Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Social life cycle assessment of innovative management schemes for

challenging plastics waste
Filomena Ardolino ⁎, AnnaRita Palladini, Umberto Arena
Department of Environmental, Biological, Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technologies, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Via Vivaldi, 43, 81100 Caserta, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The focus is on current and innovative management schemes of plastics waste coming from electric and elec-
Received 12 October 2022 tronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles, and construction and demolition waste. Their complex compositions,
Received in revised form 8 March 2023 due to the presence of several polymers, different (also hazardous) additives, and non-plastics fractions, make
Accepted 9 March 2023
difficult finding sustainable management options. The study aimed at an assessment of social performances of
Available online 15 March 2023
current management schemes for these challenging plastics, compared with those of alternative schemes, includ-
Editor: Prof. Adisa Azapagic ing advanced innovative process options (dissolution/precipitation, supercritical fluid extraction with CO2,
catalytic pyrolysis). A social life cycle assessment was developed at European level, by also exploiting synergies
with parallel environmental analyses.
Keywords: The results indicated that innovative solutions could lead to good performances for human health of workers, but
Social life cycle assessment also for improvement of economies of local communities and society. The still limited maturity of proposed tech-
Plastics waste nologies would require a sufficiently long period of economic incentives to demonstrate process validity in the
WEEE recovery of polymers, suitable to be accepted by the market. Accordingly, the estimated potential social effects
ELV
should be further studied when the proposed innovative processes will be implemented at larger scale, to include
C&DW
aspects strictly related to the behaviour of a specific company going beyond the single process. Results contribute
to define a complete set of environmental and social data and information, which can help European decision
makers to define new criteria for sustainable management of the waste plastics of interest.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction able to remove main contaminants and generate secondary plastics of

