for sustainable performance, not all circularity activities are automatically more sustainable as some trade-offs may occur (e.g., major environmental impacts due to intensive processing of wastes or social effects when production/treatment locations change). In the position paper of the Life Cycle Initiative, Peña et al. (2021) stated the importance of combining CE and life cycle approaches to avoid burden shifting. Apart from economic factors, the recent focus of research in CE is on environmental impacts and how to measure them. Sassanelli et al. (2019) identified life cycle assessment (LCA) as the most used tool for assessing environmental consequences of CE. To ensure that circularity holistically contributes to sustainable behavior, besides economic and environmental aspects, also the third pillar of sustainability, namely social aspects, must be considered. However, Kirchherr, Reike and Hekkert (2017) found that research on social impacts resulting from a shift from a linear to a circular economy is still lacking. Thus, aim of this research is to identify social implications of circular economy and to investigate in what manner circularity aspects currently are assessed in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). The research starts with a literature review on social consequences of CE. As CE mostly replaces former linear business models, the research includes identifying affected stakeholders in both the former linear and new circular strategies. Based on this analysis, the identified implications will be linked to the relevant stakeholders and S-LCA subcategories. Adequate indicators for assessing the social performance of CE strategies will be proposed referring to indicators presented in the Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) 2021 but also by identifying relevant new indicators that cover social implications of CE that are not covered by existing indicators. Moreover, further CE indicators that should be considered to link circularity performance and S-LCA will be proposed. Hence, a combination of indicators will be presented that will outline how circularity, for example, influences regional employment, cultural changes, education, and other social aspects. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017) ‘Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127(April), pp. 221–232. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005. Peña, C. et al. (2021) ‘Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy’, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 26(2), pp. 215–220. doi: 10.1007/s11367-020-01856-z. Sassanelli, C. et al. (2019) ‘Circular economy performance assessment methods: A systematic literature review’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 229, pp. 440–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019

Review of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Potential for Its Adoption at an Automotive Company

The aim of this paper is to guide the next steps of a PhD thesis through a structured review of the state of the art and implementation of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), and to identify challenges and potentials for its adoption at an automotive company. First, the structured literature review was conducted on LCSA to screen the current methodological and practical implementations and to identify the main research needs in the field. Second, a research on the current status of LCSA within the automotive industry was carried out by means of investigation of published sources of 15 Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). By combining the results of both steps and consulting with decision makers, the challenges and potential for adopting LCSA at an automotive company were identified. The main challenges for adoption of LCSA were found to be: (1) the consistent execution of the three life cycle based assessment methods; (2) the comparatively low maturity of Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA); and (3) the adequate presentation and interpretation of results. Next steps towards implementation would be a case study to gather experience on the combined execution of the three life cycle based assessments at an automotive company. Furthermore, it should be determined what the needs of decision makers at an automotive company are regarding the aggregation and interpretation of environmental, social, and economic impacts

Life cycle approach to sustainability assessment : a case study of remanufactured alternators

Sustainability is an international issue with increasing concern and becomes a crucial driver for the industry in international competition. Sustainability encompasses the three dimensions: environment, society and economy. This paper presents the results from a sustainability assessment of a product. To prevent burden shifting, the whole life cycle of the products is necessary to be taken into account. For the environmental dimension, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been practiced for nearly 40 years and is the only one standardised by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (14040 and 14044). Life cycle approaches for the social and economic dimensions are currently under development. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is a complementary implementation of the three techniques: LCA (environmental), life cycle costing (LCC - economic) and social LCA (SLCA - social). This contribution applies the state-of-the-art LCSA on remanufacturing of alternators aiming at supporting managers and product developers in their decision-making to design product and plant. The alternator is the electricity generator in the automobile vehicle which produces the needed electricity. LCA and LCC are used to assess three different alternator design scenarios (namely conventional, lightweight and ultra-lightweight). The LCA and LCC results show that the conventional alternator is the most promising one. LCSA of three different locations (Germany, India and Sierra Leone) for setting the remanufacturing mini-factory, a worldwide applicable container, are investigated on all three different sustainability dimensions: LCA, LCC and SLCA. The location choice is determined by the SLCA and the design alternatives by the LCA and LCC. The case study results show that remanufacturing potentially causes about 12% of the emissions and costs compared to producing new parts. The conventional alternator with housing of iron cast performs better in LCA and LCC than the lightweight alternatives with aluminium housing. The optimal location of remanufacturing is dependent on where the used alternators are sourced and where the remanufactured alternators are going to be used. Important measures to improve the sustainability of the remanufacturing process in life cycle perspective are to confirm if the energy efficiency of the remanufactured part is better than the new part, as the use phase dominates from an environmental and economical point of view. The SLCA should be developed further, focusing on the suitable indicators and conducting further case studies including the whole life cycle

