Evaluation framework and methodology

D7.5 – Evaluation framework and methodology June 2022 Authors: Barbara Branchini, Aran Blanco (KVELOCE); Carlos Serra, Alfonso Gallego (UVEG); Essi Paronen (VTT); Edoardo Croci, Federico Cornacchia, Benedetta Lucchitta, Tania Molteni, Tommaso Penati (UB). Ref. Ares(2022)4754752 - 29/06/2022 Page 2 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Technical references Project Acronym Agro2Circular Project Title TERRITORIAL CIRCULAR SYSTEMIC SOLUTION FOR THE UPCYCLING OF RESIDUES FROM THE AGRIFOOD SECTOR Project Coordinator Fuensanta Monzó CETEC [email protected] Project Duration October 2021 – September 2024 (36 months) Deliverable No. D7.5 Dissemination level* PU Work Package WP 7 - A2C systemic solution adoption, replication and scalability Task T7.2 - Evaluation framework Lead beneficiary 21 (KVELOCE) Contributing beneficiary/ies 22 (UVEG), 28 (UB), 29 (VTT) Due date of deliverable 30 June 2022 Actual submission date 29 June 2022 * PU = Public PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Document history V Date Comments v0.1 16/03/22 Table of Contents, created by Barbara Branchini, Aran Blanco - KVELOCE v0.2 31/03/22 Revised version based on the contributions of Carlos Serra, Alfonso Gallego - UVEG v0.3 14/04/22 Revised version based on the contributions of Essi Paronen - VTT v0.4 22/04/22 Revised version merging UVEG and VTT contributions v0.5 20/05/22 Revised version based on the contributions of Barbara Branchini – KVELOCE v0.6 27/05/22 Revised version based on the contributions of Edoardo Croci, Federico Cornacchia, Benedetta Lucchitta, Tania Molteni, Tommaso Penati - UB v0.7 03/06/22 First final version, edited by Barbara Branchini, Aran Blanco - KVELOCE Page 3 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 V Date Comments V0.8 21/06/22 First final version, reviewed by Fuensanta Monzó (CETEC), Coordinator, and Alejandro Viso (CETECBIO), (will be) submitted to EC. v1.0 29/06/22 Second final version, approved by the WP leader and the project coordinator, (will be) submitted to EC. Document Distribution Log Version Date Distributed to v0.1 16/03/22 Contributing partners (KVELOCE, UVEG, UB, VTT) V0.4 22/04/22 Contributing partners (KVELOCE, UVEG, UB, VTT) V0.7 03/06/22 Contributing partners (KVELOCE, UVEG, UB, VTT) V1.0 29/06/22 Project coordinator and contributing partners (KVELOCE, UVEG, UB, VTT) Verification and approval Name Date Verification Final Draft by WP leader Barbara Branchini (KVELOCE) 28/06/22 Approval Final Deliverable by coordinator Fuensanta Monzó 29/06/222 Disclaimer and acknowledgement This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101036838 Disclaimer This document reflects only the views of the author(s) the European Research Executive Agency (REA) is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Whilst efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this document, the A2C consortium shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, however caused. Page 4 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Table of Contents TECHNICAL REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 7 GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 OVERALL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................... 9 EVALUATION PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 9 EVALUATION OBJECT ........................................................................................................................................ 9 EVALUATION APPROACH ................................................................................................................................. 11 Evaluation boundaries ............................................................................................................................ 11 LIFE-CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT APPROACH .................................................................................... 12 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 15 DEFINITION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK – LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AS METHOD ........... 15 Life Cycle Assessment phases ............................................................................................................... 16 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION INDICATORS ........................................................... 17 3 SOCIAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................. 20 DEFINITION OF THE SOCIAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 20 Methodological framework ...................................................................................................................... 22 Goal and scope definition ....................................................................................................................... 22 Levels ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 Data-gathering methods ......................................................................................................................... 23 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SOCIAL EVALUATION INDICATORS ......................................................................... 23 4 ECONOMIC EVALUATION FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................... 26 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - THE LCC APPROACH .......................................................................................... 26 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK - APPLICATION OF THE LCC APPROACH TO THE A2C TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMIC SOLUTION MODEL ........................................................................................................................................... 27 Identification of A2C stages .................................................................................................................... 28 Definition of cost categories .................................................................................................................... 29 OPEN ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................ 32 5 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 33 6 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................... 37 ANNEX 1. DESCRIPTION OF S-LCA SELECTED INDICATORS .............................................................................. 37 List of Figures FIGURE 1 A2C TECHNICAL APPROACH ................................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 2 A2C THEORY OF CHANGE ................