Recyclability of plastics from waste of electric and electronic equip-
ment (WEEE), end-of-life vehicles (ELV) and construction and demoli-
tion waste (C&DW) is a technological and economic challenge. An
efficient and sustainable recovery of resources is complicated by some
important issues: the complex waste composition, where there are sev-
eral polymers with high levels of contamination; large costs of treat-
ments; and the continuous evolution of the related legal framework
(Ardolino et al., 2021; Cardamone et al., 2022). Innovative treatments
Abbreviations: AWI, Approved Work Item; BFR, Brominated Flame Retardants; C&DW,
Construction and Demolition Waste; E-LCA, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment; ELV,
End-of-Life-Vehicles; EMAS, Eco-Management and Audit Scheme; EU,, European Union;
G&SD, Goal and Scope Definition; ISO, International Organisation for Standardisation;
LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; LCI, Life Cycle Inventory; LCIA, Life Cycle Impact Assessment;
MFA, Material Flow Analysis; MSW, Municipal Solid Waste; S-LCA, Social Life Cycle
Assessment; SFA, Substance Flow Analysis; TRL, Technology Readiness Levels; VOC,
Volatile Organic Compounds; WEEE, Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment; WtE,
Waste-to-Energy.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: filomena.ardolino@unicampania.it (F. Ardolino).
good quality were recently proposed by a H2020 project (Nontox,
2022). The promising environmental performances of management
schemes that utilise these treatments for WEEE/ELV/C&DW plastics
were quantified by means of Environmental Life Cycle Assessments
(E-LCAs) and appear an important starting point to reduce improper
strategies, generally linked to large use of waste exportation and
landfilling (Ardolino et al., 2021; Cardamone et al., 2022).
Sustainable development concept aims at promoting and sustaining
human health and people well-being as well as natural resources and
economic activities (UNEP, 2020; UNEP-SETAC, 2011). In this frame-
work, it is important to give the necessary attention to the social im-
pacts related to alternative management schemes, by using a Social
Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), to have a more holistic evaluation of per-
formances related to proposed management schemes. Environmental
and economical performances related to products (good or services)
are commonly included into decision-making processes (Christensen
et al., 2020; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2015; Clift et al., 2000), while social
aspects are rarely considered, due to a limited awareness of related ad-
vantages and, to a lesser extent, to the limits of methodologies for their
evaluation (Lenzo et al., 2017).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.03.011
2352-5509/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena
S-LCA is a methodology to assess the potential social impacts of prod-
ucts along their entire life cycle (UNEP-SETAC, 2009; UNEP, 2020). The
focus is on different stakeholder categories (e.g., local communities,
workers, children) that might be affected by the systems under analysis
(UNEP, 2020). The first indications of this methodology in literature can
be found since 1996 as “societal LCA” (Traverso, 2018), but it is still not
yet fully standardised as the E-LCA, from which S-LCA takes general
principles and methodological approach (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044,
2006). The greatest S-LCA limit appears to be data availability since the
nature of social phenomena implies an intrinsic difficulty to obtain an
objective quantification (Ekener-Petersen and Finnveden, 2013). This
issue can be solved by involving stakeholders of interest (Moya et al.,
2018; Foolmaun and Ramjeeawon, 2013) and experts in the field (de
Souza et al., 2016) with questionnaires and interviews, or by using social
risks databases (Papo and Corona, 2022). S-LCA is under a continuous
development, and a specific ISO (ISO/AWI 14075, 2022) is in preparation
to obtain a tool able to evaluate social impacts in a more reliable way
(Life Cycle Initiative, 2019). Currently, the main references for the imple-
mentation of an S-LCA are the guidelines and the methodological sheets
provided by UNEP (UNEP, 2020, 2021a, 2022), based on previous ver-
sions (UNEP-SETAC, 2009, 2013) and recent publications in the field
(e.g., Hauschild et al., 2018; Goedkoop et al., 2020).
S-LCA was applied to the assessment of municipal solid waste
(MSW) management only in 36 cases from 2004 to 2021 (Costa et al.,
2022), most of which (59 %) are focused on waste sector in developing
countries with the evaluation of living and working conditions of local
communities and employees (Geyhan et al., 2017, 2019; Umair et al.,
2015). With reference to treatment of plastics waste, the available S-
LCAs mainly focused on packaging sector (Reinales et al., 2020; Ferrão
et al., 2014), with evaluations that also consider environmental and eco-
nomic issues (Papo and Corona, 2022; Moya et al., 2018; Foolmaun and
Ramjeeawon, 2013). At the best of authors' knowledge, few studies
were carried out for WEEE and C&DW sectors, while none of these
were focused on ELV. Ciroth and Franze (2011) assessed social and en-
vironmental impacts of a notebook (during its whole life cycle), high-
lighting how illegal e-waste recycling in China causes poor
performances in terms of working conditions, environmental standards,
and sustainable development. Pini et al. (2019) evaluated environmen-
tal performances, cost externalities and possibility of job creation re-
lated to the life cycle of new and reconditioned electrical and
electronic equipment. de Souza et al. (2016) assessed sustainability per-
formances of alternative systems for WEEE management before their
implementation at real-plant scale, by involving a group of regional
experts in the evaluation of social aspects. Iodice et al. (2021) evaluated
socio-economic and environmental performances of alternative
management schemes of C&DW for a region of South of Italy, by
emphasising the crucial role of recycling and advantages deriving
from a landfill ban. None of these S-LCAs were focused on plastic frac-
tions from WEEE/ELV/C&DW and neither developed at European level.
It is thus clear the innovative aspect of the study proposed here,
which aims at evaluating the potential social impacts of innovative
management schemes for plastics deriving from WEEE, ELV and
C&DW, compared with those of the schemes currently applied in
European Union (EU). The results contribute to define a complete set
of environmental and social data and information, which can help
European decision makers to define new criteria for sustainable man-
agement of waste plastics of interest (European Parliament News,
2023). A new methodological approach has been used: it could be useful
for other research projects that involve emerging management options.
2. Methods
2.1. Overall methodological approach
Potential social impacts of new management schemes for plastics
coming from WEEE, ELV and C&DW were evaluated and compared
345
Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355
with those related to the systems currently applied. Proposed schemes
introduce novel solutions of physical recycling (dissolution/precipita-
tion and supercritical fluid extraction with CO 2 ) followed by a
plastic upgrading stage, and catalytic pyrolysis of fractions not
suitable for physical recycling processes (Ardolino et al., 2021).
These new options do not compete with mechanical recycling but
are complementary to it since they applied to plastics streams that
are not mechanically recyclable, mainly due to their complex
composition. These wastes are usually made of more than one
polymer, and often include engineered polymers; they generally
contain high levels of hazardous chemical additives - including
brominated flame retardants (BFR), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), phthalates and stabilisers -, and can be strongly
commingled with other non-plastics fractions (Arena and Ardolino,
2022; Cardamone et al., 2022). The application of proposed solutions
allows avoiding conventional treatments of waste-to-energy by
combustion and disposal by sanitary landfilling. The presented S-
LCA compared alternative management schemes by using the Guide-
lines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations
(UNEP, 2020, 2021a) as a reference framework, and following
the principles of ISO 14040 and 14044 standards (ISO 14044, 2006;
ISO 14040, 2006) for environmental LCA, whenever applicable
(Fig. 1).
The phases of an S-LCA are those of an E-LCA, but their implementa-
tion, contents and nature are different. The goal and scope definition
(G&SD) of an S-LCA, as that of an E-LCA, must contain an overview of
choices and hypotheses of the study, by specifying object and objectives
(including goals, systems under analysis, functional unit, system bound-
aries, etc.). G&SD of an S-LCA must clearly state if it is developed at or-
ganisation or process/product level, since this leads to different
choices for the study, mainly during data collection activities. Further-
more, it should include the identification of the involved stakeholders
and related social themes of interest, together with the selection of in-
ventory indicators used for data collection, and a method for impact as-
sessment (UNEP, 2020; Goedkoop et al., 2020). Stakeholders are groups
of people who are part of the same social category, which interact in a
similar way with the systems under analysis (UNEP, 2020). Stakeholder
categories suggested by UNEP (2020) are: workers, local communities,
consumers, society, value chain actors (not including consumers), and
children. Each stakeholder group is associated to impact subcategories,
which are social themes that could contribute (positively or negatively)
to human well-being (Moltesen et al., 2018). They include human
rights, working conditions, and cultural heritage, and can be identified
for instance by considering international agreements and standards,
such as the ILO - International Labour Organization (2020) and ISO
45001 (2018), which define minimum requirements to be applied for
working conditions.
G&SD of this study utilised the same basic mandatory elements of
the parallel E-LCAs (Cardamone et al., 2022; Ardolino et al., 2021;
Arena and Ardolino, 2022) recently carried out in the framework of
a H2020 project (Nontox, 2022). Life cycle inventory (LCI) phase
aims at collecting information about conditions of selected stake-
holders, by following social inventory indicators, identified during
the first stage of the study. Inventory indicators include data - such
as working hours, health and safety measures, salary figure, number
of accidents in specific areas - which can provide the status of social
conditions for each unit process (Vanclay, 2002). They also provide
guidelines for the type of data that have to be collected, which can
be site-specific (primary), if collected through interviews or ques-
tionnaires, or generic (secondary), when comes from commercial
database (UNEP, 2020). The S-LCA described in this study was imple-
mented at European level and refers to systems that are still not op-
erative at industrial scale. This implies a partial lack of data, together
with the impossibility to consider site-specific conditions and in-
volve stakeholders and companies, directly. These constrains were
overcome by utilising data from the parallel E-LCAs, which provide
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena
Fig. 1. Methodological approach to evaluate the potential social impacts of the analysed innovative management schemes for plastics from WEEE, ELV and C&DW.
material and substance flow analyses (MFA and SFA) of management
schemes under analysis, with the quantification of input/output
flows to/from each unit process, together with the complete list of
related (direct, indirect, and avoided) environmental burdens. Data
about social indicators were collected by means of questionnaires
and interviews addressed to a panel of experts, and coupled with
those from scientific literature and sustainability reports, when
available. This strategy for data collection phase is among those sug-
gested by UNEP (2020) and already used in literature (de Souza et al.,
2016) for the evaluation of systems before their implementations in
waste management schemes under analysis.
Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) can be developed follow-
ing two alternative approaches: reference scale method or impact path-
way method (UNEP, 2020). The first utilises ordinal scales composed of
different levels, each of them corresponding to a performance reference
point (performance benchmark). Reference scales are settled for each
social subcategory, by considering international standards, the best
practices of the sectors under analysis or other factors, strictly related
to the context and nature of the study (UNEP, 2020). They typically
346
Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355
comprise five levels, could be ascending - when the lowest value corre-
sponds to the worst performance and the highest value to the best one -
or descending - when the lowest value indicates low social risks
(i.e., good social performance) and the highest value indicates high so-
cial risks (UNEP, 2020, 2022). The second approach, the impact pathway
method, needs the identification of social cause-effect-chains, to build
characterisation methods like those of an E-LCA, where inventory indi-
cators are linked to intermediate effects (social midpoint categories)
and then to the final consequence (social endpoint categories). The im-
pact assessment method to be adopted in an S-LCA must be chosen in
the G&SD: the impact pathway approach is strongly recommended for
consequential social impacts, i.e., those indirectly related to the
analysed system, also for long-term effects; while utilisation of refer-
ence scales is suggested when the aim is to assess social performance
or social risk, which are more directly linked to the system. The S-LCA
reported here adopts the reference scale approach to evaluate each so-
cial theme based on the answers received from a panel of experts, in-
stead of measuring the compliance with international laws/standards,
since the systems under analysis are not still commercially operative.
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355

