Socioeconomic and sociocultural analysis report (Draft)

A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 1 of 111 D7.8 – Socioeconomic and sociocultural analysis report (Draft) March 2023 Authors: Alba Matamoros (KVC); Aran Blanco (KVC); Mireia Ferri (KVC), Maite Ferrando (KVC), Edoardo Croci (UB), Matteo Donelli (UB), Benedetta Lucchitta (UB), Tania Molteni (UB) Ref. Ares(2023)2357440 - 31/03/2023 A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 2 of 111 1 Technical references Project Acronym Agro2Circular Project Title TERRITORIAL CIRCULAR SYSTEMIC SOLUTION FOR THE UPCYCLING OF RESIDUES FROM THE AGRIFOOD SECTOR Project Coordinator Fuensanta Monzó CETECK [email protected] Project Duration October 2021 – September 2024 (36 months) Deliverable No. D7.8 Dissemination level* PU Work Package WP 7 - A2C systemic solution adoption, replication and scalability Task T7.4 - Social and economic analysis Lead beneficiary 21KVELOCE Contributing beneficiary/ies UVEG, UB, AGRO, PROEX, PRIMA Due date of deliverable 31 March 2023 Actual submission date 30 March 2023 * 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 First draft of document v0.2 3 March 23 First draft of document to be peer reviewed by partners (LPK, TCA) v0.3 21 March 23 Revised version based on the comments of Diego Gornati (TCA) and Rasa Rotomskiene (LPK) V0.4 29 March 23 Revised version based on the comments of Fuensanta Monzó (CETECK) v1.0 30 March 23 First final version, approved by the WP leader and the project coordinator, (will be) submitted to EC. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 3 of 111 v1.1 First draft based upon first final version v2.0 Second final version, approved by the WP leader and the project coordinator, (will be) submitted to EC. Document Distribution Log Version Date Distributed to v0.2 3 March 23 Diego Gornati (TCA); Rasa Rotomskiene (LPK) Verification and approval Name Date Verification Final Draft by WP leader Maite Ferrando 31/03/2023 Approval Final Deliverable by coordinator Fuensanta Monzó 31/03/2023 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. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 4 of 111 2 Table of contents 1 Technical references ................................................................... 1 2 Table of contents ......................................................................... 4 2.1 List of Tables ....................................................................................................... 5 2.2 List of Figures ...................................................................................................... 6 3 List of abbreviations ..................................................................... 8 4 Glossary ....................................................................................... 9 5 Executive summary <abstract> ................................................. 10 6 Introduction to the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment methodology ................................................................................... 11 6.1 Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) ................................................... 11 6.2 Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) ............................................................. 12 6.3 Life Costing assessment (LCC) ........................................................................ 13 7 Deliverable general aim: SO-LCA & LCC in A2C ...................... 15 7.1 Screening phase of analysis ............................................................................ 15 7.2 Chains selection: rationale ............................................................................... 15 7.2.1 Agrifood value chain 16 7.2.2 Plastic 17 8 Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment ........................... 19 8.1 Goal and Scope ................................................................................................. 19 8.2 Inventory & procedure methodology ............................................................... 22 8.3 Data gathering ................................................................................................... 28 8.3.1 Questionnaires design 29 8.3.2 Data gathering process 30 9 Costing Life Cycle assessment .................................................. 31 9.1 Goal and Scope ................................................................................................. 33 9.1.1 Functional/declared unit. 34 9.1.2 System boundaries 35 9.2 Inventory & procedure methodology ............................................................... 35 9.3 Data gathering ................................................................................................... 36 9.3.1 Data and assumptions 36 10 SO-LCA implementation (preliminary) ....................................... 39 10.1 Results per stakeholder category .................................................................... 39 10.1.1 Methodological notes 39 10.1.2 Stakeholder category: workers 40 10.1.3 Stakeholder category: value chain actors 45 10.1.4 Stakeholder category: society 48 A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 5 of 111 10.1.5 Stakeholder category: local community 51 10.1.6 Stakeholder category: consumers 55 10.2 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 58 10.3 Workers’ awareness results ............................................................................. 59 10.3.1 Sample characterization 59 10.3.2 NEP 59 10.3.3 Survey con consumers: awareness 61 10.3.4 Survey on consumers: desire 62 10.3.5 Circular economy: awareness 64 10.4 Social analysis conclusions ............................................................................. 70 11 LCC implementation (preliminary) ............................................. 74 11.1 Results & conclusions: Agri-food chain ......................................................... 74 11.1.1 Physical input and output conventional costs 75 11.1.2 Equipment and installation costs 76 11.1.3 Labour costs 76 11.1.4 Maintenance costs 76 11.1.5 Waste management costs 76 11.1.6 Agri-food chain: total eLCC 77 11.1.7 Agri-food recycled products vs conventional products 84 11.2 Results and conclusions. Plastic chain .......................................................... 87 11.2.1 Physical input and output conventional costs 88 11.2.2 Equipment and installation costs 89 11.2.3 Labour costs 89 11.2.4 Maintenance costs 89 11.2.5 Waste management costs 89 11.2.6 Plastic chain: total eLCC 89 11.2.7 Plastic-film recycled products vs conventional products. 93 11.3 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 94 12 Conclusions ............................................................................... 95 13 References ................................................................................ 96 14 ANNEXES ................................................................................ 102 14.1 Social Indicators Battery ................................................................................ 102 2.1 List of Tables Table 1. Overview on differences between S-LCA and SO-LCA & challenges .................. 19 Table 2. Stakeholder category & impact subcategories ..................................................... 20 Table 3. Workers awareness on sustainability & circular economy measurements ........... 22 Table 4. List of stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, indicators and related SDGs .................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 5. A2C Projects and conventional solution for comparison ...................................... 33 Table 6Declared units for eLCC comparison ................................................................... 34 A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 6 of 111 Table 7. Value chains sample size & heterogeneity (SO-LCA) .......................................... 39 Table 8. Workers stakeholder category: results & references ............................................ 40 Table 9. Living, minimum & average wage ........................................................................ 42 Table 10. Types of contracts in the Region of Murcia ........................................................ 42 Table 11. Value chain actors stakeholder category: results & references.......................... 45 Table 12. Society stakeholder category: results & references ........................................... 48 Table 13. Local community stakeholder category: results & references ............................ 51 Table 14. Consumers stakeholder category: results & references ..................................... 55 Table 15. Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case eLCC ............... 75 Table 16 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case LCC .................. 76 Table 17. Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon waste (Euro) .................................................................................................................................... 78 Table 18. Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) ............................................................................................................... 79 Table 19. Default and alternative scenarios main assumptions – fiber and phenolic extract from lemon waste ....................................................................................................... 82 Table 20 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis ...................................................................................................... 83 Table 21. Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis ............................................................................... 83 Table 22. Potential benchmark products for fiber and phenolic extract. ............................ 84 Table 23 A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – fiber from lemon waste .... 85 Table 24. A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – phenolic extract from lemon waste .......................................................................................................................... 86 Table 25. Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the plastic chain demo case eLCC ........ 88 Table 26. Equipment life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the plastic film demo case eLCC ... 89 Table 27. Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of 33% recycled plastic pellet from recycled agricultural mulch film waste (Euro) ............................................................................ 91 Table 28. A2C recycled product vs conventional product - total LCC – plastic pellet ........ 93 2.2 List of Figures Figure 1. Agrifood value chain: lemon pulp and peel ......................................................... 17 Figure 2. Disinfection film value chain................................................................................ 17 Figure 3 Different types of Life Cycle Costing [55] ............................................................. 32 Figure 4. Structure of the eLCC in Agro2Circular Project ................................................. 34 Figure 5. Example of eLCC data collection questionnaire ................................................. 36 Figure 6. Agrifood value chain: Workers' satisfaction with employment flexibility .............. 42 Figure 7. Formal policies on equal labour opportunities: agrifood and plastic value chains .................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 8. Agrifood value chain: Fair price definition: specific policy for deciding a fair price .................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 9. Plastic value chain: Fair price definition: specific policy for deciding a fair price . 47 Figure 10. Agrifood value chain: Diversity of stakeholder groups engaged with the organization ................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 11. Agrifood value chain: Consumers feedback mechanism .................................. 56 Figure 12 Agrifood value chain: Organisations communication transparency .................... 57 A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 7 of 111 Figure 13. NEP: Limits to growth (1,6,11) .......................................................................... 61 Figure 14. NEP: Antianthropocentrism (2,7,12) ................................................................. 61 Figure 15. NEP: Fragility of nature’s balance (3, 8, 13) ..................................................... 61 Figure 16. NEP: Rejection of exemptionalism (4, 9, 14) .................................................... 61 Figure 17. NEP; Possibility of an ecocrisis (5, 10, 15) ....................................................... 61 Figure 18 Q11: Where would you say the majority of peoples’ knowledge of what can and can’t be recycled comes from? ................................................................................... 62 Figure 19 Q13: Why do you think it is important to correctly separate waste? ................... 62 Figure 20. Q14: How could the problem of plastic recycling be reduced? ......................... 63 Figure 21. Q15: Is there anything that you feel authorities can do to make recycling easier? .................................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 22. Q16.1 I separate the household waste according to type (compost, plastic, paper, glass) .......................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 23 Q16.2, Q16.3, Q16.4 responses ........................................................................ 65 Figure 24 Q16.5 Before buying a new product, I look for the possibility to buy it second hand .................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 25 Q16.6 I usually send productss to repair in order to extend their life span ........ 66 Figure 26 Q16.7, Q16.10, Q16.11 responses .................................................................... 66 Figure 27 Q18 Perception of quality according to type of product ..................................... 67 Figure 28 Q19: Most carried-out sustainable actions by citizens ....................................... 68 Figure 29 Q20. Most relevant factors which would motivate citizens to shift to a more sustainable behaviour ................................................................................................. 69 Figure 30 Production chain of enzymatic extraction. ......................................................... 74 Figure 31 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of fiber from lemon waste (EURO/kg) ............ 80 Figure 32 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (EURO/kg) .................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 33 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of fiber from lemon waste (%) ....... 81 Figure 34 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (%) .............................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 35 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - fiber from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis ....................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 36 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - phenolic extract from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis ...................................................................................................... 83 Figure 37 A2C product vs conventional product – total eLCC – Fiber from lemon waste .. 86 Figure 38 A2C product vs conventional product – total eLCC – Phenolic extract .............. 87 Figure 39 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of 33% recycled pellet from agricultural film waste (EURO/kg) .................................................................................................................. 92 Figure 40 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of 33% recycled pellet from agricultural film waste (%) ............................................................................................................. 93 Figure 41 A2C product vs conventional product – total eLCC – Plastic pellet ................... 94 A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 8 of 111 3 List of abbreviations CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement CE Circular Economy EMS Environmental Management System ELCA Environmental Life Cycle Assessment eLCC Environmental Life Cycle Costing analysis KVC Kveloce I+D+i LCC Life Cycle Costing analysis LCSA Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment LTIFR Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate NEP New Ecological Paradigm PM Project Manager SO-LCA Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment TCA TECNOALIMENTI S.C.P.A. UVEG Universitàt de Valencia UNEP United Nationss Environmental Porgamme A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 9 of 111 4 Glossary Description of the Action: In an H2020 project, the DoA is a document that captures the essence of the envisaged solution in the form of high-level needs and features that gives the reader an overview of the final project deliverable(s). It includes the project work plan and information regarding the project scope, cost, time and risks, as well as information such as milestones, deliverables, and project organisation and approach. The DoA contains the project charter and the project work plan of a PM2 project. Environmental Evaluation (E-LCA). Compilation and evaluation of inputs, outputs, and the potential environmental impacts of a product system through its life cycle and assists in identifying opportunities to improve the environmental performance of products at various points in their life cycle. Life Cycle Costing Assessment (LCC). Assessment of all costs related to a product or service within its life cycle, from raw material extraction over production and use until disposal. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). Assessment scheme combining the three life cycle approaches: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) in a common framework to analyse the complete sustainability performance of the product or process system. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). Methodology to assess the social impacts of products and services across their life cycle, delivering systematic data that can be operationalised through quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Social-Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA). SO-LCA can be understood as a social assessment (SLCA) methodology aimed at evaluating the social aspects of production and their potential positive and negative impacts through their lifecycle, at organisation level. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 16 of 111 7.2.1 Agrifood value chain At the screening stage, and according to the previous criteria, the agrifood value chain selected was the lemon pulp and peels (Figure 1). The partners involved in this value chain, and therefore contributing to the data collection, are: - Citromil (CITRO): is a family company founded in 1991, whose main activity is the processing of citrus fruits to be used in different food formulations (juices, drinks, syrups, ice-cream, yoghourts, purees, essential oils, extracts, cloudiness, cells, flavonoids etc) as functional compounds (to reduce acidity, aromatize or texturize in a natural way). The company is committed to sustainable production and will be involved at the implementation of the extraction route, stabilization and validation of bioactive extracts in a real for development of new food formulations. - Fundación Primafrio (PRIMAFRIO) is an NGO created as an evolution of the Social Responsibility Strategy of the Primafrio Group, a logistic operator with headquarters in Alhama de Murcia, aiming to provide answers to social, economic, and environmental challenges with innovative proposals. They promote entrepreneurship and the social economy, the sustainable use of natural resources and the prevention of pollution and climate change, by means of R+D+i activities. They will contribute to the waste collection through the community-based initiative performed in T7.1.2. - Centro Tecnológico de la Conserva (CTNC) is a private non-profit research association of companies, which is recognized by the Spanish Government as Innovation and Technological Centre, Office of Transfer of Research Results and it is declared of Public Use. CTNC works in all fields of the food sector: from agriculture to final processed projects taking into account containers, natural ingredients, valorisation of wastes, environmental impact, etc for the creation of new high value products and the compliance with security standards. CTNC leads the research on extraction routes of high value-added substances at laboratory scale and collaborates in most of the stages of the fruit and vegetable waste value chain: the establishment of A2C requirements for food, nutraceuticals and cosmetic formulations assessment and compliance to food/cosmetic standards, characterisation of agrifood wastes and the development of agrifood waste management plans., extracts purification and evaluation of extracts, design and implementation of the pilot plant for green extraction and the integration of the developed technology at pilot scale in the final A2C demonstrator. - Mocitos (MCTS) was founded within the Marín Montejano Group in 1986 for the production of juices and drinks in glass and brick containers, and has expanded to cover the packaging of dairy products, wine and derivatives, water, gazpacho, jams and other fruit and vegetable preparations, aseptic production lines of fruit preparations for industrial use and citrus juice extraction. They also work as co-packers for different companies in the food sector. They will collaborate in the development of new formulations with extracts from agri-food and the validation at pilot scale. - LOLO BIOCOSMETICS (LOLOBIO) is an SME specialized in the manufacturing and commercialisation of biocosmetic and vegan products, being natural and organic, certified toxic free cosmetics and palm oil free, while supporting fair trade and ethically sourcing its ingredients without child labour or dangerous overseas factory conditions. LOLOBIO collaborates in the definition of the A2C cosmetics requirements and the formulation of new cosmetics at small scale using the extracts, being end-users of the bioactive extracts obtained in this value chain. - LABORATORIOS ALMOND (ALMOND) was created in 1995 in Librilla (Murcia) with the aim of manufacturing food supplements and 100% vegetable food preparations, commercialized under the brand NATURGREEN. The company offers a wide range of products such as oils, A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 17 of 111 dressings, sugars, cereals, desserts, and beverages, all of them 100% vegetable and free of most allergens, so they are suitable for people with allergies to milk protein and / or egg, lactose intolerances and / or gluten, They are involved in the development of methodologies for new formulations with extracts from agri-food wastes, providing with agrifood wastes, and collaborating in the classification and conditioning. They will be end users validating the bioactive extracts in a real environment, developing new food formulations. In this value chain, the lemon pulps and peels are generated in the food industry, being CITROMIL one of the main producers at the regional level, together with PROEXPORT. These partners collect the lemon wastes (T1.4.1 ) and send them to CTNC; besides, PRIMAFRIO provides an additional smaller amount as a result of the community based scheme (T7.1.2). The waste is transported by CTNC to their facilities in Molina de Segura, where they undergo a mechanical pretreatment for conditioning (T2.1), and subsequently sent to green extraction routes (T2.2) where high value-added substances (such as carotenoids and phenolic compounds, nutritional fibers) are obtained at laboratory scale. The high value compounds extracted are purified, liofilised and stabilised for conservation at CTNC (T2.3). The extracts are then evaluated for the elaboration of different formulations, in such a way that they can be used by the partners in the agrifood/cosmetic industry in their products (food formulations by MCT and CITRO, nutraceutical formulations by ALMOND and cosmetic formulations by LOLOBIO). 7.2.2 Plastic In a similar way to the described for the lemon waste, the value chain selected for plastic at the screening stage of this analysis corresponds to the disinfection film (Figure 2). The partners that are involved in this value chain, and thus providing with data for the SLCA are: - PROEXPORT,the Association of Producers-Exporters of Fruits and Vegetables in the Region of Murcia represents companies that are extensive users of agricultural fiilms and packaging,and will collect and provide the plastic waste that will be upcycled in this value chain (gathered and transported by authorized managers as part of their Corporate Social Figure 1. Agrifood value chain: lemon pulp and peel Figure 2. Disinfection film value chain A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 18 of 111 Responsibility); besides, they will be end users of the agri-food debris-based plastics developed in A2C. - FERROLIVA (http://www.ferroliva.com) is an external stakeholder, founded in 1995 in Águilas (Murcia) as a car dismantling company. Their activity has expanded to the collection and management of scrap metal and other types of waste, for the reincorporation to value chains, offering their activities as authorized waste manager in a wide number of businesses of the agrifood sector in the Region of Murcia and the neighbouring province of Almeria (Andalusia). In the particular case of plastic waste (including agricultural plastic), this division of Ferroliva has been integrated in GWC. - Green World Compounding (GWC) is an SME based in Alhama de Murcia, producing sustainable compounds and masterbatches from agricultural and industrial plastic waste. GWC is specialized in the manufacturing of recycled products based on polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE) and the leading company of recycled plastics from agricultural and industrial waste sources at the national level. They are involved in the develo9pment of methodolgies for plastics food contact assessment & compliance to agriculture standards (T1.2), leading the management of plastic waste, pretreatment and contamination, and will manage the integration at pilot scale. - SOLPLAST is the division of agricultural plastics of Armando Álvarez Group, funded in 1986 and representing a strong national leader with high production levels. They produce a wide range of plastics with dimensions, mechanical and barrier characteristics adapted to the different demands, among them barrier agriculture films as alternative to current multilayers as well as biodegradable mulch films, for which they test different applications and addivitives. SOLPLAST acts therefore as an intermediary between GWC and the final users (PROEXPORT) since they are involved in the plastic compounds transformation at laboratory and industrial scale. In the plastic value chain selected for the screening, the multilayer plastics, known as Totally Impermeable Films (TIF) used for soil disinfection by agricultural companies will be collected and stored by authorized waste managers as required by the national and regional waste regulations, such as FERROLIVA. The TIF films will be transported to GWC facilities to be characterised (T1.4.2) and subsequently cleaned and decontaminated (T3.1). Thereafter, GWC will proceed to the mechanical separation of the multilayer films (T3.5) and disgregation into plastic pieces (grinding); these will be the materials that will be extruded to generate new barrier films to gases (T5.4). The barrier plastics will be tested by the end users members of PROEXPORT. This value chain will be integrated in the demonstrator 9 (T6 .1) at industrial scale. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 19 of 111 8 Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment S-LCA can be understood as a social assessment methodology aimed to evaluate the social aspects of production and their potential positive and negative impacts through their lifecycle [7]. The SLCA can be implemented at product level or at organisation level. The table below shows the main differences between both scopes: Table 1. Overview on differences between S-LCA and SO-LCA & challenges Source: UNEP guidelines It is important to remember as stated in section 6.3, that while LCA is a well-established methodology, regulated by the ISO 14040 series of standards, and used in a wide variety of applications, S-LCA/SO-LCA are still in a methodological consolidation phase [37]. For this study, the social evaluation will be focused on the organisation, following the approach so-called Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA). This approach is grounded on the key role of organisations in the transition towards sustainability and CE [38]. Recent literature provides several contributions and case studies to this methodology [39], [40], but the main conclusion is the difficulty in identifying social indicators at the product level as social impacts usually occur at the organisational level. Moreover, Agro2Circular project is not based uniquely on one product, but on a compilation of innovations on Circular Economy. Therefore, the selected unit of analysis has been the organisation instead of the product. SO-LCA measures social indicators at the organisational level in order to assess the organisation’s social performance, hence going beyond the product perspective but considering the organisation as a whole [31]. Furthermore, it also addresses some challenges of the S-LCA, such as the difficulty to link social indicators and impacts to the product level by means of the functional unit (see 10.2. Limitations chapter for more detail). 8.1 Goal and Scope The overall goal of this study (SO-LCA) is to analyse the performance of the organisations in order to promote the improvement of social conditions and/or their contribution to the social development of each organisations’ stakeholder. In this first screening stage, the organisations analysed have been selected due to their involvement in the most mature value chains of the project (please see chapter 7.2. Chains selection: rationale for more A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 20 of 111 detail on the product chains selection criteria). The selected organisations belong to the agrifood (lemon pulp and peels) value chain and plastic value chain (disinfection film), as listed below: - Agrifood value chain: CTNC, MCTS, CITROMIL, PRIMAFRIO, ALMOND, LOLOBIO. - Plastic value chain: PROEXP, GWC. The reporting organisation was chosen as the unit of analysis by setting the boundaries of the system “from cradle to gate”, in accordance with the UNEP guidelines for SO-LCA [31]. It also needs to be mentioned that, due to the nature of the analysis itself, the SO-LCA is going to be carried out within the value chains in an aggregated way, not considering the organisations individually. Also, the results must be considered carefully due to the heterogeneity of the organisations. The SO-LCA calls upon a stakeholder approach where the potential impacts on different stakeholder categories are considered. This mirrors the fact that social sustainability is about identifying and managing impacts, both positive and negative, on people (stakeholders). Social impacts are classified by stakeholder categories to assist with the operationalization and to ensure the comprehensiveness of the results [31]. The quality of an organisation’s relationships and engagement with its stakeholders is critical for its social performance. In this study, the stakeholders’ categories included in the UNEP guidelines are considered as well as several of their corresponding impact subcategories (see Table 2). Concretely the selected stakeholders’ categories have been workers, value chain actors, society, local community and consumers. The guidelines allow for customization of stakeholder selection criteria and for defining the most appropriate impact categories for social assessment. Thus, the children stakeholder category has been excluded as this method aims to use organisation-specific social metrics and primary data only, the choice of key stakeholders must represent the real value chain; therefore, this category was considered irrelevant to the sectorial dimensions of the value chain of the organisations undergoing the assessment. In the table below, the selected stakeholders and the impact subcategories analysed for all the organisations are presented. Table 2. Stakeholder category & impact subcategories Stakeholder category Impact subcategories Workers Forced labour Fair salary Working hours Equal opportunities/ discrimination Health and safety Social benefits, legal issues Workers’ rights Sexual harassment Value chain actors Fair competition Promoting social responsibility Supplier relationships Respect of intellectual property rights Wealth distribution Society Public commitment to sustainability issues Contribution to economic development A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 21 of 111 Technology development Corruption Poverty alleviation Local community Access to material resources Access to immaterial resources Delocalization and migration Cultural heritage Safe and healthy living conditions Community engagement Local employment Secure living conditions Consumers Health and Safety Feedback mechanism Consumer privacy Transparency End-of-life responsibility Source: adapted from the UNEP guidelines. For further details go to Annex I: 14.1Social Indicators Battery For each impact subcategory several indicators were defined in order to represent as fully as possible the organisations’ value chains with data coming from primary sources (see 8.2. Inventory). Beyond the SO-LCA approach detailed above, the authors considered that additional social elements would enrich the analysis. A2C projects proposes a systemic solution to circular economy in the agrifood sector, with a strong focus on public engagement, which means that the four stakeholder groups supporting innovation processes are strongly involved in the projects activities (Public Administration, Industry, Research and technology institutions and Citizens). SO-LCA is a useful tool to assess the organisations’ social conditions and to understand if the product value chains selected (in which the developed technology is being tested) contributes to the social development of each stakeholder around these organisations. However, A2C goes beyond the organisations themselves, promoting a more multi-level approach, relying on achieving in the long term a change of paradigm, rational innovation and social inclusion & scale-up the project innovations, including the social outcomes. Hence, beyond the SO-LCA itself, several measurements related with environmental awareness, sustainability & circular economy concepts have also been included in the analysis for exploratory purposes. We consider that A2C activities have the potential to assess specific constructs that can support the adoption of circular economy, such as the attitudes towards the environment and the nature, the need of reducing food and plastic waste, the acceptance of more sustainable and circular products as part of our consumers preferences, to mention some. Since the scope of the SO-LCA is much focused on economic/demographic/legal (human rights) aspects, leaving out key sociopsychological elements for ecological and sustainable behaviour change which are also targeted by A2C project. Therefore, in this first screening phase it has been decided to conceptually broaden the social dimensions of the SO-LCA with the variables that are presented in the following table: A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 22 of 111 Table 3. Workers awareness on sustainability & circular economy measurements NEP (New ecological paradigm) [41] Limits to growth, anti-anthropocentrism, the fragility of nature’s balance, rejection of human exemptionalism, possibility of an ecocrisis Consumers awareness [42] Recycling attitudes and knowledge Consumers desire [42] Plastic recycling attitudes & authorities’ role Circular economy awareness [43] Circular economy behaviours Circular economy acknowledgement Perception of quality according to type of product Sustainable practices Behavioural shifts To summarize, although the selected methodology a priori to perform the analysis on task 7.4. was the S-LCA together with the LCC, more indicators to assess the workers awareness and acceptance were included in the social evaluation, even if they were not envisaged in the framework (D7.5), due to the fact that the S-LCA approach is too narrow for the project scope. These additional indicators will enrich the analysis at the organisational level by adding a more person-based perspective to the managerial and stakeholder point of view. Moreover, the inclusion of these indicators is justified to overcome some of the methodological limitations presented on the sections below. In both cases, the procedure for data collection involves the use of primary data compiled through different data tools, namely questionnaires designed exclusively for this project and presented in the following chapters (10. SO-LCA implementation (preliminary)). 8.2 Inventory & procedure methodology The first step in inventory analysis is to identify the social metrics through which conduct the social assessment. The data is required to be specific and characteristic of the studied organisations. Moreover, it must also be directly and easily measurable in order to have primary data as set by the established goal of the evaluation. The criteria to choose the metrics for this first screening stage were mainly based on the UNEP guidelines and on the results of fuzzy Delphi study carried out by A. Padilla-Rivera, B.B.T. do Carmo, G. Arcese et al [44]. Bibliographic research was also conducted reviewing the most recent articles related with the selection of SO-LCA indicators [45], [46]. Thus, we have chosen the metrics that meet the methodological requirements set in the evaluation framework (relevance, measurability, reliability, timeliness, comparability, clarity and availability), and we have correlated them with the stakeholders and social impact categories. Moreover, and following the UNEP guidelines for SO-LCA and the scholars’ proposals, site specific indicators were associated with the impact subcategories and SDG as shown in Table 4. The stakeholder category WORKERS corresponds to eight impact subcategories aimed to assess: - whether the organisation doesn’t use forced or compulsory labour; - whether practices concerning wages are in compliance with established standards and if the wage provided is meeting legal requirements; A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 23 of 111 - if the number of hours effectively worked is in accordance with the ILO standards and when overtime occurs, compensation is planned and provided to the workers, in terms of money or free time; - how equal opportunity practices are managed and the presence of discrimination in the opportunities offered to the workers; - the rate of incidents and the status of prevention measures and management practices in the organisation; - whether and to what extent an organisation provides social benefits and social security to workers; - the compliance of the organisation with freedom of association and collective bargaining standards and - whether an organisation might create or tolerate working conditions in which sexual harassment occurs, and to what extent company actions are successful in preventing sexual harassment. To assess this stakeholder category 16 indicators were defined following, in some cases, the definitions established in the D.7.5. Evaluation Framework and methodology. The new indicators definition has been established following the UNEP Methodological sheets [47] and the study carried out by F. García-Muiña, M.S. Medina-Salgado and R. GonzálezSánchez et al. [37]. Moreover, and considering the methodological limitations (see 10.2. Limitations), also several indicators have been included or modified taking into account the criteria of experts at KVC and UVEG 1 . Regarding the associated sustainable development goals[48], the only non-related SGD are: 7 (affordable and clean energy), 12 (responsible consumption & production), 13 (climate action), 14 (life below water), 15 (life on land),16 (peace, justice & strong institutions) & 17 (partnership for the goals). The second stakeholder category is VALUE CHAIN, to which five impact subcategories correspond. This impact subcategories were aimed to: - assess if the organisation’s competitive activities are conducted in a fair way and in compliance with legislations preventing anti-competitive behaviour, anti-trust, or monopoly practices; - assess whether the enterprise promotes social responsibility among its suppliers and through its own actions; - evaluate if the organisation considers the potential impacts or unintended consequences of its procurement and purchasing decisions on other organisations, and act with due diligence to avoid or minimize any negative impact (ISO 26000); - check whether organisation’s actions safeguard and value the creators and other producers of intellectual goods and services and - evaluate the extent to which the value is distributed in an equitable way to all the actors of the value chain. To assess this stakeholder category 7 indicators were defined. Due to the nature of this stakeholder category and the associated impact types, just 5 SGD are related to them: 1 (no poverty), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), 10 (reduce inequalities) & 12 (responsible consumption and production). 