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 3 A TYPICAL PRODUCT LIFECYCLE DIAGRAMME ........................................................................................ 12 FIGURE 4 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE OF SUSTAINABILITY .............................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 5 LIFE CYCLE STAGES THAT SHOULD BE AT LEAST INCLUDED IN A LCA STUDY ACCORDING TO PEF METHODOLOGY. ........................................................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 6 THE FOUR PHASES OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ACCORDING TO ISO 14040. ........................................ 16 Page 5 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 FIGURE 7 COLLECTED DATA IN THE LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY STAGE. ...................................................................... 17 FIGURE 8 THE FOUR STEPS OF THE LCC APPROACH PROPOSED BY UB ................................................................ 28 FIGURE 9 OVERVIEW OF THE TENTATIVE A2C CYCLE STAGES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE LCC APPROACH BY UB (BASED ON THE CURRENT WORKING DRAFT) .................................................................... 29 FIGURE 10 A2C STAGES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED COST CATEGORIES. ................................................................... 31 List of Tables TABLE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT IMPACT CATEGORIES WITH RESPECTIVE IMPACT CATEGORY INDICATORS, UNITS AND CHARACTERISATION MODELS [10]. ....................................................................................................... 18 TABLE 2 STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES AND IMPACT SUBCATEGORIES ..................................................................... 21 TABLE 3 SPECIFIC STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES AND IMPACT SUBCATEGORIES PROPOSED FOR THE A2C’S SLCA .... 22 TABLE 4 S-LCA SELECTED INDICATORS .............................................................................................................. 24 TABLE 5 SELECTED COST CATEGORIES AND THEIR DESCRIPTIONS. ....................................................................... 30 Page 6 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Executive Summary This report constitutes Deliverable “D7.5: Evaluation framework and methodology”, which is the main outcome of Task “T7.2: Evaluation framework”. The purpose of this report is to detail the evaluation framework and methodology that will be used to assess the environmental, socio-cultural and socio-economic feasibility and the potential A2C systemic solution impact. The objective of the evaluation is twofold: it is aimed at assessing the environmental, socio-cultural and socio-economic feasibility on one side, and on the other, the potential impact of the Agro2Circular solution. Moreover, the evaluation is closely related to the multidimensional model for adoption of A2C systemic solution: key outcomes from the evaluation will drive conclusions on the replicability and scalability determinants of the generated A2C Circular Economy Business Models (CEBMs). Chapter 1 provides the overall evaluation framework, based on analysis of the evaluation purpose and object. The A2C evaluation will use a theory-based approach and the LifeCycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) multidimensional model. According to the theory-based approach, the evaluation will be focused on the intervention processes, results and underlying change mechanisms, which need to be identified and analysed in depth and collaboratively with partners in charge of the intervention development and implementation. In line with the Life-Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) model, the evaluation will imply the assessment of all environmental, social and economic negative impacts and benefits of a product throughout its life cycle and the contemporary application of the three perspectives. Chapter 2, 3 and 4 detail the conceptual framework and main methodological features of the three life cycle techniques: environmental Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). The background for the integration of the three perspectives and techniques is the triple bottom line (people, planet and prosperity) of sustainability, referring to the idea that for achieving more sustainable futures, environmental, economic as well as social impacts of activities have to be taken into account within a systemic perspective. The evaluation boundaries will be further identified for each assessment dimension (environmental, social and economic) along the evaluative process, unveiling the main processes, outcomes and mechanisms of change, and validated collaboratively with technical partners in charge of the process’s implementation and deployment. To this end, specific activities, such as workshops and bilateral meetings, will be held, aimed at fine-tuning the environmental, social and economic evaluations and nurture the related deliverables (D7.6-D7.9). Page 7 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 List of abbreviations Abbreviation Definition GHG Greenhouse Gas A2C Agro2Circular GWP Global Warming Potential LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCI Life Cycle Inventory LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment PEF Product Environmental Footprint F&VW Fruits & Vegetable Wastes CEBMs Circular Economy Business Models DIS Data Integration System LCSA Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment UNEP United Nations Environment Programme SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry SCP Sustainable Consumption and Production LCM Life Cycle Management LCC Life Cycle Costing S-LCA Social Life Cycle Assessment SDG Sustainable Development Goals Page 8 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Glossary Conceptual framework: A system of concepts, assumptions, expectations and theories that structures the research by identifying the research variables and their relationships. It assists with identifying the problem and framing the research questions. Related terms: theoretical framework. Characterisation: calculation of the magnitude of the contribution of each classified input/output to their respective environmental footprint impact categories, and aggregation of contributions within each category. Environmental impact category: class of resource use or environmental impact to which the life cycle inventory data are related. Functional unit: defines the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the function(s) and/or service(s) provided by the product being evaluated. The functional unit definition answers the questions ‘what?', ‘how much?', ‘how well?', and ‘for how long?'