The results were obtained by weighting all the received feedbacks, ac-
cording with Aparcana and Salhofer (2013):
n Si
Social Theme Score ¼ ∑i
E tics waste streams from WEEE, ELV and C&DW. Only for WEEE plastics,
where:
Si = Score assigned to a social theme based on the answer received
by each expert.
E = Total number of answers received by the experts for each social
theme.
Following this procedure, social performances were first quantified
for each selected management option and then estimated for the total
amounts of plastics coming from WEEE, ELV and C&DW, which are
managed each year in Europe (Fig. 1).
2.2. Goal & scope definition
An attributional, process-based approach was utilised, by accounting
for potential impacts directly related to the systems of interest and at-
tributing them to the activities within the systems in a current perspec-
tive (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2017). The systems to be studied are
alternative (Current and Innovative) management schemes for plastics
waste deriving from WEEE, ELV and C&DW, applied at European level,
which were recently object of specific E-LCAs (Cardamone et al., 2022;
Ardolino et al., 2021; NONTOX, 2022).
Current management schemes include conventional mechanical
recycling (when applicable), thermal treatment processes, and sanitary
landfilling, as well as the sub-standard options for wastes exported out-
side Europe. Innovative management schemes are identified as possible
future management strategies that include new treatments of (Table 1):
physical recycling (dissolution/precipitation by CreaSolv® and super-
critical fluid extraction with CO2 by Extruclean) followed by a plastic
upgrading stage; and chemical recycling (catalytic pyrolysis, with a
pre-treatment by extrusion). As mentioned above, the innovative
schemes always include mechanical recycling for the fraction of plastics
to which it can be efficiently applied.
Furthermore, proposed systems do not change collection and waste
trading phases, then innovative schemes still include the sub-standard
options for wastes exported outside Europe. The Current and Innovative
management scenarios were assessed and compared for the three plas-
ð1Þ
the comparison of current vs innovative scenarios was implemented for
a “real” situation, when the exportation outside Europe is taken into ac-
count, and for an “ideal” situation, where collected WEEE plastics are
not exported outside Europe and are treated only by the best available
options (Ardolino et al., 2021). Exportation outside Europe implies
sub-standard treatments of illegal dumping, open burning, and inciner-
ation (Cardamone et al., 2021). Dumping does not use any form of pre-
vention aimed at the control of pollutants, thus causing emissions of
dangerous substances into the water and air (such as brominated
flame retardants). Open burning, which can occur in landfills, treatment
plants but also residential areas, generates emissions of dust, green-
house gases, metals, hydrocarbons, polybrominated/polychlorinated di-
oxins and furans. Incineration without energy recovery is the more
acceptable of these sub-standard treatments. Despite the lack of an en-
ergy recovery, incineration manages input waste by limiting the related
emissions and avoiding the dramatic consequences for the environment
and human health that are due to both the sub-standard options men-
tioned above.
Material and Substance flow analyses, for each of the 8 scenarios
(Table 2), were carried out in the parallel E-LCAs (Cardamone et al.,
2022; Ardolino et al., 2021; NONTOX, 2022) to identify involved treat-
ment units and quantify the related (input/output) mass flow rates.
Table 2 reports annual flows amount for each of these European
management scenarios for WEEE/ELV/C&DW plastics, based on MFAs
reported in detail in ANNEX A.
The functional unit is the management of annual amount of officially
collected plastics waste from WEEE (0.7 Mt/y), ELV (1.0 Mt/y), and
C&DW (1.8 Mt/y), after their separate collection and preliminary sorting
(Fig. 2). The study does not consider plastics not officially collected
and does not investigate illegal trading of these wastes, since the
proposed scheme introduces innovative treatments which do not in-
volve the gathering phase. The polymeric composition, and details of

Table 1
Main features of considered innovative plastics waste treatment.

