Social Impact Assessment

1 Grant Agreement number: 101058371 Project acronym: ESTELLA Project title: Design of bio-based thermoset polymer with recycling capability by dynamic bonds for bio-composite manufacturing DELIVERABLE 6.3 Social Impact Assessment Contractual Date of Delivery: 30.11.2025 Actual Date of Delivery: 30..11.2025 Lead contractor for this deliverable: Fraunhofer ISI Author(s): H. Welck Participants(s): WP contributing to the deliverable: WP 5 Nature: R Version V. 1 Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 2 REVISION TABLE Document version Date Modified sections - Details V1 07.08.2025 First draft V2 15.09.2025 SI matrix and Risk benefit analysis V3 30.09.2025 Input from Fraunhofer experts on SIA Matrix V3 17.10.2025 Input from Project partners on relevance of indicators V4 04.11.2025 Version send to Cood V5 14.11.2025 Revised Version to Cood V6 17.11.2025 Revised Version by Cood Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 3 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... 3 ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 6 1 GOALS OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................................... 9 2 DEFINITORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................. 12 2.1 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL IMPACT ........................................................................... 12 2.2 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL IMPACT INDICATORS ......................................................... 13 3 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 17 3.1 LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF A SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................ 17 3.2 METHODOLOGIES FOR SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................. 17 3.2.1 SEIA .............................................................................................................. 17 3.2.2 SIA ................................................................................................................ 19 3.2.3 S-LCA ........................................................................................................... 19 3.2.4 Challenges in performing S-LCA .............................................................. 21 4 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF A BIOECONOMY ......................... 26 4.1.1 State of the art in research ........................................................................ 26 4.1.2 Social impact assessment of (biobased)products and systems .......... 29 4.2 METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING S-LCA IN THE BIOECONOMY SECTOR 34 4.2.1 General methodological approach ........................................................ 34 4.2.2 Applied S-LCA Matrix ................................................................................. 38 5 S-LCA METHODOLOGY APPLIED TO ESTELLA .................................................................. 43 6 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ............................................................................................ 63 7 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 68 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 70 Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 4 Abbreviations BLISS: Blended Lifecycle Integrated Social System Framework BM: Business Model BPA: Bisphenol A CAN: Covalent Adaptable Network C2C: Cradle to Cradle CFRC: Carbon fiber-reinforced composite DBA: Dibutylamine DCM: Dichloromethane EC: European Commission E-LCA: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment GWP: Global Warming Potential SEIA: Socio Economic Impact Assessment LCA: Life-Cycle Assessment OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PP: Polypropylene PRP: Performance reference point PSILCA: Product social impact life cycle assessment RTM: Resin Transfer Moulding scCO2: Supercritical CO2 SIA: Social Impact Assessment S-LCA: Social Life Cycle Assessment sLCIA: Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment SVOCs: Semi-volatile organic chemicals SSbD: Safe and Sustainable by Design TEA: Techno-Economic Assessment TRL: Technology Readiness Level VOCs: Volatile organic chemicals WP: Work Packages Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 5 Zn(acac)₂: Zinc Acetylacetonate Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 6 Executive Summary This deliverable is about an ex-ante Social Lifecycle Assessment (S-LCA) of an epoxy resin reinforced by hemp fibres (referred to as ESTELLA epoxy resin in this document) in comparison to a 100% fossil epoxy resin as carbon fiber-reinforced composite (CFRC) in the frame of the EU funded research project ESTELLA. Social Impact Assessment for (Bioeconomy) products faces challenges as it is mostly linked to (techno)economic aspects. In addition, there exists no universally accepted definition of social impact and social impact assessment of the biobased economy yet. Moreover, ESTELLA focuses on early-stage technology developments, but according to our literature research there are no studies known which have developed a specific and easily adaptable ex-ante S-LCA methodology to assess the socio-economic impacts of new and emerging technologies over the full product life cycle yet. Therefore, Social Impact Assessment, especially for early-stage technology developments, remains a challenge. In order to cope with this challenge, ESTELLA applied a concise assessment methodology based on Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Decision-Making; Life Cycle Initiative) and on the participatory approach in S-LCA mentioned by (Mathe (2014)) for performing an ex-ante and cradle-to-gate S-LCA. By doing so, we integrated research results linked to WP 2-6 and literature review results (for input on E-LCA) as well as stakeholder views. But still, our ex-ante S-LCA of the ESTELLA epoxy resin is facing certain limitations: ➢ Lack of quantitative data especially from E-LCA and e.g. uncertainty about toxic effects due to early-stage technology development, ➢ Variety of techno-economic assumptions, especially due to upscaling and recycling uncertainties on larger scale, ➢ Variety of interrelations of impact categories and uncertainty in terms of trade-offs, which account especially for a) environmental effects as they depend on the kind of biomass and amount of biobased material and processing technology used and b) land use as this depends on the biomass quantity and kind of land under cultivation, Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 7 ➢ Limited engagement of stakeholder groups esp. from value chain actors (industry) and consumers due to early-stage technology development. Nevertheless, this analysis can serve as approximation for potential future social impacts of the ESTELLA epoxy resin. In this respect, our results highlight three potential social hotspots, out of them one potential social risk by the usage of BPA as precursor in the ESTELLA resin and two potential social benefits in view of recycling and upscaling potential. Thus, future research focus should be laid on the improvement of upscaling and recycling processes as both are not yet efficient and sustainable enough. In this regard, social benefits of the ESTELLA epoxy resin can be achieved, especially if: ➢ A higher recycling rate of the ESTELLA epoxy resin (preferably from recycled or biobased content from local biowaste sources) will be realized with impact on: i. Lowering the CO2eq-emissions increased carbon uptake; ii. Lowering landfilling or incineration of toxic waste; ➢ A further upscale will be realized using standard industrial processes (e.g. state-of-the-art RTM technology) with impact on: i. Market uptake and spill-over effects; ii. Cost reduction by economies of scale. Thus, in order to reach wider social acceptance, further research is necessary: ➢ Develop a 100% biobased epoxy resin from preferably non-food biomass; ➢ Reduce toxic effects on human health by substitution of BPA by biobased materials e.g. epoxidized vegetable oils and of succinic acid/anhydride and SVOC/VOC by usage of biobased succinic acid/anhydride and less organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs) incl. solvent recovery having a positive effect on human health and environment; ➢ Usage of renewable energy, recycled material and less-cost intensive processing (e.g. alternative for Zn(acac)₂ as catalyst) for further cost savings; ➢ Reduce effects on land use when producing hemp by focussing on marginal areas; Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 8 ➢ Create transparency by applying and communicating sustainability standards and principles (e.g. in terms of CO2 reduction); ➢ Install co-creation processes involving all relevant stakeholder groups, offering participation and inclusiveness in the decisionmaking process; ➢ Built up regional/local supply chains to create “value for value” chain actors. By this, spill-over effects can be achieved, increasing the market uptake in other market segments as well, contributing a green transition of the economy and overall well-being. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 9 1 Goals of the study The Goal of the study is about performing an ex-ante S-LCA of thermoset composites which are recyclable in the frame of ESTELLA project from cradle-to gate. ESTELLA stands for “DESign of bio-based Thermoset polymer with rEcycLing capabiLty by dynAmic bonds for bio-composite manufacturing” and is an EU funded Research project, running from 2022 to 2025, with the aim to design novel bio-based epoxy resins with inherent recyclability capabilities. 1 When performing an impact assessment it is all about to analyze, evaluate and manage the intended and unintended positive and negative consequences of planned interventions (Rodrigues and Rituerto 2022). Although impact assessment is mainly linked to techno-economic aspects, major efforts have been made to consider social aspects over the last years as well. The reason for this is the emergence of sustainable development issues which were triggered by the definition of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the UN in 2015 laid down in its Agenda 2030 (European Commission). The Agenda 2030 balances the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. For implementing the Agenda 2030 the UN stresses the need for strengthening the social dimension of sustainable development (United Nations, (2015). Also, the European Commission (EC) lays efforts on sustaining and improving the quality of life of its citizens. In this sense, among the priorities of the EC for the period 2024-2029 are to promote social fairness, strengthen social and regional cohesion, and ensure equal opportunities for all (European Commission, (2024). In this sense, there is a high need to strengthen social impact assessment of activities or interventions during and after their implementation to minimize the cost to the society whiles maximizing the benefits (Stephen Appiah Takyi, (2014). However, along Rafiaani et al. (2018) and Rodrigues and Rituerto (2022) due to the fact that impact assessment is mostly linked to (techno)economic aspects, there exists no universally accepted definition of social impact and social impact assessment of the biobased economy. Emerging or new technologies are characterized among others by their uncertainty and ambiguity (Rodrigues and Rituerto 2022), which makes a Social Impact Assessment even more difficult as they have to be done exante. 