1 This case concrete of workers stakeholder category is extendable to all the indicators included in each impact subcategory. The initial list of indicators included in the evaluation framework has been modified considering the evaluation scope. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 24 of 111 SOCIETY has also been considered. Within this stakeholder category, five impact subcategories were analysed, aiming to: - assess to what extent the selected organisations are engaged in reducing its sustainability impacts; - assess to what extent the organisation/product or service contributes to the economic development of the society; - assess whether the organisation participates in joint research and development for efficient and environmental sound technologies; - evaluate if an organisation has implemented appropriate measures to prevent corruption and if there is evidence that it has engaged or has been engaged in corruption and - to measure the presence or not of proactive activities, such as strategies, action plans, investment, to reduce the poverty of the society at different geographical levels made by the organisation itself or linked with the product life cycle. There are seven established indicators corresponding to this stakeholder category, aligned with nine SDGs: 1 (no poverty), 2 (zero hunger), 3 (good health and well-being), 4 (quality education), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) & 17 (partnership for the goals). LOCAL COMMUNITY, configured by eight impact categories, has also been considered as a stakeholder category due to the configuration of the A2C model (regional based) and the importance of the agrifood industry in the region of Murcia. The aim of the selected impact categories is to: - assess the extent to which organisations respect, work to protect, to provide or to improve community access to local material resources, infrastructures & immaterial resources; - evaluate whether organisations contribute to delocalization, migration, or “involuntary resettlement” within communities and whether populations are treated adequately; - check whether an organisation respects local cultural heritage and recognizes that all community members have a right to pursue their cultural development; - assess how organisations impact community safety and health; - appraise whether an organisation includes community stakeholders in relevant decisionmaking processes. It also considers the extent to which the organisation engages with the community as a whole; - assess the role of an organisation in directly or indirectly affecting local employment & - evaluate how organisations impact the security of local communities with respect to the conduct of private security personnel and how the organisation interacts with state-led forces. Eleven indicators were defined for this category, being the stakeholder category with more metrics following workers. As for the SDG, the ones corresponding to this category are: 3 (good health and well-being), 4 (quality education), 6 (clean water and sanitation), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), 10 (reduce inequalities), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production) & 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). The last considered stakeholder category is CONSUMERS. This category is built up by 5 impact categories to assess how the organisations relate with their customers, concretely it is sought to: - identify the existence and scope of systematic efforts to address consumer health and safety across the organisations involved in the life cycle of a product and/ or service; A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 25 of 111 - assess the effectiveness of management measures to support consumer feedback. In addition, this subcategory may assess other management practices related to customer feedback; - examine whether organisational management systems work to respect and protect consumer privacy; - assess if the organisation communicates on all issues regarding its product and social responsibility in a transparent way & - evaluate if there exist (if applicable) any management efforts to address the social impacts of product or service end-of-life. Within this category, seven indicators were defined. As for the SDG the following ones are related with the selected impact subcategories: 2 (zero hunger), 3 (good health and wellbeing), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 15 (life on land) & 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Below a summary table can be found where the relations between the stakeholders’ categories, impact subcategories, indicators and SDG are shown. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 32 of 111 Figure 3 Different types of Life Cycle Costing [55] Conventional LCC (C-LCC) techniques are usually applied in the context of decisions on products or investments requiring high initial capital. C-LCC assesses the total cost performance of an asset over time, including the acquisition, operating, maintenance, and end-of-life costs. Its primary use concerns the evaluation of different options for achieving the client’s objectives, as the alternatives differ not only in their initial costs, but also in their subsequent operational costs. LCC techniques can be equally applied to major constructed assets or to the individual components and materials from which they are constructed [56]. C-LCC can be addressed as a discounted cash flow analysis, therefore used to evaluate large investments, such as new food processing plants or machineries, where the costs occurring throughout the entire lifespan of these durable goods can then be attributed to single products based on yield or other allocation criteria. Depending on what the object and the purpose of the assessment are, the relevant costs to be included could vary. For instance, in the case of buildings, energy consumption costs across the whole life-time of the asset can constitute an important share of overall costs, whereas, for other facilities, the bulk of costs might occur largely during the initial phases of the project development. Consequently, cost’s categories to include are one of the key parameters to identify during the process. As an alternative to traditional accounting, LCC can provide valuable information on the dimension and structure of costs potentially incurred by new processes or products already during their development phase [57]. Within the C-LCC perspective, typically dealing with products or services with a relatively high lifespan, all the costs are discounted to take into proper consideration the impact of time within the cashflow of the system analysed. A broader concept of Life Cycle Costing, considering the environmental externalities, is often referred to as Environmental Life Cycle Costing (eLCC); eLCC was developed to support environmental life cycle assessment (LCA): it covers the economic dimension and helps identify hotspots in both cost and environmental impacts. This technique was designed to include in the assessment all those costs occurring during the life cycle of products, services, and technologies. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 33 of 111 eLCC is, in fact, aligned with ELCA (Environmental LCA), and follows the same phases included in the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards ([10], [58]): 1. Goal and scope definition 2. Data collection 3. Impact assessment 4. Interpretation and sensitivity analysis The approach relies on the same basic life cycle perspective of the LCA and its output. Environmental impacts associated to each life cycle phase will be monetized according to specific methodologies, and added to conventional costs that occur during the full life cycle of a product/process. This will be the approach used within the A2C project Finally, the inclusion of costs covered by anyone in society further enlarges the LCC perspective, leading to Societal Life Cycle Costing (sLCC), which aims at assessing the overall direct and indirect costs covered by the society in the long-term. sLCC can be applied by policy makers to better identify larger effects and indirect cost of production systems and their alternatives, since all the stakeholders and the overall society is included in the assessment. The application of LCC for food products and food waste streams seems to be recent and minimal, if compared to other sectors. 9.1 Goal and Scope Within the Agro2Circular Project, the aim of this phase is to compare the associated economic and environmental costs (eLCC) over the entire life cycle of the innovative solutions which will be tested, in comparison with the Business as usual (BAU) solution. Two specific case studies will be analised: • Extraction of fibres and polyphenol from lemon waste (peel/pulp) • Agricultural film with recycled content material The 2 above mentioned innovative processes will be compared against their relevant traditional solutions, as it is shown in Table 5. Table 5. A2C Projects and conventional solution for comparison Innovative process within the Agro2Circular Project Conventional solution Extraction of fibres and polyphenol from lemon waste (peel/pulp) Fibres already available in the market (i.e. organic inulin, pectin, organic psyllium, quercetin) Agricultural film with recycled content material Agricultural film with no recycled content material In Agro2Circular Project, the eLCC will consider both conventional costs and the monetization of environmental externalities evaluated in the LCA. The following image synthesises the main cost categories that will be considered. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 34 of 111 Figure 4. Structure of the eLCC in Agro2Circular Project 9.1.1 Functional/declared unit. One of the key elements to be defined in any Life Cycle assessment is the definition of the so-called functional unit. The functional unit is the quantified performance of a product system, to be used as a reference unit. It is a measure of the function of the studied system and it provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs can be related, thus enabling comparison of alternative systems. The functional unit will be used as a common reference to report the results of the assessment. The functional unit is a key element of LCA which must be clearly defined since it is a quantified description of the performance requirements that the product system fulfills: besides the function, it comprises a quantity, a duration and a level of quality. Same considerations pertain to eLCC. In the case of waste systems and food waste, functional units are generally based on mass (i.e. 1 kg of recycled product) and, whenever an an ELCC is performed, they are coherent with the LCA. Whenever the function of the studied product is not precisely defined, for instance in case of ingredients of materials that can be used in different types of products or for different applications, or when the system boundaries do not cover a full life cycle (i.e. “cradle-to-gate approach 3 ”), a declared unit is used instead of a functional unit. Within the Agro2Circular Project, a declared unit will be used, in tight connection with the LCA study. Table 6 shows the declared unit that will be used in the eLCC comparison. Table 6Declared units for eLCC comparison Innovative process within the Agro2Circular Project Conventional solution Declared unit Extraction of fibres and polyphenol from lemon waste (peel/pulp) Fibres already available in the market (i.e. organic inulin, pectin, organic psyllium, quercetin) 1 kg of fibres 3 Under a cradle-to-gate approach the boundaries of the life cycle assessment are set to analyse the activity from the extraction of raw materials until the gate at the production facility. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 35 of 111 Agricultural film with recycled content material Agricultural film with no recycled content material 1 kg of agricultural film 9.1.2 System boundaries Cradle-to-gate approaches scenarios will be developed in order to compare the costs of the innovative solutions against the conventional ones. The rationale for the selection of system boundaries has been explained in section 7.2. With reference to the lemon waste demo case, the following life cycle phases will be included in the eLCC assessment (see Figure 1): • lemon waste collection (peel/pulp) • lemon waste transport to the recycling facility • mechanical pretreatment • extraction (green solvents) • lyophilisation and stabilisation • formulation development (food, nutraceuticals, etc.) With reference to the agricultural film demo case, the following life cycle phases will be included in the eLCC assessment (Figure 2): • agricultural film waste collection • agricultural film waste transport to the recycling facility • cleaning, decontamination and mechanical recycling 9.2 Inventory & procedure methodology In order to include the environmental externalities, the eLCC assessment will follow the same structure of the LCA. Cost data will be obtained mainly from the real case studies (primary data). When primary cost data could not be obtained, average figures from the technical literature will be used. The following cost categories will be included in the study: • Raw material costs, including: a. the acquisition of waste stream input needed to manufacture the products in the recycling process, b. the extraction and processing of auxiliaries raw materials needed to manufacture the products in the recycling process • Transport costs to the manufacturing plant: cost of freight, cartage, transit insurance and cost of operating fleet and other incidental charges • Equipment costs: the total purchase cost associated with the equipment necessary to set up the process. The item will consider the yearly price over the expected life of the asset. • Installation costs: the total cost of installing the systems and equipment, in case not already available to the manufacturer. • Labour costs: the cost of the needed man-hours associated with upcycling processes and with the treatment of wastes. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 36 of 111 • Energy consumption costs: the total energy consumption cost for the facility and systems. It includes the cost of fuel required to generate power • Water consumption costs: the total water consumption cost for the facility and systems. • Maintenance costs: the total cost incurred to maintain the capacity of performance of the facility and equipment • Waste management costs: the total cost incurred to manage waste emerging during the recycling process. 9.3 Data gathering As previously mentioned, cost data will be gathered mainly from the real case studies (primary data), by means of questionnaires specifically designed by Bocconi University in tight cooperation with the partners responsible for the demo cases. The next figure shows an example of such eLCC data collection questionnaires. Figure 5. Example of eLCC data collection questionnaire When primary cost data could not be obtained, average figures from the technical literature were used. 9.3.1 Data and assumptions Service Life of the product In LCC, the expected life of an asset or a product has a huge impact on the life cycle analysis, since all the costs occurring in its lifespan should be taken into account. For the building sector, for example, the service life refers to the period of time during which a building or its components satisfy the minimum acceptable level of performance [59] and the International standard ISO 15686–5:2008 [17] recommends that the estimated service life of a building should not be less than its design life. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 37 of 111 In Agro2Circular Project, the eLCC of the 2 solutions that will be analysed, will consider a service life within one year, given the type of products that will be obtained through the recycling process. Period of analysis The period of analysis refers to the time horizon over which the life cycle cost is analysed. In its origin, life cycle costing does not necessarily cover the whole life cycle of a product, system, or an asset. The aforementioned international standard ISO 15686–5:2008 [17]for buildings recommends not to exceed 100 years. The residual value of the asset/product analysed is the product value remaining at the end of the study period. In the construction sector, for example (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability -BEES model [60]) the residual value is computed by prorating the purchase and installation cost over the product life remaining beyond the 50-year period. In Agro2Circular Project, the analysis will cover the same period of analysis of the service life. Discount rate Discount rate is used to convert costs occurring at different times to equivalent costs at a common point in time [61]. The most common technique of making incoming and outgoing payments from different times comparable is to apply a discount to future payments to obtain a Net Present Value (NPV). As the life cycle costs are discounted to their present value, selection of a suitable discount rate is a crucial decision in a LCC. The International Standard ISO 15686–5:2008 [17] recommends that the determined discount rate, for private sector projects, should cover the opportunity cost of the invested capital which can be: a. the interest cost of a loan for investment, b. the interest lost from cash reductions from deposits, c. the lost return from other possible investment, d. the actual return from capital investments e. the anticipated rate of return from the new business. For public sector projects, the International Standard recommends using the discount rate which is determined by the central government. Future costs must be expressed in terms that are consistent with the discount rate used. Two approaches are usually applied. First, a real discount rate may be used with constantdollar costs. Real discount rates reflect that portion of the time value of money attributable to the real earning power of money over time and not to general price inflation. Second, a market discount rate may be used with current-dollar amounts (e.g. actual future prices). Market discount rates reflect the time value of money stemming from both inflation and the real earning power of money over time (bees) In Agro2Circular Project, since the period of analysis does not exceed one year, the discount rate will not have impact on the analysis. Inflation rate General price inflation is the reduction in the purchasing power of the money from year to year, as measured, for example, by the percent increase in the Gross National Product (GNP) deflator over a given year. In Agro2Circular Project, since the period of analysis does not exceed one year, the inflation rate will not be considered. Environmental externalities A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 38 of 111 Environmental externalities refer to the economic concept of uncompensated environmental effects of production and consumption that affect consumer utility and enterprise cost, outside the market mechanism. As a consequence of negative externalities, private costs of production tend to be lower than their “social” costs. It is the aim of the “polluter/user-pays” principle to prompt households and enterprises to internalise externalities in their plans and budgets. In Agro2Circular Project, externalities will be calculated using the "Environmental Prices” concept [62]. Environmental Prices is a method developed by CE Delft for expressing environmental impacts in monetary unit and a measure to express the amount of environmental burden of a product on the basis of prevention of that burden. Those are the costs which should be born to reduce the environmental pollution and materials depletion in our world to a level which is in line with the carrying capacity of our planet. The method, developed by the Delft University of Technology, has the advantage that the output of the LCA is expressed in a monetary value (€). The output of the LCA studies on the 2 demo cases will be used to monetize the environmental impacts. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 39 of 111 10 SO-LCA implementation (preliminary) 10.1 Results per stakeholder category The main results per stakeholder category of this first phase of analysis are shown below. As explained in section 8 (Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment), the data come mainly from two sources: the project managers which reported the organisation information and the employees of the value chain organisations. Before starting with the analysis of results, we need to scale them by value chain. Table 7. Value chains sample size & heterogeneity (SO-LCA) Value chain 1: agrifood (lemon pulp and peels) Value chain 2: plastic (disinfection film) Number of organisations 6 2 Sample size of employees who answered the questionnaire 81 2 Reference years 2021-2022 2021-2022 Type of organisations Company, Private nonprofit research association, NGO, SME Association, SME Source: elaborated by the authors As is shown in Table 7, the differences between the value chains goes beyond their nature themselves (agrifood vs. plastic). The obtained samples are very different and the type of entities too; making any comparison between them impossible. Thus, the aim of this section is to clearly set out the main SO-LCA results of the two value chains individually, comparing the results, where possible, according to regional or national standards, but never between value chains or organisations themselves. 10.1.1 Methodological notes - The organisations were asked to provide data from their respective last accounting years. This means that the year of reference of their data differs in some cases between institutions. However, all the data belong to the period 2021-2022. - In general terms, information has been processed on an aggregated basis per value chain. Individual results are shown only when the data reflects something different from the rest of the organisations in the chain. - The “Agrifood value chain: average of the organisations average wage per month (W4) (2021-2022)” has been calculated on the salary from 5 organisations since one entity has not included the average salary. - The Lost time injury frequency rate (W8) has been calculated in a different way adapting it to the number of workers in the analysed organisations (10x^5 was used instead of 10x^6 in the formula) A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 40 of 111 10.1.2 Stakeholder category: workers Table 8. Workers stakeholder category: results & references Impact subcategory Social influence Indicators Value (Agrifood) Value (Plastic) Reference Year of data reference Comments Forced labour NEGATIVE Employment terms 93% 67% Not applicable Most of the workers are satisfied with the employment terms NEGATIVE Forced Labour 0% 0% Victims rescued from exploitative labour situations in Spain: Absence of forced labour 5144 2021 Fair salary POSITIVE Organisation average wage, per month 1.849,90€ 1.952,70€ Average wage Murcia Region Average wage near the regional one 1.875,20€5 2021 Working hours POSITIVE Flexibility (6/6) 40% (5/6) 33% Level of satisfaction with flexibility in the region: In general, workers are satisfied with the flexibility conditions 6,976 2010 POSITIVE Full-time staff 94% 97% Full-time staff in the Region The average of fulltime staff is higher than the regional in both cases 67,49 % [63] 2021 Equal opportunities/ discrimination POSITIVE Gender equality 34% 7% Women employment rate in the Region The percentage is lower than the regional rate in both cases 44,92% 44,48% (INE)7 2022T4 2021T4 POSITIVE Equal opportunities policies 67% 50% Percentage of companies with registered GEP out of the number of companies that should have one registered at national level: The proportion of organisations with GEP in both value chains is bigger than the national one 23,73%8 2022 Health and Safety POSITIVE Occupational safety measures 90% 67% No comparable data available In both cases more than the half of the respondents believe that the safety occupational measures are adequate NEGATIVE Lost time injury frequency rate 1,28 0 Incidence rate in the Region No comparable data available. Just the number of accidents with sick leave per 100.000 workers 3.226,99 2021 4 https://www.interior.gob.es/opencms/eu/detalle/articulo/Policia-Nacional-y-Guardia-Civil-liberaron-en-2021a-mas-de-mil-victimas-de-trata-y-explotacion-de-seres-humanos-por-motivos-sexuales-o-laborales/ 5 https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=13930 6 https://econet.carm.es/web/crem/inicio/-/crem/sicrem/PU135/sec2.html 7 https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=3996 8 https://www.uso.es/planes-de-igualdad-solo-una-de-cada-cuatro-empresas-lo-tiene-registrado/ 9 https://econet.carm.es/web/crem/inicio/-/crem/sicrem/PU135/sec15.html A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 41 of 111 Impact subcategory Social influence Indicators Value (Agrifood) Value (Plastic) Reference Year of data reference Comments affiliated to the Social Security System POSITIVE Presence of sufficient safety measures 100% 100% National regulation: BOE-A-1995-24292 The presence of sufficient safety measures is mandatory by the Spanish law Social benefits, legal issues NEGATIVE Evidence of violations of laws and employment regulations 0 0 Social security infringement proceedings in the region: labour relations In both cases, no violations of law were declared 67210 2021 Workers’ rights POSITIVE Trade unions density 4% 0% Percentage of employees affiliated to trade unions in Spain: The percentage of affiliated employees is very low 12,5%11 2019 POSITIVE Collective Bargaining Agreement 33% 50% Total number of CBA in the region: Compared with the region, the number of CBA is sufficient in both cases 7012 2021 Sexual harassment NEGATIVE Sexual harassment incidents reported 0 0 Actions against sexual harassment at the national level: No sexual harassments were declared by the organisations 64213 2021 Forced labour The first impact subcategory results to be studied is “forced labour 14 ”. With this assessment the aim was to check whether the organisations were not using forced labour. None of the agrifood value chain actors nor the plastic ones, reported to have forced workers on their staff (W1). Linked to this impact subcategory, the organisations’ staff were asked if they agreed freely on the employment terms (WQ1). In the agrifood value chain case, 93% of the workers surveyed reported having voluntarily accepted the employment terms (i.e. wage, working time, holidays, and terms of resignation). In the case of the plastic value chain just the 67% reported to have accepted them voluntarily. Fair salary Fair wages are undoubtedly one of the most important criteria for corporate social responsibility because without fair wages, the workers are not capable of providing for their own needs and the ones of their families. For people to live an adequate life, a “fair salary” is necessary [47]. To assess this impact subcategory, we asked the living wage per month 10 https://www.mites.gob.es/itss/web/Que_hacemos/Estadisticas/docs/2021/02_2021.pdf 11 https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TUD# 12 https://econet.carm.es/web/crem/inicio/-/crem/sicrem/PU134/sec3.html 13 https://www.mites.gob.es/itss/ITSS/ITSS_Descargas/Que_hacemos/Memorias/Memoria_ITSS_2021_8.pdf 14 Forced or compulsory labour is any work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty, and for which that person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 48 of 111 10.1.4 Stakeholder category: society Table 12. Society stakeholder category: results & references Impact subcategory Social influence Indicators Value (Agrifood) Value (Plastic) Reference Year of data reference Comments Public commitment to sustainability issues POSITIVE Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues 50% 50% Percentage of entities that have set public, measurable, and timebound targets in one of the 17 SDGs in Spain: Good commitment from organisations in both value chains 20,68%21 2020 Contribution to economic development POSITIVE Total taxation per capita 16.005,97€ 3.722,22€ Tax collection in the Region of Murcia by budget chapters and taxes (Total chapters I, II ,III). Amount in millions of euros No comparable data available. 338,622 2021 Technology development POSITIVE Technology transfer program 33% 100% No data available The presence of this type of program depends on the organisation main activity POSITIVE Investments in technology development/ transfer 23% 19% % of enterprises, out of total enterprises, with innovation expenditure in 2020, in the region of Murcia: The ratio of the investments in technology is high compared with the regional one in 2020 12,22%23 2020 Corruption POSITIVE Corruption 67% 50% % of companies with a code of conduct (sample of 128 companies in the region of Murcia) The development of anticorruption plans is not mandatory by the national law. In both cases the percentage is good 84%24 2021 Poverty alleviation POSITIVE Poverty alleviation program 33% 0% No data available The number of initiatives/ plans/ activities to fight against poverty is very low 21 https://www.mdsocialesa2030.gob.es/agenda2030/documentos/contribucion-empresarial-eds.pdf 22 https://www.hacienda.gob.es/Documentacion/Publico/Tributos/Estadisticas/Recaudacion/2020/Analisisestadistico-recaudacion-2020.pdf 23 https://www.ine.es/jaxi/Datos.htm?path=/t14/p061/a2020/l0/&file=07001.px 24 file:///C:/Users/Usuario/Downloads/Bar%C3%B3metro%20de%20la%20RSC%20en%20Pymes%20de%20la %20Regi%C3%B3n%20de%20Murcia%20(enero%202022).pdf (study with a sample of 128 Murcian companies) A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 49 of 111 Public commitment to sustainability issues A broader interpretation of social responsibility implies that organisations not only consider sustainable issues at the organisation level but also in relation to their community and society [47]. Thus, public commitment is a very relevant indicator to analyse the organisation’s understanding of social responsibility. To measure this public commitment, the organisations were asked whether they had any agreements in place on sustainability issues (S1). In total, considering both value chains, just a 50% of the organisations reported to have an agreement of this nature. Contribution to economic development Economic development is a basic requirement in the struggle against poverty and hunger and organisations play an important role in creating sufficient wealth to satisfy basic material needs. To evaluate the impact subcategory “contribution to economic development” the indicator “total taxation per capita” (S2) has been used. Taxes can be used as a proxy of organisations contribution to the society’s well-being. To calculate this indicator, all the companies were asked to provide the total taxes paid in their respective last accounting years, by all typologies (personal related, excluding capital). Then, the total figure of paid taxes has been divided by the total number of workforce forming the analysed value chain. The taxation per capita in the agrifood value chain amounts to 16.005,97€ and to 3.722,22€ in the plastic one. Technology development In order to promote sustainability and circular economy technology development is key. Modern technologies potential is twofold: it may reduce environmental impacts and help to overcome under-development. The “technology development” impact subcategory has been evaluated by the indicators “technology transfer program” (S3) & “Investments in technology development/transfer” (S4). Technology transfer is a structural process of learning, which requires several inputs such as coordination between technology developers and users. It is a social concern that organisations contribute to technology development, by engaging in partnerships with other organisations in joint research and development programs or private-public partnerships. In the agrifood value chain, just 33% of the organisations have declared to have a technology transfer program in place in their respective last accounting years, whereas in the plastic one the 100% have a plan of this kind. As for the rate of investments in technology transfer, just 23% of the agrifood organisations investments were dedicated to this type of activities. The rate in the case of the plastic value chain is lower, being the ratio of investment a 19%. 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. Corruption Corruption takes money out of the official system and thus has an impact on the state income. This subcategory assesses whether an organisation has implemented appropriate measures to prevent corruption. In this study, the measure considered has been to have a formalized commitment to prevent corruption (S5). 67% of the agrifood value chain organisations stated to have developed official actions to avoid corruption and in the case of the plastic one just a 50%. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 50 of 111 Poverty alleviation Poverty reduction and economic stability are crucial drivers to protect the environment and the local communities, thus with the “poverty alleviation” subcategory it was aimed to assess the presence or not (S6) of proactive activities, such as strategies, action plans, investment, to reduce the poverty of the society. The majority of the agrifood value chain organisations (concretely the 67%) reported to no have developed any poverty alleviation program. In the case of plastic organisations none of them have a program of this kind. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 51 of 111 10.1.5 Stakeholder category: local community Table 13. Local community stakeholder category: results & references Impact subcategory Social influence Indicators Value (Agrifood) Value (Plastic) Reference Year of data reference Comments Access to material resources POSITIVE Environmental management system 50% 50% Number of organisations with Community EcoManagement and Audit Scheme (EMAS) in Spain The percentage might be adequate taking into account the organisations heterogeneity 97325 2021 Access to immaterial resources POSITIVE Community education initiatives 67% 50% No data available Both percentages are equal or higher than 50% Delocalization and migration POSITIVE Immigrant workforce rate 6% 15% Employment rate foreign nationality in the Region: In both cases the percentage is lower than the region 55,5126 58,77 2021T4 2022T4 POSITIVE Organisational procedures for integrating migrant workers into the community 0 50% No data available Few organisational processes for migrant integration Cultural heritage POSITIVE Funding dedicated to support and promote cultural heritage 67% 50% Community CSR practices: support and financial resources for cultural or sports activities in the community in the region of Murcia Compared with the data from the region (sample of 128 companies), the percentages lower 76%27 2021 Safe and healthy living conditions POSITIVE Promotion of community health 33% 50% No data available The dedication of financial resources to strengthen community health is scare Community engagement POSITIVE Diversity of community stakeholder groups that engage with the organisation (5/6) 67% (6/6) 50% No data available The organisations rate in both cases their diversity of stakeholders as diverse or very diverse POSITIVE Number of meetings with community stakeholders 53 58 No data available In both cases there were meetings held by organisations 25 https://www.ine.es/dyngs/ODS/es/indicador.htm?id=5117 26 https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=4227#!tabs-tabla 27 file:///C:/Users/Usuario/Downloads/Bar%C3%B3metro%20de%20la%20RSC%20en%20Pymes%20de%20la %20Regi%C3%B3n%20de%20Murcia%20(enero%202022).pdf (study with a sample of 128 Murcian companies) A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 52 of 111 Impact subcategory Social influence Indicators Value (Agrifood) Value (Plastic) Reference Year of data reference Comments POSITIVE Organisational support (volunteerhours or financial) for community initiatives Hours: 800 Financial resources: 424.325,80€ Hours: 0 Financial resources: 20.858,80€ No data available In both cases more financial resources than volunteer hours have been dedicated Local employment POSITIVE Workforce hired locally 15,3% 15,5% No data available The percentage of locally hired workers is low in both cases POSITIVE Spending on locally based suppliers 36,9% 57,1% CSR Practices with Suppliers: Always try to buy from local suppliers (Murcia region). According to the data obtained from the sample of 128 companies, on average the organisations of both two-value chain spend less in local suppliers 80%28 2021 Secure living conditions NEGATIVE Security complaints by the community 0 0 No data available No complaints were declared by any of the organisations Access to material resources Organisations may contribute to sustainable development by protecting existing natural resources and their related ecosystem services. With the impact subcategory “Access to material resources” the aim was to assess whether the organisations have a certified environmental management system (LC1). The idea is to take the existence of certified EMS as a proxy for the commitment of companies in a sector to environmental protection. In both cases, the 50% of the organisations declared to have an EMS in force in its last accounting year. Access to immaterial resources Within the “access to immaterial resources” impact subcategory, it was wanted to assess whether the organisations may build community relations and improve access to immaterial resources by promoting education in the community (LC2). The reason for this indicator relies on the fact that organisations should also transfer knowledge to the community through formal training programs and general community education initiatives [47]. The 67% of the agrifood value chain have declared to develop in their respective last accounting year, initiatives targeted to foster education in the community. As for the plastic value chain, the 50% reported to have initiatives to foster the education in the community. Delocalization and migration 28 file:///C:/Users/Usuario/Downloads/Bar%C3%B3metro%20de%20la%20RSC%20en%20Pymes%20de%20la %20Regi%C3%B3n%20de%20Murcia%20(enero%202022).pdf (study with a sample of 128 Murcian