Innovative Classification Description Role in the proposed management schemes

treatment

CreaSolv® Physical recycling by • Dissolution/precipitation processes recycle contaminated plastics Target polymers of CreaSolv® are:
dissolution/precipitation waste by the action of solvents able to selectively dissolve and
• Brominated ABS and PS/HIPS together with PC and PC+ABS
precipitate target polymers.
from WEEE.
• Plastics waste fed to CreaSolv® are first dissolved in a solvent and
• PE and PP from ELV, contaminated by additives and non-plastic
cleaned with a filtration step that separates the target polymers
fractions.
from other insoluble impurities (e.g., non-target polymers,
• PVC and EPS from C&DW, with phthalates, stabilisers, and
contaminants, and non-plastic fractions). Then, a precipitation
BFRs.
step with an anti-solvent is carried out, followed by a filtration
step, to recover polymers of interest.
• CreaSolv® has a removal efficiency of contaminants >98 % and a
polymer recovery efficiency of ~97 %.
Extruclean Physical recycling by • Supercritical fluid extraction processes extract undesired compo- Only PE from fuel tanks contaminated of VOC can be a target
supercritical fluid nents from different materials utilising supercritical fluids, by polymer for the Extruclean process.
extraction with CO2 exploiting their characteristics (such as density, viscosity, and
diffusivity) to deeply penetrate solid matrices.
• Extruclean utilises an extrusion phase with supercritical CO2 to
remove some pollutants (such as VOC) from plastics waste.
• The removal efficiency of VOC is ~79 %, while the recovery effi-
ciency of the target polymer is ~96 %.
Catalytic Chemical recycling by • Pyrolysis is a thermochemical degradation process of plastics Catalytic pyrolysis receives:
Pyrolysis catalytic pyrolysis waste that operates by the absence of oxygen, with the aim of
• non-target polymers from WEEE and ELV (i.e., all those not
producing high-value products such as oils, gases, and chars.
accepted by the mechanical and physical recycling), together
• The main product of the proposed catalytic pyrolysis process
with residues of sorting and recycling processes.
(with Fe2O3 as catalyst) is an unrefined crude oil, to be sent to
However, it cannot be applied to plastics deriving from C&DW, as
external refineries for further processing.
they are too rich in PVC.
• The system is almost completely self-sustained by its products,
with the combustion of 100 % of the gas obtained from the pro-
cess and a limited amount of oil.

347
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355

Table 2
Annual flows amount for each analysed scenario for WEEE/ELV/C&DW plastics management in Europe.

WEEE plastics ELV plastics C&DW plastics

Current real Innovative real Current ideal Innovative ideal Current Innovative Current Innovative

kt/y
Total Collected Plastics 732 1010 1760
Mechanical Recycling 97.2 97.2 389 389 25.8 25.8 450 450
WtE by Combustion 91 15.5 363 62.1 608 189 872 814
Sanitary landfilling – – – – 376 – 460 –
Dissolution/precipitation – 38.3 – 153 – 433 – 736
Supercritical fluid extraction – – – – – 53.9 – –
Catalytic pyrolysis – 44.2 – 177 – 353 – –
Substandard optionsa 549 549 – – – – – –
a
They include: 33 % illegal dumping, 50 % open burning, and 17 % incineration without energy recovery.

contamination levels for each stream of interest, have been defined in
the parallel E-LCAs (ANNEX A).
Stakeholder categories directly and indirectly affected by the
analysed management schemes were identified from those suggested
by UNEP (2020) and associated to the related subcategories of interest
(Fig. 2). They include workers, which are the employers of the different
treatment options applied for the WEEE/ELV/C&DW plastics manage-
ment; local communities, which include people living near plastics
waste management sites; society, which is directly or indirectly affected
by the technologies and procedures developed and utilised for manage-
ment of plastics waste of interest. Subcategories of interest are defined
based on UNEP (2020, 2021a), even though “local economic develop-
ment” and “public commitment to sustainability issues” have been
added to this list (Fig. 2). The selection was carried out by identifying so-
cial issues relevant for stakeholders of interest. A completeness check of
assessed subcategories was carried out by asking the panel of experts
for indication of other possible social issues to be included.
2.3. Social life cycle inventory
Table 3 shows social inventory indicators applied in the framework
of this study, as obtained for their good representativeness of impact
subcategories under analysis. They provided guidelines for the type of
data to be collected.
Performance indicators are the basis of the reference scales used to
evaluate potential social impacts. Ascending reference scales with five
levels varying from −2 to +2 were settled and used for this S-LCA.
The negative values (−2 and −1) are assigned to very poor or poor per-
formances of the systems with potential negative impacts on involved
stakeholders. Vice versa, the positive values (+2 and +1) indicate

Fig. 2. System boundaries adopted in the S-LCA for the management of WEEE, ELV and C&DW plastics, with the identification of stakeholders of interest and related impact subcategories.

348
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena
Table 3
Utilised inventory indicators.
Stakeholder Impact subcategory Inventory indicators
category
WORKERS Health and safety Possibility that workers of the analysed
plants could be exposed to accidents or
damages to their health.
Possibility that workers of the analysed
plants could carry out strenuous activities.
LOCAL Safe and healthy Possibility to increase the perception that
COMMUNITY living conditions living conditions of local communities can
be affected by means of occasional events
such as accidents or for the exposure to
emissions in the environmental matrices.
Local economic Possibility to create new jobs and
development revenues for the local community.
Public commitment Possibility to involve local communities in
to sustainability the activities related to the analysed
issues plants (during the process of
authorisation and construction as well as
operating activities).
SOCIETY Economic Possibility to promote the creation of new
development job positions and/or “satellite activities”,
at macro-level scale (e.g., nationwide).
Technology Possibility to create partnerships with
development universities, institutions, and laboratories.
Possibility to share know-how with other
commercial sectors.
very good and good performances of the systems with relative potential
positive impacts on involved stakeholders. The average value (level
0) indicates that there is not a shared position of the experts or there
are not data available to assess social performances of the processes.
This level appeared useful to identify processes and social themes for
which there are not enough data to reach a reliable assessment.
Table 4 shows the reference scale developed for stakeholder category
“Local community”, and impact subcategory “Local economic develop-
ment”, while those for all other subcategories are shown in ANNEX B.
The panel of experts includes 22 members, 9 of which are compo-
nents of the H2020 project that proposed (and worked on) the new
management schemes under analysis (NONTOX, 2022). Members of
the panel - coming from international organizations, universities, re-
search centres, and industries - were selected for their expertise in
waste management sector, and their recognised knowledge of plastics
recycling, emerging technologies, and sustainability assessment. The
panel of experts (ANNEX B) was enough heterogeneous, to guarantee
an evaluation of systems under analysis with a good level of objectivity
and exhaustiveness. Experts received the questionnaire, together with
some notes about the systems under analysis. The notes provide a syn-
thetic description of the current and innovative processes and technol-
ogies for the management of plastics waste of interest, together with
Table 4
Reference scale for stakeholder category “Local community” and impact subcategory “Local economic
development”. Other reference scales adopted for this study are reported in the ANNEX B.
349
Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355
details of pros and cons of each of them. The questionnaire is composed
by 16 multiple choices questions, together with 9 open questions
(ANNEX B). The questions refer only to the treatments that are poten-
tially in competition. They do not relate to conventional mechanical
recycling, which is always applied at the same level in both the compar-
ative management schemes, and for which environmental, social, and
economic advantages are already known and recognised in literature
(Ferrão et al., 2014; Ragaert et al., 2017). Moreover, questions do not
refer to the exportation outside Europe, for which recent studies and re-
ports highlighted the awful environmental and social performances
(Cardamone et al., 2021; Ardolino et al., 2021; Forti et al., 2020; UNEP,
2021b). Exportation of this kind of waste generally implies the adoption
of substandard options, which largely involve child labour, lead to high
health and safety risks for local communities and for involved workers,
and increase the risk that workers receive a wage not complying with
international standards.
An example of received answers to multiple choice questions is re-
ported in Fig. 3, while the full list of them is reported in ANNEX B. Fur-
ther observations were given by the experts during online interviews
and in the open answers, so providing more detailed suggestions, useful
for carrying out the study. Literature sources, some statistical databases
(Eurostat, 2022; INAIL, 2021) and sustainability reports (Hera, 2021;
A2A, 2022) provided complementary data and information. These addi-
tional data relate to current working conditions (such as, the number of
annual accidents in waste management sector), and the involvement of
local communities (such as, communication modes between environ-
mental associations and citizen committees, which are generally
planned by waste management companies).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Social performances of analysed management options
The answers from the panel of experts were evaluated for each social
theme, and the results were reported in terms of a weighted average of
all the answers, according to Eq. 1 (Table 5). Social performances related
to substandard options and mechanical recycling were out of this proce-
dure. They have been assessed based on data available from literature
(Cardamone et al., 2021; Arena and Ardolino, 2022; Forti et al., 2020;
UNEP, 2021b), by assigning the worst score (−2) to substandard op-
tions, and the best one (+2) to mechanical recycling. It is noteworthy
to highlight again that the above- mentioned options are not in compe-
tition with the proposed innovative processes, hence they don't affect
the comparison of the alternative management schemes.
Workers. The results related to innovative processes (dissolution/
precipitation, supercritical fluid extraction and catalytic pyrolysis) indi-
cate that they could lead to good performances for health and safety of
workers (with points ranging from +0.36 to +0.64), that means limited
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355