. Impact: Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended [1]. Input: The financial, human and material resources used in a programme or policy. For example, training materials produced. Life Cycle Assessment: compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. Life cycle inventory: combined set of exchanges of elementary, waste and product flows in a LCI dataset. Life cycle impact assessment: phase of life cycle assessment that aims to understand and evaluate the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a system throughout the life cycle. Outcome: The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of a programme or policy’s outputs, such as a change in vaccination levels or key behaviours. Output: The immediate effects of programme/policy activities, or the direct products or deliverables of programme/policy activities. For example, the number of vaccines administered. Theory of Change: A ‘theory of change’ explains how activities are understood to produce a series of results that contribute to achieving the final intended impacts. It can be developed for any level of intervention – an event, a project, a programme, a policy, a strategy or an organization. Page 9 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 1 Overall evaluation framework Evaluation purpose The Agro2Circular (A2C) project will develop at laboratory scale new technologies for the upcycling of Fruits & Vegetable agri-food Wastes (F&VW) and non-renewable multilayer plastics into new high added value products with application in the food, nutraceutics and cosmetic sectors. The developed technologies will be then integrated and scale up in a demonstrator in Murcia (Spain), and their performance in the industrial environment evaluated. The objective of the evaluation is twofold: it is aimed at assessing the environmental, sociocultural and socio-economic feasibility on one side, and on the other, the potential impact of the Agro2Circular solution. Moreover, the evaluation is closely related to the multidimensional model for adoption of A2C systemic solution: key outcomes from the evaluation will drive conclusions on the replicability and scalability determinants of the generated A2C Circular Economy Business Models (CEBMs). Accordingly, the evaluation framework relies on a theory-based approach, which is particularly convenient to understand why an intervention produces intended and unintended effects and to which interventions these findings can be transferred and what determines the degree of transferability. The goal is to answer the “why does it work?” question by identifying the Theory of Change behind the programme and assessing its success by comparing theory with actual implementation [2]. The Theory of Change explains how activities are understood to produce a series of results that contribute to achieving the expected final impacts. It can be developed for any level of intervention, be it an event, a project, a program, a policy, a strategy or an organisation. In an impact evaluation, the Theory of Change is useful to establish what data need to be collected and how they should be analysed. In order to develop a Theory of Change, it is important to ensure that the theory adequately represents what the intervention pursues and how it does it, in a way that satisfies its future users. It is possible to develop a Theory of Change when the objectives and activities of an intervention can be identified and planned in detail in advance. Evaluation object The object of the environmental, socio-cultural and socio-economic evaluation is the Agro2Circular systemic solution. A2C is a territorial systemic solution for the upcycling of fruit & vegetable and multilayer plastic residues generated in the agrifood sector into high added value products to be used in the food, nutraceutics and cosmetic sectors, powered Page 16 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Life Cycle Assessment phases According to the ISO 14040 standard [11] for life cycle assessment, LCA has four phases: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and interpretation of results as in Figure 6. The LCA process is normally iterative and some phases might need to be revised during the calculation process. The stages are presented briefly next. Figure 6 The four phases of Life Cycle Assessment according to ISO 14040. Source: image from [9]. Goal and scope stage describes the study’s objective, purpose and audience, sets the system boundaries and lists the assumptions and possible scenarios needed in the calculation [1,2]. Functional unit is also defined at this stage. Functional unit describes the need that is fulfilled with the product or service. Typical functional units are numbers of product (e.g. one bottle or a computer) or amounts of product (e.g. 1000 MWh or 1 litre of milk). The life cycle inventory (LCI) includes data collection and a balance calculation to all unit processes in the life cycle. The results of LCI are presented as inputs and outputs of the entire system [9]. Figure 7 shows the input and output flows that are used in the data collection stage. Page 17 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Figure 7 Collected data in the Life cycle inventory stage. Source: adapted partly from [10]. The data sources of the inputs and outputs can be divided to primary and secondary. Primary data is directly from the product manufacturer and/or its subcontractors. Secondary data is from commercial databases or literature. A general principle is that the more primary data a LCA study has, the more reliable results can be obtained. The data collection stage is time-consuming but carrying it out adequately will be beneficial for the next stages of the LCA. The life cycle impact assessment stage converts the LCI results into environmental impacts. For example, in a carbon footprint calculation, the emitted greenhouse gases (GHG) from the inventory calculation are converted into global warming potentials (GWP) in the impact assessment stage. There are several impact assessment methods with different optional characterisation, normalisation and weighting factors. The LCA standards do not determine which impact assessment methods should be used in a study. The PEF methodology [10], however, recommends 16 impact assessment categories. The selection of the method should be done in the goal and