Level(s) – A common EU framework of core sustainability indicators for office and residential buildings: Parts 1 and 2: Introduction to Level(s) and how it works (Beta v1.0)

Developed as a common EU framework of core indicators for the sustainability of office and residential buildings, Level(s) provides a set of indicators and common metrics for measuring the performance of buildings along their life cycle. As well as environmental performance, which is the main focus, it also enables other important related performance aspects to be assessed using indicators and tools for health and comfort, life cycle cost and potential future risks to performance. Level(s) aims to provide a general language of sustainability for buildings. This common language should enable actions to be taken at building level that can make a clear contribution to broader European environmental policy objectives. It is structured as follows: 1. Macro-objectives: An overarching set of six macro-objectives for the Level(s) framework that contribute to EU and Member State policy objectives in areas such as energy, material use and waste, water and indoor air quality. 2. Core Indicators: A set of 9 common indicators for measuring the performance of buildings which contribute to achieving each macro-objective. 3. Life cycle tools: A set of 4 scenario tools and 1 data collection tool, together with a simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, that are designed to support a more holistic analysis of the performance of buildings based on whole life cycle thinking. 4. Value and risk rating: A checklist and rating system provides information on the potential positive contribution to a property valuation and the underlying reliability of performance assessments made using the Level(s) framework. In addition, the Level(s) framework aims to promote life cycle thinking. It guides users from an initial focus on individual aspects of building performance towards a more holistic perspective, with the aim of wider European use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA). Part 1 provides a general introduction to Level(s). In Part 2 potential users are provided with a basic introduction to all of the elements of the framework, and how it can be used as a whole, or in part, to report on the performance of building projects.JRC.B.5-Circular Economy and Industrial Leadershi

Level(s) – A common EU framework of core sustainability indicators for office and residential buildings: Part 3: How to make performance assessments using Level(s) (Beta v1.0)

Developed as a common EU framework of core indicators for the sustainability of office and residential buildings, Level(s) provides a set of indicators and common metrics for measuring the performance of buildings along their life cycle. As well as environmental performance, which is the main focus, it also enables other important related performance aspects to be assessed using indicators and tools for health and comfort, life cycle cost and potential future risks to performance. Level(s) aims to provide a general language of sustainability for buildings. This common language should enable actions to be taken at building level that can make a clear contribution to broader European environmental policy objectives. It is structured as follows: 1. Macro-objectives: An overarching set of six macro-objectives for the Level(s) framework that contribute to EU and Member State policy objectives in areas such as energy, material use and waste, water and indoor air quality. 2. Core Indicators: A set of 9 common indicators for measuring the performance of buildings which contribute to achieving each macro-objective. 3. Life cycle tools: A set of 4 scenario tools and 1 data collection tool, together with a simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, that are designed to support a more holistic analysis of the performance of buildings based on whole life cycle thinking. 4. Value and risk rating: A checklist and rating system provides information on the potential positive contribution to a property valuation and the underlying reliability of performance assessments made using the Level(s) framework. In addition, the Level(s) framework aims to promote life cycle thinking. It guides users from an initial focus on individual aspects of building performance towards a more holistic perspective, with the aim of wider European use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA). Part 3 of the Level(s) documentation provides a complete set of technical guidance on how to make performance assessments at each of the three different Levels, and then to report on the results.JRC.B.5-Circular Economy and Industrial Leadershi

How to Obtain Accurate Environmental Impacts at Early Design Stages in BIM When Using Environmental Product Declaration. A Method to Support Decision-Making