1 ESTELLA PROJECT | ESTELLA PROJECT Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 16 Personal security Data protection concerns. Device compromises. Identity fraud. Subjective Well-being Causal effect of internet use on subjective well-being. Source: Rodrigues and Rituerto (2022) ➢ In addition, the EC has defined 12 indicators for the assessment of social impact of new trade agreements on country level (MelimMcLeod et al. (2022). Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 17 3 Social Impact Assessment 3.1 Logical structure of a Social Impact Assessment The social impact assessment is structured along a logic model consisting out of specific stakeholder categories, social impact categories, respective subcategories and measurable social impact indicators all interrelated as shown in following Figure 1:Figure 1:. Figure 1: Logical structure of a Social Impact Assessment Source: Own illustration 3.2 Methodologies for Social Impact Assessment The commonly applied methodologies for social sustainability impact assessment include Socio Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Social Life Cycle Analysis (S-LCA). These methods are explained in more detail in the following section. 3.2.1 SEIA Along Rafiaani et al. (2018) and Rodrigues and Rituerto (2022), SEIA is the systematic methodology for determining and assessing the potential social and economic impacts of a proposed development (proposal's/project's/technology's advantages and disadvantages) on local wellbeing, the life of people's families, and their communities as a whole and for various parties. SEIA weighs the socio-economic cost against the socio-economic benefit and focuses on the prevention of costs or adverse impact. This study also provides how to maximize the beneficial impacts of a proposed development or project. Rodrigues and Rituerto (2022) describe a SEIA methodology for new and emerging technologies. They presented a conceptual framework including the processes of analyzing, monitoring, and managing the intended and unintended social and economic consequences, both Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 18 positive and negative, of planned interventions and any social change processes invoked by those interventions (see Figure 1Figure 2Figure 2). For doing so, the above-mentioned authors recommend a five-step approach: ➢ Step 1: Scoping & planning: Considerations of the SIA and required information or knowledge. ➢ Step 2: Scenario development: Stimulate thinking about possible occurrences, assumptions related to these occurrences, possible socio-economic opportunities and risks, and courses of action. ➢ Step 3: Impact definition: Identify and consider all important socioeconomic impacts of the technology under study, from the point of view of who it affects and their relevance. ➢ Step 4: Impact assessment: Assess in greater depth the magnitude or extent of the identified impacts identified. ➢ Step 5: (Optional 2 ) Mitigation: Identify of mitigation measures and mitigation of impacts. ➢ Step 6: Recommendations: Formulate recommendations after the analysis of the main opportunities and risks attached to each impact. 2 This step may not be included in all SIA, as mitigation itself might not be within the control of the assessment team Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 19 Figure 2: Conceptual Framework for SEIA of new and emerging technologies Source: Rodrigues and Rituerto (2022) 3.2.2 SIA SIA is the process of evaluating, monitoring, and managing the planned and unplanned social outcomes of proposed action including policies, programs, plans, and projects in a qualitative approach. SIA focusses on ex-ante studies but having a process component as well in the sense that stakeholders potentially being affected by the intervention are involved (Bührer et al., 2022). SIA has become a key tool for many governments and public organizations that must obtain precise results for decisionmaking (Alomoto et al. (2022). 3.2.3 S-LCA S-LCA differs from other social impact assessment techniques by its object: “Products or services and their life cycle”, by its scope: “the entire life Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 20 cycle”, by systematic: “systematic process of collecting and reporting about social benefits and impacts across the entire life cycle”. In this regard, various S-LCA methods have been developed in recent years. The distinction of the different S-LCA approaches is based on the types of data used - which may be of three types: ➢ Quantitative, ➢ Semi-quantitative (yes/no or rating scale responses), ➢ Qualitative. Thus, the choice of the S-LCA method can affect the result depending on the different evaluation systems. Moreover, S-LCA is aligned to ISO 14004 principles similar to a E-LCA as it follows the four-step procedure of a E-LCA (from extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, use, reuse, maintenance, and recycling) providing complementary impact information (social) to the environmental information of a LCA. The need of sufficient data for background (or