scope definition phase, considering the spatial and temporal aspects of the study [9]. In the next chapter the impact assessment methods are listed. The interpretation of the results is based on all three previous stages of the assessment. The results are presented per functional unit defined in the goal and scope stage. The interpretation is a continuous process in which the consistency of the previous stages is evaluated. Finally, in the interpretation stage the identification of significant issues, conclusions, limitations and recommendations are presented. Description of proposed environmental evaluation indicators PEF methodology includes various environmental impact categories and impact category indicators which are listed in Table 1. The most relevant categories for Agro2Circular project will be defined in further stages of the project. Based on preliminary information, suitable ones could be e.g. climate change, acidification, eutrophication and resource use. Page 18 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Table 1 Environmental Footprint impact categories with respective impact category indicators, units and characterisation models [10]. EF impact category Impact category indicator Unit Characterisation model Climate change, total Global warming potential (GWP100) kg CO2 eq Bern model - Global warming potentials (GWP) over a 100-year time horizon (based on IPCC 2013) Ozone depletion Ozone depletion potential (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq EDIP model based on the ODPs of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) over an infinite time horizon (WMO 2014 + integrations) Human toxicity, cancer Comparative toxic unit for humans (CTUh) CTUh Based on USEtox2.1 model (Fantke et al. 2017), adapted as in Saouter et al., 2018 Human toxicity, noncancer Comparative toxic unit for humans (CTUh) CTUh Based on USEtox2.1 model (Fantke et al. 2017), adapted as in Saouter et al., 2018 Particulate matter Impact on human health Disease incidence PM model (Fantke et al., 2016 in UNEP 2016) Ionising radiation, human health Human exposure efficiency relative to U235 kBq U235 eq Human health effect model as developed by Dreicer et al. 1995 (Frischknecht et al, 2000) Photochemical ozone formation, human health Tropospheric ozone concentration increase kg NMVOC eq LOTOS-EUROS model (Van Zelm et al, 2008) as applied in ReCiPe 2008 Acidification Accumulated exceedance (AE) mol H+ eq Accumulated exceedance (Seppälä et al. 2006, Posch et al, 2008) Eutrophication, terrestrial Accumulated exceedance (AE) mol N eq Accumulated exceedance (Seppälä et al. 2006, Posch et al, 2008) Eutrophication, freshwater Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment (P) kg P eq EUTREND model (Struijs et al, 2009) as applied in ReCiPe Eutrophication, marine Fraction of nutrients reaching marine end compartment (N) kg N eq EUTREND model (Struijs et al, 2009) as applied in ReCiPe Ecotoxicity, freshwater Comparative toxic unit for ecosystems (CTUe) CTUe Based on USEtox2.1 model (Fantke et al. 2017), adapted as in Saouter et al., 2018 Land use Soil quality index Dimensionless (pt) Soil quality index based on LANCA model (De Laurentiis et al. 2019) and on the LANCA CF version 2.5 (Horn and Maier, 2018) Water use User deprivation potential (deprivation-weighted water consumption) m3 water eq of deprived water Available WAter REmaining (AWARE) model (Boulay et al., 2018; UNEP 2016) Resource use, minerals and metals Abiotic resource depletion (ADP ultimate reserves) kg Sb eq van Oers et al., 2002 as in CML 2002 method, v.4.8 Page 19 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 EF impact category Impact category indicator Unit Characterisation model Resource use, fossils Abiotic resource depletion – fossil fuels (ADP-fossil) MJ van Oers et al., 2002 as in CML 2002 method, v.4.8 Page 20 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 3 Social evaluation framework Definition of the social evaluation framework The purpose of this section is to describe the social evaluation framework that will be used to measure, assess and analyse the social impact of the A2C systemic solution. The social evaluation framework consists of a series of indicators categorised within different dimensions, which operationalise and structure the concept of 'social impact'. Social Life-Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is a tool whose inception is based on the attempt to build a comprehensive approach to product chains aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s). This insight is deeply connected to the three pillars of sustainability, in which SLCA is supposed to deploy the interplay between industrial processes and social impacts (see Section on Life-Cycle Sustainability Assessment approach, p. 12). Following the definition provided by UNEP Handbook [12, p. 20], SLCA is “a methodology to assess the social impacts of products and services across their life cycle”, delivering systematic data that can be operationalised through quantitative as well as qualitative methods. The methodology is oriented towards a set of predefined stakeholders encompassing a broad range of social interests and that account for the main drivers of social changes. This definition, however, remains open and needs more robust support. Hence the reasons why it is steadily stated that SLCA framework needs further improvements [13]. It should be highlighted that this need for improvement arises from the short lifetime of the assessment model, that dates from the beginning of the 2000 decade [14]. Its purpose must be considered within wider efforts to achieve a comprehensive, scaled-up Life Cycle Assessment, called the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessments (LCSA) that pivots upon three pillars: altogether with the SLCA, the Environmental-LCA and the Life Cycle Costing (LCC). Yet this prospect is still incomplete, due to difficulties to adjust their different objectives, as well as to level up the databases whereby the information is obtained. This situation has not hampered an increasing number of studies applying SLCA to deem social impacts. Thus, next steps need to dig into the specific concept of what a social impact is, in order to enhance conclusion consistency. Moltesen et al. [15] argue that social impacts cannot be analysed if there is no category translating social interests into operational concepts. Addressing this challenge, the UNEP publish the Methodological Sheets [16], proposing a set of impact subcategories, framed within specific stakeholder categories (Table 2). That is the baseline from which the UNEP