companies) A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 53 of 111 Due to its geographical location and its productive system, the Region of Murcia is one of the regions that receives the higher number of immigrants. In the case of migrant workers entering a community, the organisation should consider how well workers will integrate with more permanent residents. Organisations should provide opportunities for communication and education between migrant workers and permanent residents to minimise risks [47]. To assess it, first the indicator “Immigrant workforce rate” (LC3) was defined, together with an indicator to assess if the companies have any internal procedure for integrating migrant workers in the community (LC4). The ratio of immigrant employees in the workforce on average for the agrifood value chain is 6% and in the plastic value chain is 15%. None of the organisations in the agrifood chain declared to have any internal procedures to integrate migrant workers into the community, whereas in the plastic value chain, one organisation declared to have these types of policies. Cultural heritage As a proxy to assess if the organisations promote and preserve cultural heritage, they were asked if in their respective last accounting years, have dedicated financial resources to support and promote cultural heritage (i.e., cultural activities and events) (LC5). The 67% of the agrifood organisations reported “Yes”, and the 50% of the plastic value chain organisations also reported “Yes” in this question. Safe and healthy living conditions Organisations may influence and contribute to the health of local communities. Moreover, communication is key, concretely when their activities can generate potential impacts of their operations to surrounding communities. The indicator established for this impact subcategory has been “Promotion of community health” (LC6); the organisations were asked if they dedicated, in their respective last accounting year, financial resources to strengthen community health (i.e., through shared community access to organisation health resources). The 33% of the agrifood value chain & the 50% of the plastic value chain organisations declared that they had dedicated financial resources to community health promotion. Community engagement An organisation should attempt to engage with a broad range of stakeholders that represent balanced community interests (“Community engagement” impact subcategory). To caption the diversity of engaged stakeholders, the organisations were asked to indicate, using a Likert scale, how diverse their engaged stakeholders are, being 1 “not very diverse” and 6 “very diverse” (LC7). As shown in Figure 10 the majority of the agrifood value chain organisations consider the diversity of their engaged stakeholders on a level of 5 (67%). In the plastic value chain, the diversity of engaged stakeholders is divided into 4 (50%) and 6 (50%) Moreover, the number of meetings held with community stakeholders (LC8) was also asked in order to understand if the relationship of the organisation with its community stakeholders is recurrent. A total of 53 meetings were held between 0%0%0% 33% 67% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 10. Agrifood value chain: Diversity of stakeholder groups engaged with the organization A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 54 of 111 2021-2022 on the side of the agrifood chain and 58 meetings were held among the organisations of the plastic value chain. Organisations can also foster community engagement through direct involvement in community initiatives and/ or through financial support to this type of projects. With the indicator “Organisations support for local initiatives” (LC9) it was wanted to know if the organisations support or not, and how, the community initiatives that might be carried out in their respective communities. In the agrifood value chain, a total of 800 volunteer-hours of organisational support and a total of 424.325,80€ of financial resources have been dedicated to this type of initiatives. In the case of the plastic chain, no volunteer-hours were dedicated and a total of 20.858,80€ of financial resources were dedicated to support community initiatives. Local employment Organisations have great potential to encourage sustainable development through local hiring preferences. Local employees have unique knowledge of important community issues and can help the organisation build strong community relations. Furthermore, local employment improves the living conditions of communities, limits the risk of poverty and keeps people from emigrating. In addition, the cooperation with local suppliers further strengthens local economies [64]. Thus, this subcategory assesses the role of an organisation in directly or indirectly affecting local employment using as indicators the “workforce hired locally” (LC10) & “the spending on locally based suppliers” (LC11). The ratio of local hired workers is 15,3%,in the agrifood and 15,5% in the plastic chain, whereas the ratio of expenditure on locally based suppliers is 36,9% in the first one and 57,1% in the second analysed value chain. Secure living conditions Organisations having an impact on local communities is a fact. With this subcategory the objective was to assess if the local community has complained regarding the organisation practices of private personnel security, through the indicator “security complaints by the community” (LC12). The number of reported complaints in total (considering all the organisations) is 0. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 55 of 111 10.1.6 Stakeholder category: consumers Table 14. Consumers stakeholder category: results & references Impact subcategory Social influence Indicators Value (Agrifood) Value (Plastic) Reference Year of data reference Health and Safety POSITIVE Labelling 83% 50% No data available In some cases, this indicator is not applicable. NEGATIVE Consumer complaints 92 3 No data available Information not publicly available for the region. POSITIVE Presence of a Quality and/or Product Safety Management System 83% 50% Number of ISO 9001 certificates in Spain In some cases, this indicator is not applicable. The majority of the organisations have a system of this type 31.31829 2021 Feedback mechanism POSITIVE Presence of consumers feedback mechanism 67% 0% % of companies that conduct customer satisfaction surveys in the region (sample of 128 companies) Lower in agrifood value chain, inexistent in the plastic one 76%30 2021 Consumer privacy NEGATIVE Consumers complaints related to breach of privacy 0 0 % companies respecting customer data privacy in the region of Murcia (sample of 128 companies) No complaints were registered 90%31 2021 Transparency POSITIVE Organisation communication transparency 6/6 5/6 % of companies in the region of Murcia that communicate information to their customers with full transparency (sample of 128 companies) All the organisations rated their communication transparency as high 86%32 2021 29 https://www.iso.org/committee/54998.html?t=KomURwikWDLiuB1P1c7SjLMLEAgXOA7emZHKGWyn8f3KQ UTU3m287NxnpA3DIuxm&view=documents#section-isodocuments-top 30 file:///C:/Users/Usuario/Downloads/Bar%C3%B3metro%20de%20la%20RSC%20en%20Pymes%20de%20la %20Regi%C3%B3n%20de%20Murcia%20(enero%202022).pdf (study with a sample of 128 Murcian companies) 31 file:///C:/Users/Usuario/Downloads/Bar%C3%B3metro%20de%20la%20RSC%20en%20Pymes%20de%20la %20Regi%C3%B3n%20de%20Murcia%20(enero%202022).pdf (study with a sample of 128 Murcian companies) 32 file:///C:/Users/Usuario/Downloads/Bar%C3%B3metro%20de%20la%20RSC%20en%20Pymes%20de%20la %20Regi%C3%B3n%20de%20Murcia%20(enero%202022).pdf (study with a sample of 128 Murcian companies) A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 56 of 111 Impact subcategory Social influence Indicators Value (Agrifood) Value (Plastic) Reference Year of data reference End-of-life responsibility POSITIVE Internal management systems 33% 50% No data available In some cases this indicator is not applicable. Health and Safety Consumer health and safety refers to the consumers’ rights to be protected against products and services that may be hazardous to health or life (ISO 26000, 2008). To assess this protection three indicators were defined: products informative labels (C1), number of consumer complains referring to the quality of the commercialised products/ services (C2) & Presence of a Quality and/or Product Safety Management System such as ISO 9001:2015, British Retail Consortium (BRC), Halal, International Food Standard (IFS), ISO 10377:2013, etc (C3). The data for the agrifood value chain shows that the 83% of the organisations afirmed to have informative labelling, where the main product features are explained. The rest of the organisations (17%) indicated that this measure did not apply to them. As for the consumer complaints, a total of 92 complaints have been declared. Moreover, 82% declared to have a Quality and/or Product Safety Management System. If we check the information provided by the plastic value chain organisations, 50% afirmed to have informative labelling, a total of 3 complaints were registered and the 50% of the organisations does have a Quality and/or Product Safety Management System. Feedback mechanism The right to be heard, regarding product and service complaints through communication mechanisms, should be included in management measures regarding consumer satisfaction (C4). 67% of the organisations reported having a mechanism for consumers to provide feedback and 17% stated that this questions was not applicable. On the plastic value chain side, none of the organisations reported to have any consumers feedback mechanism (Figure 11) Consumer privacy Consumer privacy concerns include protecting the confidentiality of consumer data, limiting personal information gathered, restricting use of data to its original or agreed-upon purpose, and protecting data from external theft and/or misuse [47]. This subcategory examines whether organisational management systems work to respect and protect consumer privacy. In cases where organisations share personal information, procedures should exist for individuals to dispute, remove, or correct inaccurate information (C5). No complaints related to breach of privacy or loss of data by consumers were reported in either value chains. Yes No Not Applicable Figure 11. Agrifood value chain: Consumers feedback mechanism A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 57 of 111 Transparency Organisations were asked to rate (using a Likert scale) their effort on communicating all issues regarding its products and social responsibility in a transparent way towards consumers (C6). Organisational transparency is important since it enables an informed choice for the consumer without intent to mislead. Being 1 equivalent to “Not very transparent communication” and 6 to “Very transparent communication”, the majority (50%) of the agrifood organisations rated their communication as “Very transparent”. The plastic organisations are more divided, rating the 50% their communication with a 5 and the other 50% with a 6 (Figure 12). End-of-life responsibility In this impact subcategory the defined was “Internal management systems” (C7). This indicator is intended to know if the organisations have internal management systems that ensure that clear information is provided to consumers on end-of-life options for products. In a product life cycle, end-of-life refers to product disposal, reuse, or recycling. In an environmental context, this concept is commonly referred to as extended producer responsibility. Product disposal can lead to significant environmental and social concerns. Regarding the agrifood value chain, 2 organisations have reported to have a management system of this kind, 3 have reported that this was not applicable to their type of business and 1 have not provided information. As for the plastic one, just one organisation has reported to have this type of system and for one this question was not applicable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 12 Agrifood value chain: Organisations communication transparency A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 64 of 111 10.3.5 Circular economy: awareness In this section employees were asked about their habits as consumers in order to analyse their attitudes and awareness towards circular economy. To the statement “I separate the household waste according to type”, the 51% of the respondents answered that they “fully agree”. The 33% “agree” and the 9% are “neutral”. The main reasons chosen by the respondents who answered “disagree” & “strongly disagree” for not separating the household waste are: - I don’t have space to separate it (30%) - The places where I can take it are far away (22%) - I give away the clothes and appliances (11%) - Others (11%) - There are no recycling bins or facilities in my area (8%) - Other responses (19%): It’s too complicated, I don’t have time, I don’t believe it has a relevant impact, I don’t have waste / I reuse it, I don’t know how or where to recycle it & it’s not my responsibility. In Figure 23 different employees’ attitudes are shown towards their behaviour when they are on holidays, regarding the use of green points and their recycling approaches. Regarding the first item, the 37% of the respondents strongly disagree with the idea of changing their behaviour when they are on holiday. Just 5% fully agree with the statement. Therefore, the majority of the respondents (53%) fully agreed with the use of green points for the disposal of appliances or electronic devices, cooking oil and other types of waste. Lastly, it is necessary to highlight that the 56% completely disagreed with the statement “I don’t usually recycle because I don’t know how to do it well”. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Fully agree Figure 22. Q16.1 I separate the household waste according to type (compost, plastic, paper, glass) A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 65 of 111 Figure 23 Q16.2, Q16.3, Q16.4 responses The employees’ attitudes towards second hand purchasing (Figure 24) were also analysed. Just 8%of the respondents fully agree with the behaviour of searching for the possibility of a second hand product before buying a new one and a 13% agreed. The 30% of the respondents were neutral towards the statement. Most frequently purchased second hand products are: - Books (23%) - Furniture (18%) - Consumer electronics (smartphone, tablet, smart band…) (15%) - Clothing (10%) - Household appliances (washing machine, dishwasher, refrigerator…) (8%) - Other responses (25%): Household electronics (TV, sound system, computer…), small appliances (iron, blender, toaster…), others, shoes & children’s clothing 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% I don’t usually recycle because I don’t know how to do it well I use green points in my area to dispose appliances or electronic devices that don’t work anymore, cooking oil and other types of waste When I’m on holiday, I don’t behave as sustainably as when I’m home Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Fully agree Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Fully agree Graph 1 Figure 24 Q16.5 Before buying a new product, I look for the possibility to buy it second hand A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 66 of 111 Apart from buying second hand products, the respondents were also asked whether they usually repair products in order to extend their life span (see Figure 25). The majority of the respondents do send their products to repair. The most frequently repaired products are: - Household appliances (washing machine, dishwasher, refrigerator…) (19%) - Household electronics (TV, sound system, computer…) (17%) - Furniture (14%) - Clothing (12%) - Small appliances (iron, blender, toaster…) (12%) - Other responses (26%): consumer electronics (smartphone, tablet, smart band…), shoes, children’s clothing & others In Figure 26 several respondents’ attitudes towards circular behaviours are gathered. In the first place, just 16% fully agree with the fact that the public administration restricts or forbids some mobility behaviours, the majority of the respondents are neutral to this statement (26%). Secondly, they were asked whether when choosing a means of transport, they tried to choose the less pollutant. The majority of the respondents are also neutral to this statement (47%). Lastly, employees were also asked if they don’t repair it and buy a new product when something stops working, to which most of the respondents disagreed (30%) or strongly disagreed (30%). Figure 26 Q16.7, Q16.10, Q16.11 responses Moreover, the attitude towards the waste of food was also asked. To the statement “Many times, my fruits and vegetables go old and I throw them away”, 7% of the respondents fully agreed, 16% agreed, 17% are neutral, 36% disagreed and 25% fully disagreed. In addition, the 35% of the respondents agree with the statement “I use more and more apps on my smartphone”. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% When something stops working, I don’t usually try to repair it; instead, I buy a new product to replace it When I choose a mean of transport, I try to choose the least pollutant I find it appropriate that the public administration restricts or forbids some mobility behaviours (e.g. the use of personally owned vehicles in the city centre) Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Fully agree Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Fully agree Figure 25 Q16.6 I usually send productss to repair in order to extend their life span A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 67 of 111 This statement may be related to the relative novelty of the circular economy concept: although it started to appear in several books in 1989, it was not until 2015 that this concept began to gain importance [68]. In this regard, respondents were also asked if they knew the definition of circular economy. The 76% of the respondents affirmed to know the concept and just the 28% did not know it. Beyond the level of awareness of citizens and their predisposition to buy recycled, remanufactured, repaired or reused products, it is very important to see the perception of quality they have of these products. As we can see in Figure 27, the perception of quality of remanufactured products is better than that of reused. In other words, those that have undergone a greater transformation with respect to the original product and, therefore, those that can offer more guarantees, are the best valued in terms of quality. Figure 27 Q18 Perception of quality according to type of product In Figure 28 are represented the most carried-out sustainable practices by the respondents. As we can see, the most performed actions are: switching off the lights at home when they are not being used, taking your own shopping bag when going to the grocery store & replacing light bulbs with LED lights. In “Other entries” the following activities are included: - I look for cosmetics and personal hygiene products that have not been tested on animals; - I look for perfumes with bottles that can be reused; - I buy sustainable clothing; - I look for cosmetics and personal hygiene products with biodegradable packaging; - I buy clothes from stores which give coupons for recycling used clothes. 