generic) processes, as well as for foreground (or system-specific) processes, determined that E-LCA studies have traditionally been ex-post analyses of well-defined systems (Cucurachi et al. (2018). Both assessments (E-LCA and S-LCA) use a Functional Unit (FU) to define the product system. Along Rebolledo-Leiva et al. (2023), impact assessment in S-LCA (or Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment - sLCIA) comprises the following three steps approach along ISO 14004 framework: ➢ Impact categories selection and characterization methods and models; ➢ Association inventory data to sLCIA subcategories (classification) ➢ Determination of subcategory indicator results (characterization). Moreover, sLCIA comprises the following two methods: ➢ The Reference Scale Approach (Type 1): Uses specific reference points of an expected activity (called performance reference point - PRPs); Type I assesses performances, and collected data is compared with performance reference points (e.g. the number of hours worked per worker weekly is compared with statutory working time). ➢ The Impact Pathway Approach (Type II): Considers a causal relationship between the organization product system/activities and the resulting potential impacts. In type II LCIA, researchers or practitioners consider the link between two or more phenomena or Comentado [LM1]: Please, use the same type of index in all sections Comentado [HW2R1]: What do you meant by that? Comentado [LM3R1]: For example: Title 1 Subtitle 1.1 a) - - b) - Subtitle 1.2 a) - - b) Title 2 Subtitle 2.1 a) b) If you want to use arrows or points, in relation with the example, you would change the letters for arrows. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 21 events in the assessment (e.g. the use of an input or the exposure to certain working conditions in a production process and health impacts on workers). S-LCA considers the involvement of stakeholders, due to the importance to integrate their perspective e.g. for the selection of impact categories that make sense to stakeholders concerned. Along Yang et al. (2020), also for the decision-making process is the involvement of stakeholders in SLCA important for identifying and reducing the social hotspots along the supply chain. In order to systematically integrate stakeholders in a S-LCA process, Mathe (2014) defined five steps along a participatory approach enabling the selection of impact categories that are relevant for stakeholders: Step 1) Selecting stakeholders, Step 2) Collecting data (study of social representations) and reviewing the literature, Step 3) Data collection (by interviews and literature review) is consolidated by a working group consisting of S-LCA practitioners from different disciplines, Step 4) Discussion of list of social principles and impacts within stakeholder focus group, Step 5) First, a literature review of social indicators and databases, second, the choice of indicators by the researchers according to selected impacts. 3.2.4 Challenges in performing S-LCA Until so far social impact assessment has primarily been based on qualitative information determined to some extent through expert judgment. In this sense, S-LCA considers a standard arbitrary linear score set to translate qualitative performances into a quantitative assessment for all subcategory indicators (i.e., it translates A, B, C, D scoring into 4, 3, 2, 1 at ordinally scale). This can mask the decision dependency of weighting scheme and cause a high uncertainty associated with quantification of weights (Sawaengsak et al. (2019). Carmo et al. (2017) have addressed this issue by defining a customized scoring and weighting approach for impact assessment in S-LCA beyond the assumption of arbitrary, linearity and equal weighting. This has been done by developing specific value functions for each subcategory and establishing weighting factors for the indicators of each of the stakeholders. Carmo et al. (2017) proposed a four-step method to handle the uncertainty of scoring and weighting factors of the experts' value Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 22 judgment. The weighting factors are always case study-specific and cannot be generalized. But still, along Sawaengsak et al. (2019), the simple weighted sum approach and normalization technique for single score assessments have been problematic and the final results do not realistically represent stakeholder perspectives due to mis/over-interpretations. Thus, the following exist gaps need further considerations: 1) The issues of the scoring system, 2) The issues of the use of a weighting scheme, 3) Lack of systematic identification of relevant stakeholders. To respond to these challenges and to address the reliability of social impact assessment results, Sawaengsak et al. (2019) presented a weighted aggregation method to evaluate the importance and satisfaction levels of social impact and impact sub-categories using a cause-effect chain analysis to identify all possible sources of social problems. The causeeffect chain in environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) can provide a useful structure for the development of a broader sustainability assessment methodology and helps to pursue ultimate scores, assessing trade-offs between different phases in the life cycle and different impacts in an overarching and comprehensive way. In this respect, the establishment of weighting scores for the importance of social aspects can assist in addressing trade-off of social issues to achieve more accurate and reliable impact results