methodology starts, as it will be explained in the following section. A fundamental aspect of this methodology needs to be pointed out at this stage, since it influences the Theory of Change model implied within the framework. As it could be reported, the approach seeks to establish direct causality pathways going from the industrial product chain to the specified stakeholders. Methodologically, it could be stated that the latter ones could be regarded as influenced actors, while the assessed product chain Page 21 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 would be the influencing one. If assuming SLCA is aimed at supporting decision-making processes both at the public and private dimensions, it must be then argued that conclusions drawn from it should be able to promote changes on the described dynamics. That is to say, SLCA approach endeavours to influence the action exerted by the industrial company, which at the end is responsible for the social impacts. Hence it is assumed that the role of the companies, i.e., the company's behaviour, can actually determine the result of the assessment. Yet, the study of Jørgensen et al. [17] states that the debate whether directly focusing on industrial processes or on company’s behaviour remains open. Table 2 Stakeholder categories and impact subcategories Stakeholder category Impact subcategory Workers Freedom of association and collective bargaining Child labour Fair salary Working hours Forced labour Equal opportunities/discrimination Health and safety Social benefits/social security Consumers Health and safety Feedback mechanism Consumer privacy Transparency End of life responsibility Local community Access to material resources Access to immaterial resources Delocalization and migration Cultural heritage Safe and healthy living conditions Respect of indigenous rights Community engagement Local employment Secure living conditions Public commitments to sustainability issues Contribution to economic development Society Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts Technology development Corruption Value chain actors, not including consumers Fair competition Promoting social responsibility Supplier relationships Respect of intellectual property rights Page 22 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Methodological framework The premises in which SLCA is grounded have become a source of debate, but they directly affect some essential aspects of the assessment methodology. According to the proposal provided by the UNEP [12] and aligned with the LCA modelling schemes, the main points of the A2C approach towards SLCA are presented below. Goal and scope definition The main goal is to evaluate the social impact of the A2C systemic solution, based on: 1. lnnovative green hybrid extraction, purification and stabilisation routes to obtain bioactives from F&V wastes. 2. First recycling value chain for post-industrial multilayer films by combining innovative sorting, physical delamination, enzymatic depolymerisation, decontamination and mechanical recycling and upcycling. 3. Digital platform for the agri-food sector, traceability in real time and decision support tool for optimal valorisation routes. 4. A2C multidimensional model and tools fostering the territorial development of circular economy and enabling its replication/scalability, constructed through public engagement and co-creation processes. The scope of the assessment will include all industrial companies that compose the A2C consortium. As a general rule, two key evaluation moments are established: ex-ante and expost. Thus, it will be possible to establish a comparison in terms of social impact, on the one hand, between the industrial companies that comprise the consortium and, on the other hand, to globally assess the impact of the development of the project during the defined time horizon, on the behaviour of the different actors involved. The different A2C dimensions proposed for inclusion in the SLCA framework are presented in the table below, and are based on both the Methodological Sheets [16] and Reinales et al. [18]: Table 3 Specific stakeholder categories and impact subcategories proposed for the A2C’s SLCA Stakeholder category Impact subcategory Workers Fair salary Working hours Equal opportunities/discrimination Health and safety Training and education Consumers Health and safety End of life responsibility Local community Access to material resources Safe and healthy living conditions Page 23 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Stakeholder category Impact subcategory Community engagement Local employment Society Contribution to economic development Technology development Value chain actors, not including consumers Fair competition Promoting social responsibility Supplier relationships Levels The boundaries of the assessment will be subject to a multi-level scheme, characterised by the aggregation of indicators at various nested level, to be taken into consideration where relevant to the specific objectives of the assessment: ● Organisation-based evaluation. The aggregation of indicators at the organisational level (in particular of the industrial entities participating as partners in the consortium) will allow a comparison and assessment of the degree of their involvement in the circularity of production processes and in the local economy. ● Product-based evaluation. The social impact assessment at product level will aggregate all impacts generated along the value chain. ● Actions-based evaluation. The evaluation at action level will make it possible to assess specific aspects of the tasks envisaged in the framework of the project. Data-gathering methods Data-gathering will be the starting point for assigning value to the indicators proposed in the next section. Data will be collected primarily through consultation with the companies involved, registers and questionnaires. Both data collection and reporting of outputs will always respect the provisions of the Data Management Plan on personal data. For reasons of simplicity, outputs will only include quantitative information. Description of proposed social evaluation indicators The selection of indicators was made on the basis of the above-mentioned stakeholder categories and impact sub-categories, as well as the following suitability criteria: ● Relevance: significant importance for the evaluation process, in terms of a strong link to the subthemes of the framework and significance for the underlying Theory of Change. ● Measurability: capability of being measured, preferably as objectively as possible. ● Reliability: consistency and measurability