17% 23% 35% 48% 82% 71% 63% 51% 2% 5% 2% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Recycled Remanufactured Repaired Reused Worse quality than a new product Same quality than a new product Better quality than a new product A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 68 of 111 Figure 28 Q19: Most carried-out sustainable actions by citizens Lastly, respondents were asked about the most relevant factor that would motivate them to shift to a more sustainable behaviour (see below Figure 29). Instead of messages that are sometimes considered diffuse, respondents demand other types of initiatives which motivate them to have more sustainable behaviours: - Economic incentives from the Public Administration for those companies offering products and services that are more sustainable in order to make easier accessing such products and services; - Economic incentives from companies or the Public Administration for those people who behave more sustainably; - More and more information about the choice of products and services that we can buy or use; In “Other responses”, the following aspects are included: - Fines on companies offering products and services that are less sustainable imposed by the Public Administration in order to make more difficult accessing such products and services; - Fines on people who behave less sustainably imposed by the Public Administration; - Increase of air pollution; - Other entries 22% 20% 18% 13% 9% 18% I switch off the lights at home when they are not being used I take my own bag when I go to the grocery store I replaced the lightbulbs with LED lights I buy local food products I look for food products with an easy recyclable packaging Other entries A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 69 of 111 Figure 29 Q20. Most relevant factors which would motivate citizens to shift to a more sustainable behaviour 19% 17% 14% 17% 9% 24% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Economic incentives from the Public Administration for those companies offering products and services that are more sustainable in order to make easier accessing such products and services Economic incentives from companies or the Public Administration for those people who behave more sustainably Information about the health risks of air pollution More and more information about the choice of products and services that we can buy or use Difficulties to access non-sustainable products and services (higher taxes, use restrictions) Other entries A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 70 of 111 10.4 Social analysis conclusions In this section the main conclusions of the previous sections are presented. In general, organisations from both value chains have a great social performance towards the “workers” stakeholder. If we review per impact subcategory, those employees who responded to the questionnaire are, on average, satisfied with the employment terms. Within employment terms, we have considered wages, working time & holidays. The majority in both cases reported to have accepted these conditions voluntarily. Moreover, no forced labour has been declared. If any of the organisations had declared the existence of forced labour, it would be punishable by law. As for the salary, in both value chains, the average of the average organisations wage is near or above the average regional one. Wages are undoubtedly one of the most important factors in ensuring the workers’ welfare. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that wages are closely linked to the economic cycle and depend, to a large extent, on the sector of activity being analysed. In the latest labour market report for the Murcia region [63], the good performance and positive growth prospects of the entire agri-food and beverage industry are particularly highlighted. This is due to the improvement in the eating habits of the population. As for the plastics-related industry, the forecasts are also positive regarding the maintenance of production. With this forecast, although the average wage is close to the average for the region, there is always room for improvement taking into consideration the good perspectives in the near future of both sectors. Linked with the workers’ welfare is the dedication to work of the employees. The percentage of workers fully satisfied with the flexibility for work-life balance, rest and overtime provided by the organisations is not very high. Although there are workers satisfied in the plastic value chain with the work flexibility, the number of neutral answers is very high, concretely 67%. This is a matter for improvement on the plastic value chain. Related to flexibility and hours dedicated to work is the employee’s type of contracts. Schedules for part-time roles tend to be more flexible, often with rotating shifts, whereas full-time positions have more consistent schedules. Full-time employees are typically also eligible for more benefits than part-time employees, being the full-time employment normally more beneficial for workers (even more taking into account the flexibility of the Spanish labour market). The percentage of full-time workers in both value chains are above the regional average. Probably, this is due to the nature of the organisations analysed, based on a more industrial/ services rather than the primary sector, which has always been a sector with a much higher rate of temporary employment due to the nature of the activity itself. Then, it is true that over the last fourteen years in the Region of Murcia, female employment has declined in comparison to male employment, as in 2007, 61,63% of contracts went to men and 38,37% to women. However, in 2021 both sexes are represented by 66,86 % and 33,14 % respectively. And on balance 2007-2021, the number of contracts for men grew by 38,28 % and for women by 10,10 % [44]. By this what is stated is that there is still a great gender gap in the region of Murcia labour market, which is reflected in the percentage of female recruitment in the analysed organisations in general terms. The ratio of women in the workforce in both value chains is very low compared with the women employment rate in the region. It is true that individually, there are some organisations with a good ratio of female employment, but as we are working with aggregated data by value chain, this point can be improved in both cases. On the other hand, and very positively assessed, the percentage of organisations with a GEP is significantly higher compared to the reference A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 71 of 111 data, especially, since only two of the organisations, considering both chains, are obliged to have it. Another component of workers' well-being is health and safety. Workers from both value chains who completed the survey have generally, considered safety measures to be adequate. Moreover, at the organisational level, 100% of the organisations have stated that they comply with the safety measures required by law. The combination of these two factors is probably the reason why the number of reported accidents is so low overall. However, it is necessary to add as a point for improvement that in both value chains there was a percentage of workers who responded that they were not aware of the organisations’ security measures. Prevention is very important, and workers must be properly informed. This point needs to be improved in both value chains. Freedom of association is also an important right to be considered. As shown in the results section, the percentage of workers affiliated to a trade union is in both cases very low. This is a normal trend in the Spanish labour market due, in part, to the change in the nature of work itself (from a permanent job for life to a temporary job). In this indicator, however, there is room for improvement in general. Concretely the number of CBAs, the invitation to workers/ trade unions to the planning tables and the access to neutral conflict resolution processes are points to enhance in both value chains. In this global world, the chosen value chain actors by organisations matters. In our case study, several categories related to these actors have been evaluated. To sum up, in general the number of CSR agreements can be enhanced, concretely in the plastic value chain should be further promoted, although the numbers reported in the agrifood value chain are not very high either. Having a CSR agreement can bring many intangible benefits to organisations and are a very good starting point for promoting sustainable practices. There is also much room for improvement in the audit of suppliers in both value chains. Furthermore, the existence of mechanisms for the definition of a fair price is evaluated very positively since an equal wealth distribution is obtained when a fair selling price for a product is established. As for the indicators related to society as stakeholder, the average percentage of entities with a sustainability agreement in both cases exceeds the national benchmark. In total, if we add together the organisations of the two value chains, 50% have an agreement of this type. Although it is true that the national standards are exceeded, there is always room for improvement, concretely in this case of organisations participating in the framework of a project such as A2C. As for the indicator of contribution to economic development, no benchmark data has been found for comparison. In future analyses, it would be interesting to delve deeper into this indicator, as the per capita rate of taxes paid can function as a very accurate proxy. If we talk about technological development, we have to take into account the framework in which the analysis takes place. According to the results of the surveys, it is true that in the agrifood chain the number of technology transfer programs in the organisations should be improved. In addition, it should be noted that, with regard to the ratio of investment in technological development, although the ratio for both value chains is higher than the reference figure, this corresponds to the year 2020. In 2020 the world economy was affected by COVID-19, therefore the data should be analysed taking the above into consideration. Despite the size, 67% of organisations in the agrifood chain and 50% of organisations in the plastics chain have developed an anti-corruption plan. This is very positive as corruption can not only harm the organisations themselves, but society as a whole. Finally, the big point for improvement in this category is the poverty alleviation A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 72 of 111 programs. It would be advisable for those entities with a CSR agreement to include activities related to this issue in their plan to carry out. The impact of the organisations’ activities in the local community matters. In this case, the funding dedicated to promote cultural heritage and the community education activities are taken into account by the value chain organisations. However, for the agrifood value chain the number of initiatives to promote community health could be improved. Taking into account the heterogeneity of the organisations the performance in general terms is not bad. The low rate of foreign workers in the workforce in both value chains is striking, especially if we take into account that Murcia is a region that receives a lot of foreign workers (in 2021 the rate of hiring foreigners was the highest in Spain [63]). This is probably the reason why organisational procedures for integrating migrant workers into the community are absent. As for the community engagement, in both value chains the stakeholder diversity has been rated as high and the number of meetings with community actors have been similar in both cases. If we analyse the resources dedicated to the community, the number of volunteer hours is very scarce in both cases; this might be improved. In the future, the category of locally recruited workers should be further analysed. Getting micro-level figures for comparison is very difficult as employment figures are usually at the city level. This means that there is no possibility of comparison. Local prosperity depends not only on the direct jobs created, but also on the choice of suppliers (local or international). In our case, the proportion of spending on local suppliers is very low in both value chains. Future studies will analyse the causes of this low ratio. The presence of consumers feedback mechanisms is very important as well as the presence of protection mechanisms. The results of this section can be improved in general in both value chains. In relation to information labelling, the percentage of organisations claiming to have it is not acceptable. However, the presence of consumer feedback mechanisms is a point for improvement in both value chains. Especially the plastic value chain needs to include consumer feedback mechanisms. On the positive side, transparency in communication towards the consumer was rated as high in both chains. The results obtained for the different dimensions of the NEP are according to a general orientation towards pro-ecological worldviews (New Ecological Paradigm), meaning that they do not believe that humans are superior to other all other species, that progress is an inherent part of human history, and that the Earth provides unlimited resources; thus, they are preferably characterized by a pro-NEP attitude and seem environmentally sensitive. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the scale with the lowest scores and highest standard deviation was “limits to growth", contrasting with the highest scores found in the scales “fragility of nature’s balance” and “possibility of an ecocrisis”. These results are aligned with other studies carried out in similar national and socioeconomic contexts (i.e [69], [70]); it must be considered that the higher scores are also related with sociocultural background of respondent, with higher education positively correlated with NEP scores [41], [71], [72]. Likewise, sociocultural background influences pro-environmental concepts attained by respondents [73]–[75], which could be a explanation for the perception of humans as being dominant over nature and consider nature to be powerful while at the same time recognising its limits and considering it as a fragile system that can be destroyed by humans, found in EU countries. This result can be explained as, on one hand, recognising the need to use nature for human purposes in situations where economic development needs resources and where it is therefore acceptable to abuse the environment in order to grow more quickly; while on the other hand, people are highly aware of the dangers caused by extensively abusing and polluting the environment. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 73 of 111 Besides, according to the study carried out by Harraway [76], the tendency to recycle (reduce and reuse) can be related to Item 6 (“The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them”); the tendency to conserve by Item 5 (Humans are severely abusing the environment) and Item 15 (“If things continue on their present course we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe”.); the tendency to support animal (and plant) rights by Item 7 (Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist) and Item 12 (Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature) and the tendency to be cautious about the future by Item 4 (Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unliveable) and Item 14 (Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. This approach of focusing on the implied behavioural intentions, or tendencies, of respondents builds upon the earlier work of Ajzen and Fishbein [77]) that emphasized that people do not need to make decisions about things, but do tend to consider how they will behave in relation to them; this may explain the inconsistencies between the results of the NEP, and those obtained by other environmental questionnaires, regarding specific behaviours and habits (recycling, sustainable mobility), as it has been already stated by different authors (i.e [78], [79]), suggesting the use of additional or alternative scales based on the “cost of behaviour” [72], [80]–[82]. Regarding the results of the workers awareness section, it is striking that the most valued options as a source of knowledge about what should and should not be recycled are media and internet and social networks, ahead of education and training. This might mean that further efforts must be made in education and training in order to improve the awareness and knowledge of how to correctly recycle. As for the most valued option to correctly separate has been “to reduce environmental pollution” followed by “for ethical choices and future generations”. In addition, the preferred role of the public administration in tackling the recycling problem has been to encourage citizens to separate the waste collected with payments/discounts on the bill and to provide sufficient infrastructure for recycling. On the other hand, fines have not been one of the most valued options; incentives are preferred to coercive attitudes. As for the circular economy employees’ awareness, the 76% declared to know the concept of CE, which is a high rate. In further studies it would be analysed if the concept is correctly understood. Moreover, as shown by the results, consumer awareness will be a product of clear and direct messages that motivate them to shift their behaviour. The most effective way for consumers to shift to more circular behaviours in their consumption habits is to feel economically incentivized, for example with discounts or other incentives to return the packaging or rewards for using products or services efficiently. Public administrations should foster the transition to more circular models through establishing a roadmap with concrete objectives which are ambitious and leverage the transformation of the model and engaging in a constant dialogue with companies to work along the same lines and to prevent regulation or deregulation from blocking or preventing the implementation of circular processes in companies. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 0.1 Page 80 of 111 Figure 31 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of fiber from lemon waste (EURO/kg) Figure 32 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (EURO/kg) Focusing on the conventional costs, Figure 33 and Figure 34 clearly show the % contribution of each type of cost to the total conventional costs (the thickness of the arrow is proportional to its impact). For the fibre, Personnel cost represents more than 50% of the total conventional costs, while maintenance costs bring an additional 31%. For the phenolic extract the contribution of personnel and maintenance is still highly significant, but lower, being, respectively, 36% and 21%. For the phenolic extract, the cost of the concentration and lyophilisation equipment is significant as well, being 19% of the total conventional cost. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 81 of 111 Figure 33 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of fiber from lemon waste (%) Figure 34 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (%) Personnel cost, as well as maintenance and equipment cost, are highly influenced by the demo testing small scale, which prevents the recycling process from achieving a high level A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 82 of 111 of efficiency. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted to assess how the total cost would change if a higher scale and higher efficiency were applied. According to CTNC expert judgment, the current equipment set could treat up to 7500 kg of lemon waste input, instead of the 1250 kg assessed in the default scenario. Moreover, the increased efficiency could bring scale economy to personnel cost, as well as maintenance and equipment cost. Personnel hours, according to CTNC expert judgment, could be cut by 50%, dropping from the default 120 hours 36 per 150 kg of lemon waste input, to 60 hours to treat the same amount. Table 19 reports the main assumption for the default and the alternative scenario assessed in the sensitivity analysis Table 19. Default and alternative scenarios main assumptions – fiber and phenolic extract from lemon waste Default scenario Default scenario Alternative scenario Fiber & Phenolic extract • 120 hours of personnel per 150 kg of lemon waste input • 1250 kg of lemon waste input yearly treated • 60 hours of personnel per 150 kg of lemon waste input • 7500 kg of lemon waste input yearly treated Figure 35 and Figure 36, and Table 20 and Table 21 show the results of the total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of fibre and 1 kg of phenolic extract. From the sensitivity analysis it is evident the considerable cost reduction for both co-products, as the fiber cost is reduced by 61% and the phenolic extract by 55%, thanks to a reduction in maintenance and equipment costs (-81%) and in personnel cost (-50%). Figure 35 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - fiber from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis 36 It was assumed that it takes about 5 days* 8 hours/day * 3 persons to treat 150 kg of lemon waste input. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 83 of 111 Table 20 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis Cost category Default scenario Alternative scenario Cost reduction (%) Energy cost - electricity 1,66 1,66 0% Energy cost - thermal energy 5,73 5,73 0% Equipment cost 34,34 5,72 -83% Maintenance cost 100,00 16,67 -83% Personnel cost 166,67 83,33 -50% Raw materials cost 0,03 0,03 0% Transport cost 9,51 9,51 0% Water cost 0,28 0,28 0% Total conventional cost 318,22 122,93 -61% Environmental costs 2,19 2,19 0% Total eLCC 320,41 125,13 -61% Figure 36 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - phenolic extract from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis Table 21. Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis Cost category Default scenario Alternative scenario Cost reduction (%) Energy cost - electricity 64,27 64,27 0% Energy cost - thermal energy 11,45 11,45 0% Equipment cost 235,59 39,27 -83% A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 84 of 111 Maintenance cost 200,00 33,33 -83% Personnel cost 333,33 166,67 -50% Raw materials cost 0,06 0,06 0% Transport cost 19,03 19,03 0% Waste management cost 60,00 60,00 Water cost 0,57 0,57 0% Total conventional cost 924,31 394,64 -57% Environmental costs 45,76 45,76 0% Total eLCC 320,41 125,13 -55% 11.1.7 Agri-food recycled products vs conventional products This section focuses on a possible comparison of the total eLCC assessment of the fibre and the phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste, against conventional (virgin) products that could be considered as alternative products already available. Since the function of both the fibre and the phenolic extract is not yet fully defined, given that these substances can be included in a wide range of different formulations, the identification of possible benchmark products is still uncertain. For the phenolic extract, which is rich in antioxidant compounds (polyphenols, flavonoids), currently there is no proper reference product, since there is no nutritional claim on polyphenols or antioxidant capacity. In the LCA, some benchmark products have been investigated, as reported in the next table. Unfortunately, the conventional cost was not available for the whole list of products. On the contrary, for quercetin, only the conventional cost was provided (Table 22). Table 22. Potential benchmark products for fiber and phenolic extract. Agri-food recycled product Benchmark product: More information: Scale: Source: Kg/CO2 emissions per kg of product37 Conventional cost (euro/kg) Fiber from lemon waste Inulin from root chicory Root chicory is defined as an herbaceous plant with a fleshy taproot, and it is the main source of inulin. It is used to enrich products with fibre. It is soluble fibre, and the purity is usually around 80-90% fibre. Industrial Hingsamer et al. [83] 1,41 4,9/7 Phenolic extract from lemon waste Antioxidantrich powder extract from beet wastes Ten different scenarios using beet root and leaf residues as inputs and five different extraction techniques. Used reference is pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) on beet leaves, for 1 g. Laboratory Arias et al.[84] 60 Not available Antioxidants from olive mill wastewater (OMW) Three polyphenolic compounds recovered with liquid-liquid solvent extraction (three Laboratory Kalogerakis et al. [85] 13300 Not available 37 Data from deliverable D7.6 “Environmental assessment, LCA and A2C circularity monitoring”, Essi Paronen (VTT), Eveliina Hylkilä (VTT), Katri Behm (VTT). A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 85 of 111 different solvents tested). Used reference is hydroxytyrosol extraction (0,247 kg from 1 m3 OMW) with ethyl acetate solvent. Starch aerogel tablets containing vitamin E Corn-based starch, aerogel preparation using supercritical carbon dioxide impregnation. Used reference the vitamin E (α-tocopherol, TOC) amount (15 mg) in a tablet (120 mg). Industrial De Marco et al. [86] 1687 Not available C-vitamin, ascorbic acid production Dataset name: “ascorbic acid production”, location RER. LCIA results, EF v3.0. Industrial ecoinvent 3.8 database 2,9093 9,8 Quercetin antioxidant flavonoid present in onions Industrial CTNC expert judgement Not available 28 For this comparison, the environmental costs considered both for the conventional and the A2C product, are limited to the CO2 equivalent emissions. Since for quercetin no LCA information was available, the comparison is purely based on the conventional cost. Table 23 and Table 24, as well as Figure 37 and Figure 38, show the results of the comparison. Table 23 A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – fiber from lemon waste Type of product Product Conventional LCC Environmental cost38 Total eLCC Recycled (A2C) Fiber (from lemon waste) – default scenario 318,22 0,46 318,67 Recycled (A2C) Fiber (from lemon waste) – optimized scenario 122,93 0,46 123,39 Conventional Inulin from root chicory39 7,44 0,08 7,52 38 Only environmental externalities associated to CO2 equivalent emissions have been included in the calculation. 39 Organic inulin price is currently 7-10€/kg. It is used to enrich products with fibre. It is soluble fibre, and the purity is usually around 80-90% fibre (expert judgement from CTNC). A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 86 of 111 Figure 37 A2C product vs conventional product – total eLCC – Fiber from lemon waste From the comparison, the cost of the fiber from lemon waste appears still significantly higher than the organic inulin. Table 24. A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – phenolic extract from lemon waste Type of product Product Conventional LCC Environmental cost40 Total eLCC Recycled (A2C) Phenolic extract (from lemon waste) – default scenario 924,31 9,09 933,40 Recycled (A2C) Phenolic extract (from lemon waste) – optimized scenario 394,64 9,09 403,74 Conventional C-vitamin, ascorbic acid production 9,8 0,16 9,96 Conventional Inulin from root chicory 28 n.a. n.a. n.a =not available 40 Only environmental externalities associated to CO2 equivalent emissions have been included in the calculation. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 87 of 111 Figure 38 A2C product vs conventional product – total eLCC – Phenolic extract With reference to the phenolic extract, the analysis shows that the total eLCC of the phenolic extract is still significantly high in comparison to the conventional product, such as ascorbic acid and quercetin (only conventional cost assessed). However, the uncertainty associated to the function of the phenolic extract, due to a wide range of possible final application, is very high and it affects the overall comparison 11.2 Results and conclusions. Plastic chain As it was performed in the LCA (see Deliverable D7.6) an eLCC assessment has been conducted on the plastic chain case study, which is focused on upcycle plastic residues from the food sector to high added value products. The demo consists of recycling agricultural mulch film waste and waste from aseptic bags produced by the food industry, into new plastic pellet, which can substitute conventional LDPE virgin pellet, currently available on the market. The eLCC model has been created on top of the LCA model, in order to assess the conventional and environmental externality costs related to the same input and output included in the LCA model 41 . The comparison encompasses two types of pellets: a. Pellet blend which is 1/3 by weight made of the recycled LDPE and virgin calcium carbonate manufactured in the A2C project (hereafter referred to as A2C pellet) and 2/3 virgin LDPE pellet b. 100 % virgin LDPE pellet (conventional product) The following cost categories have been included in the demo: 1. physical input and output conventional costs (raw materials, energy, water, transport, waste management) 2. equipment costs 41 For a more detailed description of the LCA model, please consult Deliverable D7.6. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 88 of 111 3. installation costs 4. labour costs 5. maintenance costs The following sections report the life cycle inventories (LCI) of all single processes included in this demo case. 11.2.1 Physical input and output conventional costs As previously reported, the same input/out table used for the LCA has been integrated with the relevant costs, which cover the physical input, such as raw materials, water, energy and transport, as well as the physical output, such as soil and plastic sawdust which are treated as waste. The conventional costs related to each LCA input and output are described in Table 25 Table 25. Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the plastic chain demo case eLCC Input Amount Unit Conventional Cost (EURO) Comment agricultural mulch film waste 0,6282 kg 0,06 calcium carbonate 0,01 kg 0,001 polyelectrolyte chemical for water treatment 1,79E-04 kg 0,001 calcium oxide 2,23E-03 kg 0,0005 water 0,1208 kg 0,0004 electricity 0,3635 kWh 0,058 electricity from solar panel 0,03366 kWh 0 diesel 6,43E-04 kg 0,0008 Transport (agricultural mulch film waste) 0,6282 x 60 kgkm 0,00817 Transport (calcium carbonate) 0,01 x 120 kgkm 0,00026 Transport (polyelectrolyte) 1,79E-04 x 150 kgkm 0,00001 Transport (calcium oxide) 2,23E-03 x 150 kgkm 0,00007 Transport (diesel) 6,43E-04 x 50 kgkm 0,00001 Output Amount Unit Conventional Cost (EURO) Comment soil 0,22 kg 0,002 Waste management cost plastic sawdust 0,08 kg 0,0046 Wastewater treatment cost Transport (soil) 0,22 x 40 kgkm 0,00191 Transport (plastic sawdust) 0,08 x 94 kgkm 0,00163 carbon dioxide to air 2,04E-03 kg - No conventional costs attached (only environmental externalities) A2C pellet 0,3333 kg - Recycling process output A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 89 of 111 Since the final product is a pellet which is a mix of 1/3 of A2C recycled plastic pellet and 2/3 of virgin LDPE pellet, an additional cost of 1,5 euro per kg will be attached to the virgin LDPE pellet. 11.2.2 Equipment and installation costs In order to process the input waste stream, 2 types of equipment are needed: a washing plant and an extruder, which are fully dedicated to the recycling process. Equipment costs include the installation costs as well as the yearly amortization cost which has been calculated considering a yearly production based on 12.000 t of input waste and 10 years life span (Table 26). Table 26. Equipment life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the plastic film demo case eLCC Input Conventional Cost for the whole production/recycling process (Amortization cost per year42) (EURO) Washing plant 40500 Extruder 28700 11.2.3 Labour costs According to expert judgement from GWC plastics, to get 1 t of recycled pellet (for cleaning/decontamination and recycling, i.e. the whole process), it takes about 1,5 hours, with an hourly cost of 86,63 €/h. 11.2.4 Maintenance costs Total yearly maintenance costs, for the equipment reported in the use in the process, sums up to 131.508 € per year, with a yearly production based on 12.000 t of input waste. . 11.2.5 Waste management costs The agricultural film waste recycling process produces soil, as solid waste, and plastic sawdust, that needs to be treated as wastewater. Waste management cost therefore includes the cost of the treatment of both waste streams, as already reported in Table 25. 11.2.6 Plastic chain: total eLCC The current paragraph reports the results of the whole recycling process and its product, the 33% recycled pellet, including the associated environmental costs, deriving from the application of the Delft University of Technology (see section 9.3.1) to the LCA results, with the details per cost category and per life cycle phase. Table 27 and Figure 39 show the results of the eLCC assessment of the production of 1 kg of 33% recycled plastic pellet from recycled agricultural mulch film waste; these demonstrate 42 Amortization has been calculated over 10 years of use of each equipment. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 96 of 111 13 References [1] G. Finnveden et al., ‘Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 1–21, Oct. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018. [2] United Nations, ‘The Future We Want - Outcome document’. 2012. Accessed: Feb. 02, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html [3] D. W. Pearce and R. K. Turner, Economics of natural resources and the environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. [4] C. Peña et al., ‘Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 215–220, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11367-020-01856z. [5] B. Ness, E. Urbel-Piirsalu, S. Anderberg, and L. Olsson, ‘Categorising tools for sustainability assessment’, Ecological Economics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 498–508, Jan. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023. [6] S. Valdivia, C. M. L. Ugaya, J. Hildenbrand, M. Traverso, B. Mazijn, and G. Sonnemann, ‘A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1673–1685, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0529-1. [7] United Nations Environment Programme, Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP, 2009. Accessed: Feb. 02, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/7912 [8] D. Hunkeler and G. Rebitzer, ‘The Future of Life Cycle Assessment’, Int J Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 305–308, Sep. 2005, doi: 10.1065/lca2005.09.001. [9] M. Pagotto, A. Halog, D. F. A. Costa, and T. Lu, ‘A Sustainability Assessment Framework for the Australian Food Industry: Integrating Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Circular Economy’, in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), S. S. Muthu, Ed. Singapore: Springer, 2021, pp. 15–42. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4562-4_2. [10] ISO, ‘Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines’, ISO 14044:2006, Aug. 12, 2014 Accessed: Feb. 02, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html [11] I. V. Muralikrishna and V. Manickam, ‘Chapter Five - Life Cycle Assessment’, in Environmental Management, I. V. Muralikrishna and V. Manickam, Eds. ButterworthHeinemann, 2017, pp. 57–75. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811989-1.00005-1. [12] A. Bjørn and M. Z. Hauschild, ‘Cradle to Cradle and LCA’, in Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice, M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, and S. I. Olsen, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 605–631. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-564753_25. [13] European Comission, ‘Recommendation on the use of Environmental Footprint methods’, 2021. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/recommendation-useenvironmental-footprint-methods_en (accessed Feb. 02, 2023). [14] G. Faraca, V. Martinez-Sanchez, and T. F. Astrup, ‘Environmental life cycle cost assessment: Recycling of hard plastic waste collected at Danish recycling centres’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 143, pp. 299–309, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.014. [15] F. De Menna, J. Dietershagen, M. Loubiere, and M. Vittuari, ‘Life cycle costing of food waste: A review of methodological approaches’, Waste Management, vol. 73, pp. 1–13, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.032. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 97 of 111 [16] ISO, ‘Guidelines for performance evaluation of treatment technologies for water reuse systems — Part 8: Evaluation of treatment systems based on life cycle cost’, ISO 204688:2022, 2022 Accessed: Feb. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/77418.html [17] ISO, ‘Buildings and constructed assets — Service-life planning — Part 5: Life-cycle costing’, ISO 15686-5:2017, 2017 Accessed: Feb. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/61148.html [18] ISO, ‘ISO 15663-1:2000(en), Petroleum and natural gas industries — Life cycle costing — Part 1: Methodology’, 2000 Accessed: Feb. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15663:-1:ed-1:v1:en [19] D. Dragos and B. Neamtu, ‘Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in the New EU Directive Proposal’, European Public Procurement and Public Private Partnerships Law Review, Jan. 2013. [20] H. Estevan and B. Schaefer, ‘Life Cycle Costing State of the art report’. ICLEI, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://sppregions.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Life_Cycle_Costing_SoA_Report.pdf [21] 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, May 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.002. [22] A. Peña and M. R. Rovira-Val, ‘A longitudinal literature review of life cycle costing applied to urban agriculture’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1418–1435, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11367-020-01768-y. [23] J. J. Czarnezki and S. Van Garsse, ‘What is Life-Cycle Costing?’ Rochester, NY, Oct. 01, 2019. Accessed: Feb. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3789958 [24] M. Degieter, X. Gellynck, S. Goyal, D. Ott, and H. De Steur, ‘Life cycle cost analysis of agri-food products: A systematic review’, Sci. Total Environ., vol. 850, p. 158012, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158012. [25] 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, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033. [26] 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, Art. no. 18, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su131810286. [27] S. Sala, A. Vasta, L. Mancini, J. Dewulf, and E. Rosenbaum, ‘Social Life Cycle Assessment - State of the art and challenges for supporting product policies’. 2015. [Online]. Available: doi:10.2788/253715 [28] A. Jørgensen, A. Le Bocq, L. Nazarkina, and M. Hauschild, ‘Methodologies for social life cycle assessment’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 96–103, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1065/lca2007.11.367. [29] R. Griesshammer et al., ‘Feasibility Study: Integration of Social Aspects into LCA’; UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/512499/file/633083 [30] L. Petti, M. Serreli, and S. Di Cesare, ‘Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 422–431, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4. [31] C. Benoît Norris et al., ‘Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations 2020’, United Nations Environment Programme, 2020. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 98 of 111 [32] United Nations Environment Programme, ‘Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA)’. 2021. Accessed: Feb. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/12/Methodological-Sheets_2021_final.pdf [33] 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, Art. no. 16, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12166671. [34] S. McCord, K. Armstrong, and P. Styring, ‘Developing a triple helix approach for CO 2 utilisation assessment’, Faraday Discussions, vol. 230, no. 0, pp. 247–270, 2021, doi: 10.1039/D1FD00002K. [35] P. Rafiaani et al., ‘Identifying Social Indicators for Sustainability Assessment of CCU Technologies: A Modified Multi-criteria Decision Making’, Soc Indic Res, vol. 147, no. 1, pp. 15–44, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11205-019-02154-4. [36] A. Bianchini, J. Rossi, and M. Pellegrini, ‘Overcoming the Main Barriers of Circular Economy Implementation through a New Visualization Tool for Circular Business Models’, Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 23, Art. no. 23, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11236614. [37] Fernando García-Muiña, María Sonia Medina-Salgado, Rocío González-Sánchez, Irene Huertas-Valdivia, Anna Maria Ferrari, and Davide Settembre-Blundo, ‘Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA) and Organisation 4.0: An easy-toimplement method’, MethodsX, vol. 101692, no. 9, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101692 [38] Catherine Saget, Tahmina Karimova, Trang Luu, Nicolas Maitre, and Sévane Ananian, ‘Greening Enterprises: Transforming processes and workplaces’, International Labour Organisation, Report, Nov. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_861384/lang--en/index.htm [39] M. Traverso, M. N. Mankaa, L. Roche, A. Luthin, S. R. Garrido, and S. Neugebauer, Eds., Pilot Projects on Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations. UNEP: Life Cycle Initiative, 2022. Accessed: Mar. 20, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Pilot-projectson-UNEP-SLCA-Guidelines-12.5.pdf [40] M. D’Eusanio, A. Lehmann, A. Zamagni, M. Finkbeiner, and L. Petti, ‘How experiences and existing data of companies can be used to define the Goal and Scope in a Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA)’, in Social LCA People and Places for Partnership, Pescara (Italy), 2018, pp. 208–214. [41] Riley E. Dunlap, Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet Jones, ‘Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale’, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 425–442, Jan. 2000. [42] UpPET Consortium, ‘UpPET Consumer survey’. https://uppet.eu/european-citizensawareness/community-engagement [43] Víctor Moyano and Sergi Paniagua, ‘Citizens and the circular economy. Current situation and prospects for the future’, creafutur, Jul. 2018. [44] A. Padilla-Rivera, B. B. T. do Carmo, G. Arcese, and N. Merveille, ‘Social circular economy indicators: Selection through fuzzy delphi method’, Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 26, pp. 101–110, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.015. [45] A. Bianchini, P. Guarnieri, and J. Rossi, ‘A Framework to Assess Social Indicators in a Circular Economy Perspective’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 13, Art. no. 13, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14137970. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 99 of 111 [46] A. Padilla-Rivera, S. Russo-Garrido, and N. Merveille, ‘Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review’, Sustainability, vol. 12, p. 7912, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12197912. [47] Traverso, M. et al., ‘Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) 2021 - Life Cycle Initiative’, UNEP, 2021. Accessed: Feb. 01, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/methodological-sheets-forsubcategories-in-social-life-cycle-assessment-s-lca-2021/ [48] B. Weidema, M. Goedkoop, E. Meijer, and R. Harmens, ‘LCA-based assessment of the Sustainable Development Goals’. 2020. Accessed: Mar. 20, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://lca-net.com/files/Report-SDGs-Aug-2020.pdf [49] C. Xiao, R. E. Dunlap, and D. Hong, ‘Ecological Worldview as the Central Component of Environmental Concern: Clarifying the Role of the NEP’, Society & Natural Resources, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 53–72, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1501529. [50] American Society for Testing and Materials, ‘Standard Practice for Measuring LifeCycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems’, ASTM E917-05 Accessed: Mar. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/astm/astme91705 [51] A. Ciroth et al., ‘Life Cycle Initiative. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Making informed choices on products.’ 2011. [Online]. Available: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8001/UNEP_LifecycleInit_Dec _FINAL.pdf?sequence=3&%3BisAllowed= [52] Davis Langdon Management, ‘Life cycle costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable construction: a common methodology. Final Report’, European Commission, 2007. [53] L. I. Schultz and S. F. Weber, ‘Guide to computing and reporting the life-cycle cost of environmental management projects’. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C1392fc4d76815457fe8926443a2b9d1a71/pdf/GOVPUB-C1392fc4d76815457fe8926443a2b9d1a71.pdf [54] D. Hunkeler, K. Lichtenvort, and G. Rebitzer, Environmental Life Cycle Costing, 1st edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2008. Accessed: Feb. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420054736 [55] T. Swarr et al., ‘Environmental Life-Cycle Costing: A Code of Practice’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 16, pp. 389–391, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0287-5. [56] D. Langdon, ‘Towards a Common European Methodology for Life Cycle Costing (LCC)—Literature Review’, Davis Langdon Management Consulting, London, UK, 2007. [57] 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, doi: 10.1002/cben.201300007. [58] ISO, ‘Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework’, ISO 14040:2006, Aug. 12, 2014 Accessed: Mar. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html [59] ISO, ‘Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Part 1: General principles and framework’, ISO 15686-1:2011, 2011 Accessed: Mar. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/45798.html [60] J. D. Kneifel and P. Lavappa, ‘BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability)’. NIST, May 19, 2009. Accessed: Mar. 27, 2023. [Firefox or Internet A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 100 of 111 Explorer 7.0 are recommended browsers.]. Available: https://www.nist.gov/servicesresources/software/bees [61] American Society for Testing and Materials, ‘Standard Practice for Measuring LifeCycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems’, ASTM E917-02, 2002 Accessed: Mar. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/astm/astme91702 [62] S. de Bruyn et al., ‘Handboek Milieuprijzen 2017: Methodische onderbouwing van kengetallen gebruikt voor waardering van emissies en milieu-impacts’. CE Delft, 2017. Accessed: Mar. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ce.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/CE_Delft_7A76_Handboek_Milieuprijzen_2017_DEF.pdf [63] ‘Informe del Mercado de Trabajo de Murcia. Datos 2021’, Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Gobierno de España., Catálogo general de publicaciones oficiales, May 2022. [64] Kirill Maister, Claudia Di Noi, Andreas Ciroth, and Michael Srocka, ‘PSILCA v.3 Database documentation’. Jun. 2020. [65] F. García-Muiña, M. S. Medina-Salgado, R. González-Sánchez, I. Huertas-Valdivia, A. M. Ferrari, and D. Settembre-Blundo, ‘Industry 4.0-based dynamic Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment to target the social circular economy in manufacturing’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 327, p. 129439, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129439. [66] Social Life Cycle Assessment for better-informed decision-making at policy and business levels, (Jul. 10, 2021). Accessed: Dec. 21, 2022. [Online Video]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQqWJqNMHGc [67] M. Anderson, ‘The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale’, The Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability: Indicators and Research Methods for Sustainability. 2012. Accessed: Sep. 03, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://umaine.edu/soe/wpcontent/uploads/sites/199/2013/01/NewEcologicalParadigmNEPScale1.pdf [68] E. Cerdá and A. Khalilova, ‘ECONOMÍA CIRCULAR’. [69] Juan-Pablo González, Salvador Femenia, Laura Martin, and Barbara Branchini, ‘Baseline of Valencia demonstration’, MatchUP project, Valencia, Project Deliverable D2.3, 2020. [70] S. Ntanos, G. Kyriakopoulos, M. Skordoulis, M. Chalikias, and G. Arabatzis, ‘An application of the new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale in a Greek context’, Energies, vol. 12, no. 2, 2019, doi: 10.3390/en12020239. [71] L. J. Hawcroft and T. L. Milfont, ‘The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 143–158, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003. [72] Ö. H. Aral and J. López-Sintas, ‘Environmental behavior patterns across clusters of European Union countries: Uncovering heterogeneity in the attitude-behavior-context relationship’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 388, p. 135936, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135936. [73] R. E. Dunlap, ‘The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use’, The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2008, doi: 10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18. [74] C. Y. Johnson, J. M. Bowker, and H. K. Cordell, ‘Ethnic Variation in Environmental Belief and Behavior: An Examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in a Social Psychological Context’, Environment and Behavior, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 157–186, Mar. 2004, doi: 10.1177/0013916503251478. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 101 of 111 [75] W. Dyr and M. Prusik, ‘Measurement of proecological attitudes within new ecological paradigm in Polish current settings’, Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 15, no. 3, p. e3697, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.32872/spb.3697. [76] J. Harraway, F. Broughton-Ansin, L. Deaker, T. Jowett, and K. Shephard, ‘Exploring the Use of the Revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) to Monitor the Development of Students’ Ecological Worldviews’, The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 177–191, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1080/00958964.2011.634450. [77] I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein, Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, 1980. [78] S. M. Cruz and B. Manata, ‘Measurement of Environmental Concern: A Review and Analysis’, Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00363. [79] L. A. Derdowski, Å. H. Grahn, H. Hansen, and H. Skeiseid, ‘The New Ecological Paradigm, Pro-Environmental Behaviour, and the Moderating Effects of Locus of Control and Self-Construal’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 18, Art. no. 18, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12187728. [80] R. Caruana, M. J. Carrington, and A. Chatzidakis, ‘“Beyond the Attitude-Behaviour Gap: Novel Perspectives in Consumer Ethics”: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium’, J Bus Ethics, vol. 136, no. 2, pp. 215–218, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10551014-2444-9. [81] K. Borg, J. Curtis, and J. Lindsay, ‘Social norms and plastic avoidance: Testing the theory of normative social behaviour on an environmental behaviour’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 594–607, 2020, doi: 10.1002/cb.1842. [82] M. Delley and T. A. Brunner, ‘Foodwaste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the population and suggestions for preventive measures’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 122, pp. 172–184, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.008. [83] M. Hingsamer, V. Kulmer, M. de Roode, and M. Kernitzkyi, ‘Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of new plant breeding technologies: A case study of root chicory for inulin production’, Frontiers in Genome Editing, vol. 4, 2022, Accessed: Mar. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2022.919392 [84] A. Arias, G. Feijoo, and M. T. Moreira, ‘Exploring the potential of antioxidants from fruits and vegetables and strategies for their recovery’, Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, vol. 77, p. 102974, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2022.102974. [85] N. Kalogerakis, M. Politi, S. Foteinis, E. Chatzisymeon, and D. Mantzavinos, ‘Recovery of antioxidants from olive mill wastewaters: A viable solution that promotes their overall sustainable management’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 128, pp. 749–758, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.027. [86] I. De Marco, S. Riemma, and R. Iannone, ‘Life cycle assessment of supercritical impregnation: Starch aerogel + α-tocopherol tablets’, The Journal of Supercritical Fluids, vol. 143, pp. 305–312, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.supflu.2018.09.003. A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 102 of 111 14 ANNEXES 14.1 Social Indicators Battery STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY: WORKERS Impact subcategory (I1): Forced labour Employment terms (WQ1) Definition Indicator to assess if the worker has agreed voluntarily the employment terms Calculation formula NA Unit {0,1} Data source Questionnaire Level Organisation-worker Source Methodological sheets Forced Labour (W1) Definition Forced or compulsory labour is any work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty, and for which that person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily. Providing wages or other compensation to a worker does not necessarily indicate that the labour is not forced or compulsory. By right, labour should be offered voluntarily, and workers should be free to leave the employment at any time in accordance with established rules. Calculation formula Nº of forced labour workers / total workforce Unit % Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source Article: Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA) and Organisation 4.0: An easy-to-implement method Impact subcategory (I2): Fair salary Living wage per month (W2) Definition Living Wage per month is defined as the income needed for a decent living, i. e. the monthly wage needed to cover the necessary living costs of an individual or family. Calculation formula NA Unit € Data source INE Level Regional Source PSILCA V3 Modified Minimum wage, per month (W3) Definition Is the lowest gross wage a full-time worker can be remunerated in a specific country, defined by national law and legally binding Calculation formula NA Unit € Data source INE Level Regional Source PSILCA V3 Modified Organisation average wage, per month (W4) A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 103 of 111 Definition Organisation average wage provides information about the mean monthly salaries to assess if the salary is enough to afford a decent standard of living. The indicator is given as the mean of monthly earnings of all employees in the organisation in nominal terms. Calculation formula NA Unit € Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source PSILCA V3 Modified (D.7.5) Impact subcategory (I3): Working hours Flexibility (WQ2) Definition Employee’s self-perceived quantification of the extent to which the company provides adequate flexibility for work-life balance, rest and overtime. The indicator provides a synthetic, albeit mainly subjective, measure of different dimensions involved in worklife balance Calculation formula NA Unit Likert scale (1 to 6) Data source Questionnaire Level Organisation Source D.7.5 Full-time staff (W5) Definition Indicator to see the ratio of full-time permanent staff Calculation formula Full-time permanent staff / total workforce Unit % Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source Article: Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA) and Organisation 4.0: An easy-to-implement method Impact subcategory (I4): Equal opportunities/ discrimination Gender equality (W6) Definition This indicator is intended to measure the percentage of women in the total workforce Calculation formula Nº of women / total workforce Unit % Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source Article: Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA) and Organisation 4.0: An easy-to-implement method Equal opportunities policies (W7) Definition This indicator is intended to note the presence of policies aimed at promoting equal opportunities between men and women, such as for example a Gender Equality Plan Calculation formula NA Unit {0,1} Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source Methodological sheets UNEP A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 104 of 111 Impact subcategory (I5): Health and Safety Occupational safety measures (WQ3) Definition Indicator to assess whether the worker perceives occupational health measures as adequate. Calculation formula NA Unit {0,1,2} Data source Questionnaire Level Organisation - worker Source Methodological sheets UNEP Lost time injury frequency rate (W8) Definition Lost time injury frequency rate, the number of lost time injuries occurring in a workplace per 1 million hours worked. Calculation formula Nº of injuries x10^6 / hours worked Unit [0, +∞] Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source Article: Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA) and Organisation 4.0: An easy-to-implement method Presence of sufficient safety measures (W9) Definition Occupational health and safety depend on the one hand, on the hazards and risks that workers are directly exposed to in their working environment. On the other hand, these occupational health risks can be limited by appropriate measures taken by the employer. This is assessed by the indicator “Presence of sufficient safety measures”. Calculation formula NA Unit [0,1] Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source PSILCA V3 Modified Impact subcategory (I6): Social benefits, legal issues Evidence of violations of laws and employment regulations (W10.1-W10.2) Definition Number of sanctions imposed for non-compliance with current regulations Calculation formula NA Unit {0,1} {0, +∞} Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source PSILCA V3 Modified Impact subcategory (I7): Workers’ rights (Freedom of association and collective bargaining) Trade unions density (WQ4) Definition This indicator serves to assess how liberal and vivid trade union culture is, and, in the end, to what degree the right to organize freely is assured in different sectors Calculation formula The trade union density rate is the share of employees who are union members, expressed as a percentage. Trade union membership excludes union members who are not in paid employment (self-employed, unemployed, retired, etc.). Number of persons members of a trade union / total workforce Unit % Data source Questionnaire A2C – Deliverable D7.8 1.0 Page 105 of 111 Level Organisation Source PSILCA V3 Modified Collective Bargaining Agreement (W11.1, W11.2, W11.3, W11.4) Definition All workers and employers have the right to establish and to join organisations of their choice, without prior authorization, to promote and defend their respective interests, and to negotiate collectively with other parties. They should be able to do this freely, without interference by other parties or the state, and should not be discriminated against because of union membership. Calculation formula NA Unit {0,1} Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source Article: Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA) and Organisation 4.0: An easy-to-implement method Methodological Sheets 2021 (UNEP) Impact subcategory (I8): Sexual harassment Sexual harassment incidents reported (W12) Definition This indicator verifies whether the company register the number of sexual harassments incidents. Calculation formula NA Unit {1,2} {0, +∞} Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source Methodological Sheets 2021 (UNEP) STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY: VALUE CHAIN ACTORS Impact subcategory (I1): Fair competition Sanctions for anti-competitive behaviour (VC1.1VC1.2) Definition Presence of documented statement or procedures to prevent engaging in or being complicit in anti-competitive behaviour → not applicable → number of sanctions for anti-competitive behaviour Calculation formula NA Unit {0,1} Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source D.7.5 modified Impact subcategory (I2): Promoting social responsibility Promotion of Corporate Social Responsibility (VC2) Definition Accreditation of Corporate social responsibility compliance Calculation formula NA Unit {0,1} Data source Consultation with industrial partners Level Organisation Source D.7.5 modified Suppliers audit (VC3)