Navigating social life cycle assessment challenges in lithiumiron-phosphate batteries Viera Pechancová1, Debashri Paul2,Eliška Kozubíková3, Nibedita Saha1, Manuel Baumann 4, Bismark Haruna 4Hafiz Usman Ghani5, Sofía Álvarez 6, Petr Sáha1 Corresponding author: Viera Pechancová
[email protected] 1 University Institute, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Czech Republic 2 Centre of Polymer Systems, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Czech Republic 3 Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Czech Republic 4 Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany 5 Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 6 Forvis Mazars, Santiago, Chile
Social LCA for batteries: the motivation 1 / WHY? is it critical to address social impacts in battery value chains? 2 / WHAT? methodological and data challenges limit robust Social LCA for batteries? 3 / HOW? can Social LCA be meaningfully integrated in early-stage battery design? Battery Life Cycle SustainabilityAssessment LCSA Framework based on reference [7]
Early-stage social LCA of LFP batteries: An early-stage case study Case forming Cutting Tab welding Controlled atmosphere Final Sealing Primary sealing Stacking Electrolyte Filling Credit: Tomas Bata University in Zlín
Key findings –social hotspots •Main contributors: Anode (45%), Cathode (34%) •High-risk categories: lack of social benefits, children out of school, occupational hazards •Geographies of concern: China (graphite), Chile (copper, lithium), Morocco (phosphates), Indonesia (nickel) Impact category Unit Total 2.0 Anode SLCA 3.0 Cathode Production SLCA 4.0 Electrolyte SLCA 5.0 Separator SLCA 6.0 Cell container SLCA 1.0 Battery cell Total kPt 1,3260 0,5938 0,4474 0,0856 0,0180 0,1048 0,0765 1I Social Benefits kPt 0,0741 0,0407 0,0202 0,0033 0,0009 0,0055 0,0036 5C Children out of School kPt 0,0736 0,0368 0,0249 0,0041 0,0007 0,0042 0,0030 2A Occ Tox & Haz kPt 0,0657 0,0369 0,0167 0,0035 0,0007 0,0042 0,0036 3F Poverty and inequality kPt 0,0620 0,0294 0,0212 0,0035 0,0007 0,0044 0,0028 1G Freedom of Assoc kPt 0,0579 0,0316 0,0173 0,0025 0,0005 0,0037 0,0023 4C Democracy &Freedom of Speech kPt 0,0576 0,0299 0,0173 0,0030 0,0007 0,0034 0,0032 1H Migrant Labor kPt 0,0540 0,0235 0,0195 0,0040 0,0006 0,0039 0,0025 4A Legal System kPt 0,0533 0,0250 0,0180 0,0030 0,0006 0,0039 0,0028 1F Excessive WkTime kPt 0,0522 0,0239 0,0174 0,0029 0,0008 0,0039 0,0033 3C High Conflict Zones kPt 0,0497 0,0255 0,0143 0,0031 0,0006 0,0038 0,0025 3G State of Env Sustainability kPt 0,0487 0,0227 0,0162 0,0029 0,0006 0,0037 0,0026 1J Labor Laws/Convs kPt 0,0455 0,0152 0,0181 0,0034 0,0010 0,0037 0,0040 1K Discrimination kPt 0,0443 0,0201 0,0147 0,0028 0,0007 0,0032 0,0028 1L Unemployment kPt 0,0406 0,0147 0,0165 0,0030 0,0006 0,0036 0,0022 3B Gender Equity kPt 0,0405 0,0145 0,0170 0,0028 0,0005 0,0037 0,0020 1E Forced Labor kPt 0,0398 0,0168 0,0139 0,0026 0,0006 0,0028 0,0030 4B Corruption kPt 0,0376 0,0157 0,0130 0,0027 0,0005 0,0034 0,0023 1D Child Labor kPt 0,0374 0,0154 0,0123 0,0030 0,0005 0,0040 0,0022 5D Access to Hospital Beds kPt 0,0364 0,0128 0,0147 0,0025 0,0006 0,0035 0,0023 5B Access to Sanitation kPt 0,0364 0,0141 0,0124 0,0029 0,0006 0,0039 0,0024 5G Property rights kPt 0,0360 0,0138 0,0144 0,0025 0,0005 0,0029 0,0019 1C Workers in poverty kPt 0,0350 0,0139 0,0121 0,0029 0,0005 0,0035 0,0021 5F Access to Electricity kPt 0,0346 0,0122 0,0121 0,0029 0,0008 0,0038 0,0028 3D Non-Communicable Diseases kPt 0,0346 0,0116 0,0143 0,0024 0,0005 0,0032 0,0025 1A Wage assessment kPt 0,0343 0,0150 0,0107 0,0024 0,0007 0,0030 0,0025 2B Injuries & Fatalities kPt 0,0331 0,0123 0,0113 0,0028 0,0007 0,0031 0,0029 5E Smallholder v Commercial Farms kPt 0,0319 0,0215 0,0067 0,0014 0,0002 0,0012 0,0010 3E Communicable Diseases kPt 0,0312 0,0103 0,0113 0,0026 0,0006 0,0040 0,0024 5A Access to Drinking Water kPt 0,0271 0,0073 0,0130 0,0025 0,0005 0,0019 0,0020 3A Indigenous Rights kPt 0,0210 0,0106 0,0060 0,0014 0,0002 0,0016 0,0011