over time, in the same way by different observers. ● Timeliness: measurement at time intervals relevant and appropriate in terms of programme goals and activities. Page 24 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 ● Comparability: comparability between the different scenarios (sites, timeframe) of the project. ● Clarity: ease of understanding, communicability, capacity to tell narratives. ● Availability: expected data availability. The selected indicators are summarised below and detailed in Annex 1. Description of SLCA selected indicators. Table 4 S-LCA selected indicators Impact subcategory Indicators Workers Fair salary Median employee net wage income Ratio of the net wage of the lowest paid worker to the minimum wage Working hours Flexibility Variability of age Gender-Balanced Representation Index Ratio of basic wage of men to women Health and safety Safety training Protective equipment availability Training and education Training program Training for workers Local community Access to material resources Environmental management system Material origin Safe and healthy living conditions Management effort to minimise use of hazardous substances Community engagement Number of meetings with community stakeholders Number of local events/workshops Local employment Workforce hired locally Spending on locally-based suppliers Page 25 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Impact subcategory Indicators Value chain actors Fair competition Prevention of anti-competitive behavior Promoting social responsibility Promotion of Corporate Social Responsibility Supplier relationships Responsible Supply Consumer Health and safety Labelling End-of-Life responsibility Information about End-of-Life options Society Contribution to economic development Total taxation per capita Technology development Technology transfer Investments in technology development/transfer Page 32 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Open issues This section presents open issues to be addressed by UB in collaboration with WP7 partners in the coming months concerning the identification of A2C process stages, the reference unit, and the technologies to be attributed to the BAU scenario to be considered for comparison. Identification of A2C process stages As highlighted in the previous chapters, it is important that the considered A2C stages and system boundaries are in alignment between the different evaluation frameworks, therefore a key aspect will be that partners jointly define and agree how the A2C process should be divided into stages and which ones should be included in the evaluation. Concerning the identification of A2C process stages, it should be considered whether it is appropriate to include the transport of products to the end markets as part of the A2C processes. This issue ties back with the fact that it is important to align the considered stages especially when the LCC, LCA, and S-LCA are carried out in parallel. Reference unit About the reference unit, €/kg of processed waste could be an option: since the proposed evaluation units are the upcycling processes, whose costs will be compared with conventional processes, the proposed reference unit for the LCC analysis is the quantity of processed waste. Therefore, total costs would be expressed as €/kg of processed waste. BAU scenario Concerning the BAU scenario to be used as a comparison against the new processes, an option could be selecting the current most adopted processes. These issues, particularly the one concerning the technologies to be considered for comparison, will be addressed in the coming months also by means of a dedicated workshop and a survey addressed to the partners (technical experts) of the A2C project. Page 33 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 5 References [1] OECD-DAC, Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management. [online]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf. [2] EC, EVALSED Sourcebook: Method and Technique. Brussels: European Commission, 2013. [3] A. Zamagni, “Life cycle sustainability assessment,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 17, pp. 373-376, 2012. [4] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. [online]. Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/7912. [5] S. Valdivia, C. Ugaya, J. Hildenbrand, B. Mazijn, M. Traverso, and G. Sonnemann, “A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 18, pp. 1673-1685, 2013. [6] A. Zamagni, H.-L. Pesonen, and T. Swarr, “From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: concept, practice and future directions,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 18, pp. 1637–1641, 2013. [7] J. Guinée “Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?,” in Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, R. D. Clift and A. Druckman, Eds. Springer Cham, 2016. [E-book] Available at: https://link.springer.com/download/epub/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7.epub. [8] A. Dalibozhko, and I. Krakovetskaya, “Youth entrepreneurial projects for the sustainable development of global community: evidence from Enactus program,” SHS Web of Conferences, 2018. [9] T. Pajula, K. Behm, S. Vatanen, and E. Saarivuori, ”Managing the Life Cycle to Reduce Environmental Impacts” in Dynamics of Long-Life Assets, S.Grösser, A. Reyes-Lecuona and G. Granholm, Eds. Springer. 2017. pp-93-113. [10] European Commission. “Recommendation on the use of Environmental Footprint methods”. European Commission, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/publications/recommendation-use-environmentalfootprint-methods_en [Accessed April 7, 2022]. [11] Environmental management, life cycle assessment, principles and framework AS ISO 14040, 2006. Page 34 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 [12] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020. [online] Available at https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/guidelines-for-social-life-cycle-assessmentof-products-and-organisations-2020/. [13] L. Petti, M. Serreli, and S. Di Cesare, “Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment,”. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 23, pp. 422431, 2018. [14] L. Pollok, S. Spierling, H.-J. Endres, and U. Grote, “Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 18, p. 10286, 2021. [15] A. Moltesen, A. Bonou, A. Wangel, and K.