The construction sector plays an important role in moving towards a low-carbon economy. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is considered one of the most effective methods of analytically evaluating environmental profiles and an efficient tool for calculating the environmental impacts in building design-oriented methodologies, such as building information modelling (BIM). At early design stages, generic LCA databases are used to conduct the life cycle inventory (LCI), while detailed stages require more detailed data, such as environmental product declarations (EPDs), namely documents that provide accurate results and precise analyses based on LCA. Limitations are recognized when using EPDs in BIM elements at different levels of development (LOD) in the design stages, especially related to the data consistency and system boundaries of the LCA. This paper presents a method of achieving accurate LCA results, that helps with decision-making and provides support in the selection of building products and materials. The method is validated by its application in the structural concrete of an office building located in Germany. The method defines a safety factor adopted for embodied impacts (“cradle-to-gate”), based on EPD results to predict the environmental impact of BIM elements at different LODs. The results obtained show that by integrating the method to conduct the LCA, the range of errors and possible inconsistencies in the LCA results can be reduce

Best Environmental Management Practice for the Car Manufacturing Sector Learning from frontrunners

The European automotive industry is one of the EU's largest manufacturing sectors, and the automotive value chain covers many activities largely carried out within the EU, such as design and engineering, manufacturing, maintenance and repair, and end-of-life vehicle (ELV) handling. This Best Practice report describes Best Environmental Management Practices (BEMPs), i.e. techniques, measures or actions that are implemented by the organisations within the sector which are most advanced in terms of environmental performance in areas such as energy and resource efficiency, emissions, or supply chain management. The BEMPs provide inspirational examples for any organisation within the sector to improve its environmental performance. The report firstly outlines technical information on the contribution of car manufacturing and end-of-life vehicle (ELV) handling to key environmental burdens in the EU, alongside data on the economic relevance of the sector. The second chapter presents best environmental management practice of interest primarily for manufacturing companies (car manufacturers and associated manufacturers in the supply chain) covering cross-cutting issues related to key environmental impacts (such as energy, waste, water management, or biodiversity) before exploring best practice linked to specific topics, such as supply chain management. Subsequently, specific information concerning actors in the treatment of end-of-life vehicles is presented in the third chapter, focussing in particular on best practice applicable to processers of ELVs. This Best Practice Report was developed with support from a Technical Working Group of experts from the car manufacturing and ELV sector and associated fields. The report gives a wide range of information (environmental benefits, economics, indicators, benchmarks, references, etc.) for each of the proposed best practices in order to be a source of inspiration and guidance for any company of the sector wishing to improve environmental performance. In addition, it will be the technical basis for a Sectoral Reference Document on the car manufacturing sector, to be produced by the European Commission according to the EMAS Regulation.JRC.B.5-Circular Economy and Industrial Leadershi

Life cycle sustainability analysis of resource recovery from waste management systems in a circular economy perspective Key Findings from This Special Issue

The generation and management of waste are gaining increasing attention worldwide as two main focuses of the environmental strategies and policies developed to date at the European level [...

Life Cycle Assessment of Tomato Cultivated in an Innovative Soilless System

The main goal of this study is to present the life cycle assessment results of an innovative closed-loop production system, called an agriponic system, used for producing tomatoes. In the study, this new system is presented, as well as its related environmental impacts generated for the production of the tomatoes. A life cycle assessment (according to ISO 14040) was applied to it, from seedling purchase and planting to harvest, using a functional unit of 1 ton of cherry tomatoes produced. SimaPro 9.3.0.3 software and the Ecoinvent database were used to analyze five impact categories. Plant growth emerged as the process unit with the highest impact, particularly for the ozone depletion potential (ODP), with a value of 0.00056 kgCFC-11eq, and for photochemical oxidation (POCP), with a value of 0.0784 kgC2H4eq impact categories. Greenhouse climate management presented a significant impact to the acidification potential (AP), with a value of 1.021 kgSO2eq. Conversely, the phases of plant transplanting, harvesting, and crop disposal had positive impacts for all impact categories considered in the study, because they were very low. In conclusion, agriponic greenhouse tomato production is a sustainable process. This is due to fewer pesticides that are used, and to nutrient solution reuse

Responsible and sustainable sourcing of battery raw materials - Insights from hotspot analysis, company disclosures and field research