Methodological Challenges
Recommendations & outlook … in light of the recent discussions 1 / WHY? ➤Contested interpretations of S-LCA findings ➤Opaque structure of generic social databases ➤Risk of misleading claims 2 / WHAT? ⚠️ Fragmented disciplinary perspectives ⚠️ Reactive rather than proactive design practices ⚠️ Lack of methodological transparency ⚠️ Tool-driven over purpose-driven choices 3 / HOW? 💡Integrate primary, context-specific data early in R&D 💡Ensure platform-neutral and transparent methodologies 💡Promote open-source development and collaboration 💡Meaningfully integrate AI and digital methods
Thank you for your attention! •Twinning for Development of World-Class Next Generation Batteries (2022-2025) •https://twinvector.eu/ •Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Czech Republic, Coordinator Fundedby the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Grant Agreement No. 101078935 •Viera Pechancová, PhD. •Principal Investigator, Senior scientist Sustainability studies, LCA •
[email protected]
References [1] Cellura et al. (2024). Social LCA of Batteries. In Passerini et al. (Eds.), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2_17 [2] Editorial (2021). Li-ion Batteries Need to Be Greener and More Ethical. Nature, 595, 7. [3] Grey & Hall (2020). Prospects for Li-ion Batteries and Beyond. Nat. Commun. 11, 6279. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19991-4 [4] Grubert (2018). Rigor in Social LCA. Int. J. LCA, 23(3), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1117-6 [5] Koese et al. (2022). S-LCA of Vanadium & Li-ion Batteries. J. Ind. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13347 [6] Mancini & Sala (2018). Social Impact in Mining. Res. Policy, 57, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.02.002 [7] Paul, Pechancová et al. (2024). LCA of Lithium Batteries. RSER. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114860 [8] Pechancová et al. (2024). SSH Task Force Position Paper. Batteries Europe. https://batterieseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-ForceSSH.pdf [9] Pechancová et al. (2024). Social Implications. In Passerini et al. (Eds.), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2_16 [10] Popien (2023). Sustainability of Traction Batteries. Int. J. LCA. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02134-4 [11] Sureau et al. (2018). S-LCA Frameworks Review. Int. J. LCA, 23(4), 904–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1336-5 [12] Thies et al. (2019). Hotspots in Battery Supply Chains. Procedia CIRP, 80, 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.009 [13] Traverso et al. (2020). What Is Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment? Sustainability, 12(8), 3065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083065 [14] UNEP (2020). Guidelines for S-LCA of Products & Organizations. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/.../Guidelines-for-Social-Life-CycleAssessment...pdf [15] Zamagni et al. (2011). Strengths or Bias in S-LCA? Int. J. LCA, 16(7), 596–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0309-3