Fig. 3. Example of answers related to possible social effects, as obtained from questionnaire.

risks to be exposed to accidents/damages or to carry out strenuous ac-
tivities. However, about 40 % of the experts (Fig. 3) declared to have
not enough data to provide a reliable assessment. On the contrary, al-
most all the experts gave opinions about conventional treatments, indi-
cating WtE by combustion as a low-risk option. The experts highlighted
the potential remarkable role that can be played by the loading of in-
coming materials into the equipment if any process is not fully
mechanised; the exposition to dangerous substances and the driving
heavy vehicles for the waste compaction (applicable only to sanitary
landfilling). Eurostat (2022) provides statistical data related to health
and safety conditions of workers, in the solid waste management sector,
including the number of annual fatal and non-fatal accidents in Europe,
together with the incidence rate, quantified as the number of accidents
for 100,000 employed workers (ANNEX B). Accidents at work registered
for waste management sector are 39,000 during 2019 and represent
1.2 % of total cases (315,000), with the worst contribution provided by
the building sector, for specialised construction activities (7.2 % of
cases). The incidence rate for waste management sector is higher
(3700) than the average of all activities (1600), and not far away from
the highest rate (>5000 cases), which relates to remediation activities.

Table 5
S-LCA results with reference to current and innovative management options.