Used in e-mobility and electronics, batteries are essential to achieve the EU objective of decarbonisation of the economy and other challenges related to sustainable development. Several policy initiatives have been issued and others are under discussion to promote sustainable and competitive production of batteries in the EU. Recently, various stakeholders highlighted social risks related to supply chains of batteries and in particular in regard to the provision of raw materials. Cobalt is especially concerning when it comes to human rights abuses, child labour and life-threatening working conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). That country provides around 60 % of the global supply, a significant proportion of it originating from artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) operators. Reports from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations and media on this topic have increased in number since 2016, and the issue is now more visible than in 2007, when the first reports on the sector emerged. At the same time, responsible sourcing initiatives have been launched and implemented for cobalt and other materials, most of them aligned with the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas (OECD Guidance). Among them, EU Regulation 2017/821 will require EU importers of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (3TG) to perform due diligence on their supply chain, according to the OECD Guidance. The strategic battery action plan proposed by the European Commission identifies some clear work streams on responsible sourcing. A battery-specific regulation including requirements for the ethical sourcing of materials is also currently under discussion. The objective of Chapters 2 and 3 is to identify potential risks in the mining stage of battery materials’ production, using data at country and corporate levels. Chapter 2 presents a hotspot analysis of primary raw materials used in batteries. It combines data on the mining stage (including global supply, EU sourcing, and reserves and resources) with indicators considered relevant to the responsible sourcing of batteries (i.e. on governance, conflict risk, human and social rights, environmental performance and water risk). These are complemented by insights from the Environmental Justice Atlas, which documents information about conflicts and struggles over the exploitation of natural resources and the related production processes. The analysis resulted in the identification of three main groups of countries that could present risk as global suppliers, as EU suppliers and for future materials supply. Chapter 3 investigates what information about social sustainability is available at corporate level. Applying an original methodology, it scrutinises publicly available sustainability reports by large-scale and multinational mining companies that produce materials for batteries, taking into account the impact categories proposed in the social life-cycle assessment (S-LCA) framework and the key principles described by the EU Guidelines for non-financial reporting. Although sustainability reporting practice has been increasing in recent years, the level of disclosure is very heterogeneous between companies and only a few sustainability reports are audited by third-party organisations. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the initiatives implemented to mitigate the risks identified in the previous chapters, using both data from the literature and primary data. As companies are increasingly asked to perform due diligence on their supply chains, several initiatives, schemes and company strategies have been developed. They are reviewed in Chapter 4, which compares the different requirements and risk categories that have to be scrutinised under the various initiatives. Most of them are aligned with the requirements of the OECD Guidance, while approaches towards artisanal mining differ. Four initiatives are implemented on the upstream phase, and three of those engage with the ASM sector and work on the ground in order to improve working conditions in the DRC. The impacts of two initiatives (those implemented for at least 1 year) are assessed through a field investigation. The analysis in Chapter 5 is based on a comparison of two visited pilot projects with the general conditions of the cobalt and copper ASM sector in Lualaba and Haut-Katanga provinces in the DRC. The characterisation of pilot sites is based on the collecting of qualitative information through information matrices. These are based on the OECD Guidance and other relevant standards for responsible and sustainable supply, which include the S-LCA framework. This information gathering was complemented by a visit to a third ASM site, where no pilot was implemented. It was chosen as representative of the general ASM sector, and used as a baseline. Given the nature of this work and the amount of primary data collected, an extensive analysis and detailed description of the contexts under investigation are provided. Results show that the systems analysed are rather effective at 7 implementing the changes that they are designed to implement. This is especially visible when it comes to issues of life-threatening working conditions and child labour. However, risk categories addressed by these projects are dictated by downstream expectations and do not necessarily correspond to the demands of the miners they are designed to protect. For instance, price calculation and income are particularly salient aspects and are not captured by the evaluations. The S-LCA methodology offers a promising avenue to expand the scope of enquiry in a structured manner. Traceability is another key point, as the systems are applied only in small areas of the mining sites. Companies’ participation in the pilots could be used to burnish their reputation as a whole, out of proportion to the contribution of the pilot sites to the companies’ overall supply. Moreover, the scalability of these pilots within a short time frame is unknown, as the availability of local skilled professionals, among other challenges, might be a critical bottleneck. Overall, the positive results of the systems analysed warrants an appeal to further facilitate (e.g. through funding) the development of similar initiatives. This study is a first step towards the understanding and quantification of the main risks in battery supply chains at mining stage, and the assessment of the impact of current initiatives implemented on the ground. It sets the stage for a more complete understanding of the concept and practice of responsible sourcing, and proposes a methodology that could be replicated for other materials, other sectors and other applications.JRC.D.3-Land Resource