-P. Bozhilova-Kisheva, “Social Life cycle Assessment: An Introduction,” in Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and practice M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, and S. I. Olsen Eds. Springer International Publishing, 2018. [16] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). [online]. Available at: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/methodological-sheets-for-subcategories-insocial-life-cycle-assessment-s-lca-2021/. [17] A. Jørgensen, A. Le Bocq, L. Nazarkina, and M. Hauschild, M., “Methodologies for Social Life Cycle Assessment,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 96-103, 2008. [18] D. Reinales, D. Zambrana-Vasquez, and A. Saez-De-Guinoa, “Social life cycle assessment of product value chains under a circular economy approach: a case study in the plastic packaging sector,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 16, p. 6671, 2020. [19] Buildings and constructed assets—service-life planning—part 5: life-cycle costing AS ISO 15686-5, 2008. [20] S. Nakamura, and Y. Kondo, “A waste input–output life-cycle cost analysis of the recycling of end-of-life electrical home appliances,” Ecological Economics, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 494-506, 2006. [21] A. Peña, and M. R. Rovira-Val, “A longitudinal literature review of life cycle costing applied to urban agriculture,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1418-1435, 2020. [22] F. De Menna, M. Loubiere, J. Dietershagen, N. Unger, and M. Vittuari, “Methodology for evaluating LCC”. Refresh Deliverable 5.2, 2016. Page 35 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 [23] H. Estevan, B. Schaefer, B., and A. Adell, “Life Cycle Costing State of the art report”, Local Governments for Sustainability, European Secretariat, 2017. [24] Code of Practice for Life Cycle Costing, RTO-TR-SAS-069: Paris: NATO Research and Technology Agency, 2009. [25] I. Sell, D. Ott, and D. Kralisch, “Life cycle cost analysis as decision support tool in chemical process development,” ChemBioEng Reviews, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 50-56, 2014. [26] A. Ciroth, M. Finkbeiner, M. Traverso, J. Hildenbrand, W. Kloepffer, B. Mazijn, ..., and G. Vickery-Niederman, Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products, France: 2011. [27] J. J. Czarnezki, and S. Van Garsse, What is life-cycle costing?, 2019. [28] D. Dragos, and B. Neamtu, “Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in the New EU Directive Proposal,” European Public Procurement and Public Private Partnerships Law Review, 2013. [29] Environmental management - Guidelines for determining environmental costs and benefits AS ISO-14007, 2019. [30] V. Martinez-Sanchez, M. A. Kromann, and T. F: Astrup, “Life cycle costing of waste management systems: Overview, calculation principles and case studies,” Waste management, vol. 36, pp. 343-355, 2015. [31] EC, Cinderela D7.2 LCA, LCC and S-LCA methodology report, European Commission: 2019. [32] L. Rigamonti, I. Sterpi, and M. Grosso, “Integrated municipal waste management systems: An indicator to assess their environmental and economic sustainability,” Ecological indicators, vol. 60, pp. 1-7, 2016. [33] Life cycle cost for production facility AS NORSOK standard, 1996. [34] Cost Accounting Standard on the determination of average (equalized) cost of transportation AS Cost Accounting Standard, 2022. [35] M. H. Kim, Y. E. Song, H. B. Song, J. W. Kim, and S. J. Hwang, “Evaluation of food waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: Jungnang case, South Korea,” Waste management, vol. 31, no. 9-10, pp. 2112-2120, 2011. [36] N. Escobar, J. Ribal, G. Clemente, A. Rodrigo, A. Pascual, and N. Sanjuán, “Uncertainty analysis in the financial assessment of an integrated management system for restaurant and catering waste in Spain,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1491-1510, 2015. Page 36 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 [37] X. C. S. Rivera, and A. Azapagic, “Life cycle costs and environmental impacts of production and consumption of ready and home-made meals,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 112, pp. 214-228, 2016. [38] A. M. Ferrari, L. Volpi, M. Pini, C. Siligardi, F. E. García-Muiña, and D. SettembreBlundo, “Building a sustainability benchmarking framework of ceramic tiles based on life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA),” Resources, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 11, 2019. [39] R. Heijungs, E. Settanni, and J. Guinée, “Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1722-1733, 2013. [40] M. S. Medina-Salgado, F. E. García-Muiña, M. Cucchi, and D. Settembre-Blundo, “Adaptive life cycle costing (LCC) modeling and applying to Italy ceramic tile manufacturing sector: Its implication of open innovation,” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 101, 2021. Page 37 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 6 ANNEXES Annex 1. Description of S-LCA selected indicators Workers Fair salary Median employee net wage income Definition Median employee net wage income Justification Median employee net wage income provides a measure of central tendency that is less sensitive to outliers. Calculation formula If n is odd, Me = x(n + 1)/2; if n is even, Me = 𝑥(𝑛 2 ⁄)+𝑥(𝑛 2 ⁄)+1 2 Unit Euros Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies (register) Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation Ratio of the net wage of the lowest paid worker to the minimum wage Definition Ratio of the net wage of the lowest paid worker to the minimum wage Justification The indicator provides a measure of the gap between the company's lowest outlier wage and the minimum wage. Calculation formula Ri = xmin, i / Minimum wage; where Ri is the ratio of the i company and xmin, i represents de lowest paid worker (in euros) of the i company. Unit Euros; [0, + ∞) Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies (register) Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Page 38 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Level Organisation Working hours Flexibility Definition Employee's self-perceived quantification of the extent to which the company provides adequate flexibility for worklife balance, rest and overtime. Justification The indicator provides a synthetic, albeit mainly subjective, measure of different dimensions involved in work-life balance. Calculation formula NA Unit Likert scale (1 to 7) Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Questionnaire Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation Equal opportunities/discrimination Diversity of nationality of birth Definition Inverse Simpson Index applied to nationality of birth (by governance bodies and employee category) Justification The index provides a proxy for the actual number of birth nationalities