350
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena
The Italian institute for prevention of occupational accident (INAIL,
2021) indicates that 70 % of injuries in waste management sector (in
the years 2014–2018) occurred during the phase of gathering (ANNEX
B). The just mentioned statistical data confirm the general assessment
provided by the panel of experts.
Local community. The results related to Safe and healthy living con-
ditions show that physical recycling process by supercritical fluid ex-
traction is the only one perceived as no- or low- risk option (for about
60 % of experts, as reported in Fig. 3), while landfill is considered a
medium- or high- risk option (for about 75 % of experts), so represent-
ing the worst solution (point −1 in Table 4). Other options show a
lower risk perception (points ranging from −0.14 to −0.77). Waste
management sector is largely involved in improving its sustainability
even with the support and monitoring of some certified management
tools, such as EMAS (ANNEX B), by which European Commission super-
vises companies' sustainable performances (EMAS, 2022).
With reference to local economy development, all the management
options were considered potentially useful, except for landfill disposal.
Majority of experts (>50 %) agree that processes could improve the eco-
nomic conditions by creating new (direct and indirect) jobs and “satel-
lite activities”. These can include companies providing general services,
such as cleaning, surveillance, food supply and maintenance of the facil-
ities; technical services, such as electrical assistance or support to the
control room; supplying of materials, such as chemicals or small spare
components. Downstream services could be also created, such as
those allowing further valorisation of obtained products (e.g., plastics
or unrefined oil) or safe disposal of generated waste (e.g., recycling res-
idues). Furthermore, several benefits can derive from the recovery of
energy and materials. Experts agree that involvement of local commu-
nity has a crucial role for all the management options under analysis,
by leading to good performances in terms of public commitment to sus-
tainability issues. Continuous, prompt, and transparent actions of com-
munication between plant operators and local communities should be
guaranteed, by involving local administrators, when possible. This can
be done in different ways, such as for instance, by allowing citizens to
have a free access to information and documents related to plant activ-
ities or organising dedicated events, such as open visits to the plants and
workshops, as already done by important companies in the field
(Unilever, 2023; Hera, 2021; TREEE, 2022; A2A, 2022). In the waste sec-
tor to which this S-LCA is related, TREEE, an Italian society active in col-
lection, recovery, and treatment of WEEE, organised several kinds of
activities in the last 5 years to involve citizens and local communities.
These included: open days for students from universities and high
schools as well as local and national politicians; video tutorial for
students, during Covid-19 pandemic, when open days were not possi-
ble; educational projects published on website; bonus for improving
workers' welfare, such as tickets for travels and food (TREEE, 2022).
The community engagement should inform about possible benefits
deriving from the plant's activities, compared to the potential damages,
if any. The involvement of local community is strongly suggested
starting from the stage of administrative authorisation to that of
decommissioning, particularly for processes/technologies that could
contribute to the creation of people's worries.
Society. Innovative solutions could potentially contribute to technol-
ogy development of the society, due to their (still) medium Technology
Readiness Levels (TRL), which requires further developments before im-
plementation on commercial scale. Supercritical fluid extraction and cat-
alytic pyrolysis show better results (+1.52 and +1.45), since appear
available to promote new partnerships with universities and
institutions, while dissolution/precipitation has some confidentiality is-
sues (with a point equal to +1.18). Thermal treatments could still con-
tribute to these features (with point +0.06) thanks to the necessity of
optimising specific process stages (e.g., air pollution control systems or
carbon capture and sequestration units). Landfill is the only option with-
out clear perspective of further developments or ability to promote new
partnerships (with point −0.8). With reference to the impact subcategory
351
Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355
of society economic development, the innovative processes appear to
provide some benefits. However, the main part of the experts indicates
that a successful entrance into the market needs economic incentives
and a reliable identification of optimal treatment capacity of each plant
(so far not known due to the limited industrial maturity). These incen-
tives should be granted for a limited period, sufficient to demonstrate
the capability of proposed process to valorise target waste streams.
Other Social Issues. Questionnaires and following interviews were
also used as a completeness check of assessed social subcategories. A
half of the experts stated that covered social topics were exhaustive.
Some others of them suggested to include involvement of consumers,
which should be fully aware of their responsibility in a proper separate
collection of end-of-life of products. Although this is an important social
issue, it was not considered in this S-LCA, since consumers belong to a
stakeholder category not directly involved by proposed new solutions.
Other experts suggested to include issues related to the possible compe-
tition between operators of the proposed plants and those already oper-
ating in the same area, for instance in the relationships with material
and/or energy suppliers or end-users of recovered plastics. These as-
pects were not considered, since appear too much site-specific or
strictly connected to the behaviour of a company, in other words, not re-
lated to the processes themselves.
3.2. Social performances of alternative management schemes
Results for single treatments (Table 4) were used together with ma-
terial flow analyses developed in the parallel E-LCAs (Table 2 and
ANNEX A) to assess social performances of the whole management
schemes for WEEE/ELV/C&DW plastics. Scores of social performances
for each option have been multiplied by the annual input flowrate of
plastics waste and divided by the total amount of the specific plastics
waste collected each year in Europe.
Fig. 4 shows that waste exportation (and related substandard op-
tions) of plastics coming from WEEE leads to very poor performances
of Real current management scheme for all social subcategories, with
points ranging from −1 to −2. This implies that the application of the
innovative scheme, even though fully sustainable, has an almost negligi-
ble effect on the overall results, in agreement with the conclusions al-
ready obtained by the E-LCA (ANNEX C). An ideal scenario, where
there is no exportation and WEEP are treated only by the best available
options, has been assessed for both management schemes, and gener-
ates a clear improvement of all social performances (with results always
higher than +0.5). Comparative results show that the innovative
scheme has better performances than the current one for subcategories
related to society: technology (+1.7 vs +1.1), and economic develop-
ment (+1.4 vs +1.1). Overall results highlight how it is crucial to elim-
inate, or at least strongly reduce, the exportation of the waste outside
Europe to minimise the negative impacts on involved stakeholders.
This ideal condition is however far away from reality since exportation
of WEEE plastics is still the largely prevalent option in Europe. Forti
et al. (2020) and EERA (2018) suggested some guiding principles to im-
prove WEEE management systems, which could be also useful to reduce
the exportation rate. These include defining a simpler legal framework,
harmonized for all European Countries, which should clearly define role
and responsibilities of involved municipalities, government, and
companies. Furthermore, the monitoring of waste flows up to end-
processing facilities should be enforced, for instance with the creation
of an international authorization system, which could help in identify-
ing companies which are in compliance with standard and norms.
Results for ELV plastics (Fig. 5, A) show that innovative scheme
could improve social performances thanks to the implementation of
dissolution/precipitation and pyrolysis processes, and the absence of
landfilling. The improvements related to workers for safe working con-
ditions (+0.5 vs +0.2); local community for economic development
(+0.7 vs +0.3); and society, both for technological and economic de-
velopment (+1.13 vs −0.9 and 0.6 vs 0.1, respectively). Similar good
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355

Fig. 4. Assessment of potential social impacts of WEEP management schemes for Current and Innovative Real (A) and Ideal scenarios (B) with the details of contributions of each process.
Substandard options include illegal dumping, open burning, and incineration without energy recovery.

results are obtained for C&DW plastics (Fig. 5, B), where the introduc- as well as society technological and economic development. Social re-
tion of dissolution/precipitation process instead of disposal in landfill sults obtained for ELV and C&DW plastics are again in good agreement
enhances safe and healthy conditions of workers and local communities with those of parallel E-LCAs (ANNEX C).

352
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355

Fig. 5. Assessment of potential social impacts of management schemes for Current and Innovative scenarios for ELVP (A) and C&DWP (B) with the details of contributions of each process.

4. Conclusions hazardous chemical additives and/or strong commingling with non-

plastics fractions.
Recyclability of plastics coming from WEEE, ELV and C&DW is a Social performances of innovative and current management
technological and economic challenge due to their complex composi- schemes for these plastics were evaluated by means of an S-LCA, devel-
tion, which includes several kinds of polymers with high levels of oped at European level, following UNEP guidelines, and exploiting

353
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena
synergies with parallel E-LCAs. Innovative schemes include novel solu-
tions of physical recycling (dissolution/precipitation and supercritical
fluid extraction with CO2) and catalytic pyrolysis.
Workers, local communities, and society were identified as stake-
holders of interest, for which related social subcategories were assessed
by using the reference scale method. A questionnaire and interviews
with a panel of experts in the field, coupled with literature and statistical
data were used for the inventory stage, since the analysis refers to systems
that are still not implemented at industrial scale, so that stakeholders can-
not be involved directly, and site-specific conditions cannot be considered.
The results indicated that social performances of proposed innovative
solutions can lead to good performances for human health of workers, by
implying limited risks to be exposed to accidents/damages or to carry out
strenuous activities. Economic conditions of local communities and soci-
ety can be also improved by creating new (direct and indirect) jobs and
“satellite activities”, that include companies providing general or techni-
cal services. On the other hand, innovative strategies require economic
incentives to enter the market, because of their still limited industrial
maturity. The incentives should be granted for a limited period, neces-
sary to demonstrate process validity in the recovery of polymers.
With reference to the whole management scheme, the study high-
lighted how the application of these options could affect positively
stakeholders of ELV and C&DW plastics management, while the pres-
ence of the exportation overwhelms all other contributions for WEEE
plastics. This agrees with results obtained in a parallel E-LCA study,
which highlight how it is crucial to eliminate, or strongly reduce, the
waste exportation outside Europe to minimise the negative impacts
on involved stakeholders.
Potential social effects should be further studied when innovative
solutions will be implemented at larger scale, to include aspects strictly
related to the behaviour of a specific company going beyond the single
process. In this case, it will be possible to improve the inventory phase,
by involving stakeholders in data collection activities as well as impact
assessment, by measuring the compliance of operating plants with in-
ternational standards or norms.
Results from this study contribute to define a complete set of envi-
ronmental and social data and information, which can help European
decision makers to define new criteria for sustainable management of
the waste plastics of interest. A new methodological approach has
been proposed: it appears able to be applied in future research projects
involving innovative management options.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors greatly appreciated the contribution of all members of
the panel of experts. The list of the members is detailed in the ANNEX B.
The study has been financed by and developed in the framework of
the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme Project: 820895 — Nontox
(http://nontox-project.eu/) funded by the European Union. The authors
thank all the partners of the Consortium.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.03.011.
References
A2A Life company, 2022. Sustainability report. Available at: https://www.gruppoa2a.it/
en/sustainability Accessed: 08 September 2022.
354
Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355
Aparcana, S., Salhofer, S., 2013. Development of a social impact assessment methodology
for recycling systems in low-income countries. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1106–1115.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0546-8.
Arena, U., Ardolino, F., 2022. Technical and environmental performances of alternative
treatments for challenging plastics waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 183, 106379.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106379.
Ardolino, F., Cardamone, G.F., Arena, U., 2021. How to enhance the environmental sustain-
ability of WEEE plastics management: an LCA study. Waste Manag. 135, 347–359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.09.021.
Cardamone, G.F., Ardolino, F., Arena, U., 2022. Can plastics from end-of-life vehicles be
managed in a sustainable way? Sustain. Prod. Consum. 29, 115–127. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.09.025.
Cardamone, G.F., Ardolino, F., Arena, U., 2021. About the environmental sustainability of
the european management of WEEE plastics. Waste Manag. 126, 119–132. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.02.040.
Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., Levis, J., Zhao, Y., Björklund, A., Arena, U., Barlaz, M.A.,
Starostina, V., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T.F., Bisinella, V., 2020. Application of LCA modelling
in integrated waste management. Waste Manag. 118, 313–322. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2020.08.034.
Ciroth, A., Franze, J., 2011. LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook – Consideration of Social and
Environmental Impacts Along the Entire Life Cycle. Book ISBN 978-1-4466-0087-0.
Clift, R., Doig, A., Finnveden, G., 2000. The application of life cycle assessment to integrated
waste management: part 1-methodology. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 78 (4), 279–287.
https://doi.org/10.1205/095758200530790.
Costa, A.M., Mancini, S.D., Paes, M.X., Ugaya, C.M.L., De Medeiros, G.A., De Souza, R.G.,
2022. Social evaluation of municipal solid waste management systems from a life
cycle perspective: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 27,
719–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02057-6.
de Souza, R.G., Clímaco, J.C.N., Rocha, T.B., do Valle, R., Quelhas, O.L.G., Sant’Anna, A.P., De,
A.B., 2016. Sustainability assessment and prioritisation of e-waste management op-
tions in Brazil. Waste Manag. 57, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.
034.
EERA-European Electronic Recyclers Association, 2018. Responsible recycling of WEEE
plastics containing BFR's. Available at: www.eera-recyclers.com/publications.
Ekener-Petersen, E., Finnveden, G., 2013. Potential hotspots identified by social LCA - part
1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (1), 127–143. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0442-7.
EMAS, 2022. Organisations in Europe registered under the EMAS scheme in 2022. Avail-
able at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emas_registrations/statistics_
graphs_en.htm Accessed: 08 September 2022.
European Parliament News, 2023. Waste shipments: MEPs push for tighter EU rules. Avail-
able at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230113IPR66627/
waste-shipments-meps-push-for-tighter-eu-rules Accessed: 07 March 2023.
Eurostat, 2022. Annual fatal and non-fatal accidents at work. Data refer to Europe, 2019.
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/health/data/database Accessed: 08
September 2022.
Ferrão, P., Ribeiro, P., Rodrigues, J., Marques, A., Preto, M., Amaral, M., Domingos, T., Lopes,
A., Costa, I., 2014. Environmental, economic and social costs and benefits of a packag-