that are represented in the organisation. Calculation formula 1 𝜆=1 ∑𝑅 𝑖=1 𝑝𝑖 2, where R is the total number of birth nationalities, and pi is the proportion of people who belong to each category. Unit [0, + ∞) Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Questionnaire Page 39 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation Variability of age Definition Coefficient of variation of age, breakdown by governance bodies and employee category Justification The indicator provides a measure of the relative dispersion of the ages of employees and managers in relation to the mean. Calculation formula CVij = sij / 𝑥ij, where CVi represents the coefficient of variation for the i governance body or employee category of the j company; sij is the sample standard deviation for the i governance body or employee category of the j company; and 𝑥ij is the sample mean for the i governance body or employee category of the j company Unit [0, + ∞) Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies (register) Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation Gender-Balanced Representation Index Definition Gender-Balanced Representation Index (by governance bodies and employee category) Justification The index provides a simple measure of how balanced the representation of men and women is. Calculation formula GBRIi = 1 – pmax, i; where pmax, i is the proportion of the majority group of the I company. Unit [0, 0.5] Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies (register) Page 40 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation Ratio of basic wage of men to women Definition Ratio of basic wage of men to women by employee category (by governance bodies and employee category) Justification The index provides a simple measure of the wage gap size. Calculation formula Ri = xm,i / xw,i; where xm,i represents the basic wage of men of the i company, and xw,i is the basic wage of women of the i company. Unit Euros; [0, + ∞) Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies (register) Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation Health and safety Safety training Definition Presence of safety training in the company Justification The indicator verifies whether a company implements adequate and sufficient safety training in order to reduce work-related risks. Calculation formula NA Unit {0, 1} Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Page 41 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Level Organisation Protective equipment availability Definition Presence of protective equipment in the company, available to the employees. Justification The indicator verifies whether a company has available protective equipment to reduce work-related hazards, of adequate quality and in sufficient quantity. Calculation formula NA Unit {0, 1} Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation Training and education Training program Definition Presence of a training program focused on technological innovations. Justification The indicator verifies whether a company implements an adequate and regular training programme among its employees, focused on training in technological innovations. Calculation formula NA Unit {0, 1} Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation Page 48 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Level Organisation; product Supplier relationships Responsible Supply Definition Seal of quality/management system required for suppliers Justification The accreditation of a quality management system represents a guarantee of product standards. Calculation formula NA Unit {0, 1} Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation; product Page 49 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Consumer Health and safety Labeling Definition Information available regarding features Justification The existence of labels on the product about its characteristics provides useful information to the consumer. Calculation formula NA Unit {0, 1} Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies of the plastics sector. Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation; product End-of-Life responsibility Information about End-of-Life options Definition Clear information is provided to consumers through labels about the available end-of-life options. Justification The existence of labels on the product on the behaviour that the consumer should adopt at the end of the product's life provides useful information to the consumer. Calculation formula NA Unit {0, 1} Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies. Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation; product Page 50 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Society Contribution to economic development Total taxation per capita Definition Total taxes paid in the last tax year, by all typologies, per capita (organisation); and per product unit (product). Justification Taxes paid represent a proxy for the social contribution of each company and/or product. Calculation formula Taxation per capita = Total taxes paid / total staff Taxation per product unit = Total taxes paid / total product units Unit Euros Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies (register) Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation; product Technology development Technology transfer Definition Involvement in technology transfer program or projects Justification The indicator verifies whether the company is actively involved in technology transfer programs or projects; or whether a specific product has been developed within this framework. Calculation formula NA Unit {0, 1} Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Page 51 of 51 A2C – Deliverable D7.5V1.0 Level Organisation; product Investments in technology development/transfer Definition Share of investment in technology development and/or transfer over total investment, all items Justification This indicator is a proxy for the effort made by the organisation in development and/or technology transfer, as well as the degree of technological innovation that a product incorporates. Calculation formula pi = ni / Ni, where pi is the proportion of investment in technology development and/or transfer over total investment, all items, of the i company or i product; ni represents the investment in technology development and/or transfer (in euros) of the i company or i product; and Ni represents the total investment, all items (in euros), of the i company or i product. Unit [0, 1] Baseline definition Ex-ante Data source Consultation with industrial companies Frequency of monitoring Ex-ante; ex-post Level Organisation; product