ing waste management system: a portuguese case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85,
67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.020.
Foolmaun, R.K., Ramjeeawon, T., 2013. Comparative life cycle assessment and social life
cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int.
J. Life Cycl. Assess. 18, 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2.
Forti, V., Baldé, C.P., Kuehr, R., Bel, G., 2020. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020. Quantities,
Flows, and the Circular Economy Potential. UNU/UNITAR SCYCLE, ITU, ISWA ISBN:
978-92-808-9114-0.
Geyhan, E.Y., Çiftçioğlu, G.A.A., Kadırgan, M.A.N., 2017. Social life cycle assessment of dif-
ferent packaging waste collection system. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 124, 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.003.
Geyhan, E.Y., Yılan, G., Çiftçioğlu, G.A.A., Kadırgan, M.A.N., 2019. Environmental and social
life cycle sustainability assessment of different packaging waste collection systems.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 143, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.
028.
Goedkoop, M.J., de Beer, I.M., Harmens, R., Saling, Peter, Morris, Dave, Florea, Alexandra,
Hettinger, Anne Laure, Indrane, Diana, Visser, Diana, Morao, Ana, Musoke-Flores,
Elizabeth, Alvarado, Carmen, Schenker, Urs, Andro, Thomas, Viot, Jean-François,
Whatelet, Alain, 2020. Product Social Impact Assessment-Social Topics Report,
Amersfoort, November 1st, 2020. Available at: https://product-social-impact-
assessment.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/20-02-Social-Topics-Report.pdf.
Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I., 2018. Life Cycle Assessment, Theory and
Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3 ISBN 978-3-319-56474-6
ISBN 978-3-319-56475-3 (eBook).
HERA, 2021. Sustainability report. Available at https://www.gruppohera.it/gruppo/
sostenibilita/bilancio-di-sostenibilita Accessed: 08 September 2022.
ILO - International Labour Organization, 2020. Labour standards. Available at: www.ilo.
org Accessed: 24th September 2020.
INAIL, 2021. Injuries for the years 2014-2018 in the Italian waste management sector.
Available at: https://www.inail.it/cs/internet/docs/all-informo-factsheet-16.pdf?
section=attivita Accessed: 08 September 2022.
Iodice, S., Garbarino, E., Cerreta, M., Tonini, D., 2021. Sustainability assessment of con-
struction and demolition waste management applied to an italian case (2021).
Waste Manag. 128, 83–98.
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment, Principles and
Framework. International Organisation for Standardisation.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements
and Guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation.
F. Ardolino, A. Palladini and U. Arena
ISO 45001:2018, 2018. Occupational health and safety management systems — require-
ments with guidance for use. Last revision of March 2022 by ISO/TC 283 Occupational
health and safety management. International Organisation for Standardisation.
ISO/AWI 14075, 2022. Principles and framework for social life cycle assessment. Available
at: https://www.iso.org/standard/61118.html Accessed: 08 September 2022.
Lenzo, P., Traverso, M., Salomone, R., Ioppolo, G., 2017. Social life cycle assessment in the
textile sector: an Italian case study. Sustainability 9 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/
su9112092.
Life Cycle Initiative, 2019. Available at: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/category/2019/
Accessed: 08 September 2022.
Martinez-Sanchez, V., Kromann, M.A., Astrup, T.F., 2015. Life cycle costing of waste man-
agement systems: overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste Manag.
36, 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033.
Moltesen, A., Bonou, A., Wangel, A., Bozhilova-Kisheva, K.P., 2018. Social life cycle assess-
ment: an introduction. In: Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I. (Eds.), Life
Cycle Assessment, Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3
ISBN 978-3-319-56474-6 ISBN 978-3-319-56475-3 (eBook).
Moya, A., Jacobi, N., Azrague, K., Dobón, A., McLennan, A., 2018. PlastiCircle Deliverable
D7.2 Initial Environmental, Economic and Social Lca (Itene).
NONTOX Project, 2022. http://nontox-project.eu/.
Papo, M., Corona, B., 2022. Life cycle sustainability assessment of non-beverage bottles
made of recycled high density polyethylene. J. Clean. Prod. 378, 134442. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134442.
Pini, M., Lolli, F., Balugani, E., Gamberini, R., Neri, P., Rimini, B., Ferrari, A.M., 2019. Prepa-
ration for reuse activity of waste electrical and electronic equipment: environmental
performance, cost externality and job creation. J. Clean. Prod. 222 (49), 77–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.004.
Ragaert, K., Delva, L., Van Geemb, K., 2017. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid
plastic waste. Waste Manag. 69, 24–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.
044.
Reinales, D., Zambrana-Vasquez, D., Saez-De-Guinoa, A., 2020. Social life cycle assessment
of product value chains under a circular economy approach: a case study in the plas-
tic packaging sector. Sustainability 12 (16), 6671. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12166671.
355
Sustainable Production and Consumption 37 (2023) 344–355
Royal Academy of Engineering, 2017. Sustainability of Liquid Biofuels ISBN: 978-1-
909327-34-4.
Traverso, 2018. Is social life cycle assessment really struggling in development or is it on a
normal path towards harmonization/standardization? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23,
199–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1387-7.
Umair, S., Bjorklund, A., Petersen, E., 2015. Social impact assessment of informal recycling
of electronic ICT waste in Pakistan using UNEP SETAC guidelines. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 95, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.008.
TREEE, 2022. Personal Communication by Sessa T.
UNEP, 2020. In: Benoît Norris, C., Traverso, M., Neugebauer, S., Ekener, E., Schaubroeck, T.,
Russo Garrido, S., Berger, M., Valdivia, S., Lehmann, A., Finkbeiner, M., Arcese, G.
(Eds.), uidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
UNEP-SETAC, 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Unep/Setac,
Paris.
UNEP-SETAC, 2011. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Making Informed
Choices on Products ISBN: 978-92-807-3175-0.
UNEP-SETAC, 2013. Methodological Sheets of Sub-categories for a Social Lca, Unep/Setac,
Paris.
UNEP, 2021. In: Traverso, M., Valdivia, S., Luthin, A., Roche, L., Arcese, G., Neugebauer, S.,
Petti, L., D’Eusanio, M., Tragnone, B.M., Mankaa, R., Hanafi, J., Benoît Norris, C.,
Zamagni, A. (Eds.), Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle As-
sessment (S-LCA) 2021. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
UNEP, 2021. In: Pivnenko, K. (Ed.), Towards a Circular Economy for the Electronics Sector
in Africa: Overview, Actions and Recommendations. United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
UNEP, 2022. Pilot projects on guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and
organizations 2022. Available at: In: Traverso, M., Mankaa, M.N., Valdivia, S., Roche,
L., Luthin, A., Garrido, S.R., Neugebauer, S. (Eds.), Life Cycle Initiative Accessed: 08
September 2022 https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org.
Unilever, 2023. Annual Report and Accounts 2022. Available at: https://www.unilever.
com/investors/annual-report-and-accounts/. (Accessed 16 March 2023).
Vanclay, F., 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 3, 183–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6.