and hence reliable value for decision making processes. Thus, the inclusion of expert opinion and stakeholder perspective can better reflect the potential social impact of a product system. The proposed social impact assessment framework by Sawaengsak et al. (2019) is designed along the following four steps: Step 1) Providing the social categories, sub-categories, and indicators; Step 2) Measuring the inventory/characterization results of indicators; Step 3) Determining the weighting factor at the sub-categories level; Step 4) Aggregation of results of performance score at sub-category and social category level Along Sawaengsak et al. (2019), for obtaining a performance score at the social category level, it is important to aggregate several sub-category scores into a single score. To address this limitation, all sub-categories include data quality scores which are useful for decision making and identifying areas of improvement. But still, Social Impact Assessments face a general incompatibility with quantitative measurements (Carmo et al. (2017) and Sawaengsak et al. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 23 (2019). Hence, harmonizing the selection of indicators and streamlining SLCA methodologies to established systematic S-LCA approaches are missing. Moreover, common S-LCA were developed for the ex-post analysis of products in general, not specifically for biobased products (Marting Vidaurre et al. (2020). In addition, S-LCA methodologies for early-stage technology developments for cradle-to-cradle assessments are still needed (see chapter 4.1.2). Furthermore, S-LCA is based on the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards and thus includes the same four phases as for E-LCA. In this respect, quantitative assessment in S-LCA is additionally challenged by the necessity to use Functional Units as reference unit for LCA studies according to ISO 14040 as most of the indicators are difficult to express by functional unit (Tavakoli and Barkdoll (2020). But as mainly qualitative data is used in S-LCA, it may be difficult to link the results specifically to the Functional Unit. Therefore, UNEP SETAC and Life Cycle Initiative (2009) proposes to use the following five steps to specify Functional Units: Step 1) Describe the product by its properties including the product’s social utility. Step 2) Determine the relevant market segment. Step 3) Determine the relevant product alternatives. Step 4) Define and quantify the functional unit, in terms of the obligatory product properties required by the relevant market segment. Step 5) Determine the reference flow for each of the product systems high uncertainty of future technology adoption and of real-world social impacts. On the other hand, Sureau et al. recommend that S-LCA should not be adapted to fit the E-LCA format, but S-LCA should be tailored to explain social mechanisms by considering the (social) nature of assessed impacts or phenomena, implying other variables and methods aligning Type I and II approaches. In this regard, as several complementary tools (E-LCA, S-LCA, C2C) are currently being used to reduce the error in the results obtained, it is necessary to unify procedures by developing e.g. LCA+C2C endpoint indicators (see Figure 3) mentioned by Peralta et al. (2021). Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 24 Figure 3: Relationship between C2C and LCA categories Source: Peralta et al. (2021) The new C2C+LCA endpoint weighting method suggested by Peralta et al. (2021), provides an environmental, social and economic evaluation in a single procedure. Thus, the evaluation of the full product life cycle (C2C) includes the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (E-LCA) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). By this approach, the complexity of the design process is reduced, and the evaluation phases and interpretation of the results is facilitated, without modifying the level of detail of LCA or the ecoeffective approaches of C2C. This helps to identify strategies for minimizing and controlling environmental and social impacts. But further research work is still needed, especially for the development of software (database and calculation tool) that meets the computational needs (automated evaluation to reduce analysis time and cost with LCA + C2C endpoints) to make it widely useable. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 25 Nevertheless, the risks linked to this type of research are related to obtaining quantitative data in the social dimension (Peralta et al. (2021). In this respect, the complexity of social data and the consideration of the challenges inherent in the compatibility between qualitative and quantitative assessment methods are still prevailing challenges. Thus, the lack of standards, regulations and quantitative assessments means that social aspects are not considered yet enough by companies. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 32 Figure 4: The GreenZee Model Source: Sajid and Lynch (2018) GreenZee model provides users with a relatively simple approach to translate a variety of qualitative and quantitative social impact inputs (as importance levels) into meaningful and understandable financial outputs (as strength levels). Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 33 4) Blended Lifecycle Integrated Social System Framework (BLISS) Tavakoli and Barkdoll (2020) developed a framework entitled “Blended Lifecycle Integrated Social System” (BLISS) that illustrates the relation among production lines, relevant indicators and stakeholders concerned (see Figure 5Figure 5). BLISS is a robust method for social life cycle assessment, which simultaneously considers the impacts of production system, social indicators, and stakeholders. The projected demonstration’s production system is from cradle-to-grave and applies the impacts or the weights of each step (Tavakoli and Barkdoll (2020). Figure 5: BLISS Model Source: Tavakoli and Barkdoll (2020) But most biobased industries and processes are in an early TRL stage, often only function at labor pilot-scale, and process data are only available at Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Reino Unido) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 34 these scales. Quantitative data for the whole life cycle process does not yet exist, making full-market scale assessments difficult. Thus, Social Impact Assessments of early-stage technological developments of biobased products can only be done as ex-ante assessment. Ex-ante assessment does not predict the future, but it explores the future by assessing a range of possible scenarios that define the space in which the technology may operate (Cucurachi et al. 2018). Thus, to enhance robustness of results and for communication purposes, scenario analysis and uncertainty analyses (as sensitivity analysis) are needed (Laurentiis et al. (2024). Although recent advancements in literature have begun to diverge from the trend of ex-post analysis of systems, which was characterized by the early decades of LCA practice towards ex-ante assessments (ex-ante approaches for performing LCA of products are mentioned e.g. by Laurentiis et al. (2024) and by Souza et al. (2023)), only few studies have been applied an ex-ante process to S-LCA. These are mainly linked to the production process design stage (Cadena et al. (2019; Cecere et al.)Cecere et al. (2025), focusing on a cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave life cycle approach. Thus, methodologies for ex-ante S-LCA for early-stage technology developments covering the full product life cycle (cradle-to cradle) are still needed (Hüseyin et al. (2025). This makes an ex-ante assessment of social impacts especially for earlystage technology developments along the life whole cycle in the Bioeconomy still a challenge. 4.2 Methodology framework for implementing S-LCA in the Bioeconomy sector 4.2.1 General methodological approach Fraunhofer ISI applied the following five step approach for implementing S-LCA under consideration of the methodology for performing a S-LCA by Life Cycle Initiative (2020) and for integrating a participatory approach in S-LCA mentioned by (Mathe (2014)) (see Figure 6Figure 6) Con formato: Color de fuente: Verde Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 35 Figure 6: Social Impact Assessment - Methodological approach Source: Own illustration along Mathe (2014) and Life Cycle Initiative (2020) The first step is to define the goal and scope of the Social Impact Assessment, to reduce complexity, e.g. with a view to avoiding an overload with data, which is not relevant for the assessed decision options and facilitate communication and collaboration among different stakeholders. The goal is defined by the overall aim of the assessment and the scope of the product and market segment to be assessed. The functional unit of the assessed product in comparison to reference products in the sense of obligatory product properties is defined by its functionality, technical quality, longevity, recyclability etc. The system boundary is defined by the life cycle stages under investigation. In addition, the geographical and temporal coverage of the assessment are considered. It is worthwhile to mention that a thorough description of the reference product/technology as status quo is necessary in order to assess the social impact of the innovative product/technology. In a second step, it is essential to identify relevant stakeholders. The stakeholders should be analyzed and selected based on: • Their interests in the activity, • Their positive or negative impact on the activity, • Possible dependencies, • Whether they can be integrated into the Social Impact Assessment. By engaging multi-actors in a Social Impact Assessment social acceptance factor can be identified which are of high relevance when bringing innovative solutions in form of new biobased products on the markets. According to research studies major factors that influence acceptance of new technologies/ products are perceived risks and benefits, trust, fairness and personal norms which facilitate the placing on the market of this type of products. In this sense, social acceptance factors reflect needs, concerns, expectations, perceptions and challenges of multi-actors (Baur et al., 2022 and Laborda et al., (2023). Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 36 In order to validate and refine the social impact categories and indicators feedback from Fraunhofer experts was received. In a third step, data will be collected, comprising social impacts/subcategories as well as indicators combining a top-down and bottom-up approach. Here it is necessary to define relevant research questions (assessment criteria) related to social sustainability, such as the benefits or drawbacks of using innovative processes or products compared to conventional options according to the product boundaries. In a fourth step, impact assessment will be done qualitatively by involving stakeholder groups through interviews and focus group discussions. Thus, potential social impacts (positive and negative impacts) are to be evaluated, identifying social hotspots. Stakeholders’ feedback provides additional insights and perspectives and ensures that the findings are robust and relevant. In this respect the following scales for impact assessment are used (see Table 5Table 5 and Table 6Table 6): - In comparison to reference technology/product, - Under uncertainty. Table 5: Scale for impact assessment in comparison to reference product/technology Impact Definition Significant smaller Impact has significant smaller effects Similar Impact has similar effects Significant bigger Impact has significant bigger effects Source: Own illustration Table 6: Scale for impact assessment in terms of uncertainty Impact Definition Dubious These are impacts that have a very low chance of occurring now or in the future. Possible These are impacts that are possible, but not likely to occur. Expected These are impacts that are very likely to occur. Source: Own illustration As a result of the impact assessment along the two scales mentioned in Table 5Table 5 and Table 6Table 6 the social performance is assessed too, taking into account the following impact and probability dimensions (see Table 7Table 7 and Table 8Table 8) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 37 Table 7: Dimensions for rating social impacts Impact dimension Potential social effect Negative impact Impact has most likely a negative social effect for main targeted stakeholder group Medium impact Impact has most likely a medium social effect for main targeted stakeholder group Positive impact Impact has most likely a positive social effect for main targeted stakeholder group Source: Own illustration Table 8: Dimensions for rating probability of impact occurrence Probability dimension Definition Lower probability Probability of impact occurrence is most likely at lower chance to occur in the near future. Medium probability Probability of impact occurrence is most likely at medium chance to occur in the near future. Higher probability Probability of impact occurrence is most likely at higher chance to occur in the near future. Source: Own illustration As social performance is based on assessing the social effects of the impacts on main target stakeholder group, it is important to assess the relevance between input and impact as well. This supports evaluating different viewpoints of stakeholders and the interpretation of results (see step 5). Therefore, a weighting of Indicators per impact category enables a ranking of social indicators per relevance of stakeholder groups. In addition, social impact categories can be ranked, too. For doing so, we applied a weighting methodology along Tavakoli and Barkdoll (2020) (see Table 13Table 13) which we adjusted to our SIA methodology: Social Index= ∑𝐒𝐈𝐧 ∗ 𝐖𝐧 ∞ 𝒏=𝟏 SI= Social Indices (Assessment of effects of social indicators on the impact category in comparison to the benchmark from 1-3, whereas 1 is classified as low effect/low risk and 3 as high effect/high risk – see Table 9Table 9) W= Weighting coefficient (from 1-5, whereas 5 is most important - see Table 10Table 10) Table 9: Social Indices Scale Social Indices Definition 1 Social indicator effect on the impact category is classified as low leading to potential lower risks in comparison to benchmark. Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 11 pto, Cursiva, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 11 pto, Cursiva, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 38 2 Social indicator effect on the impact category is classified as medium with similar risks in comparison to the benchmark. 3 Social indicator effect on the impact category is classified as high leading to potential higher risks in comparison to benchmark. Source: Own illustration Table 10: Weighting Scale Weighting Scale Definition 1 Not relevant at all 2 Low relevance 3 Medium relevance 4 Relevant 5 Highly relevant Source: Own illustration A core part of the “social risks and opportunities assessment” is the identification of “social hotspots”. Social hotspots are either “social risks” or “social benefits” along the following methodology as shown in Table 11Table 11 Table 11: Social hotspot definition Social hotspots Social hotspot definition Social benefit Impact is classified as positive in comparison to the benchmark at higher probability of occurrence resulting in potential social benefits. Social risk Impact is classified as negative in comparison to the benchmark at higher probability of occurrence resulting in potential social risks. Source: Own illustration In a fifth step, an interpretation of results will be done. The interpretation of results considers social performance, social hotspots and social index fostering or weakening social acceptance by stakeholder groups. Based on this, recommendations will be given to foster social acceptance of the future product which enhances better-informed decision making. 4.2.2 Applied S-LCA Matrix Fraunhofer ISI has developed an S-LCA methodology as decision support matrix based on the S-LCA methodologies mentioned by Life Cycle Initiative (2020) and by (Mathe (2014)) (Mathe (2014)). Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Color de fuente: Verde Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 39 Thus, the S-LCA Matrix serves as analytical decision support tool by applying a multi-criteria assessment enclosing: 1) Stakeholder categories 2) Social impact categories 3) Social impact subcategories 4) Social indicators 5) Scales for social performance and social risk/benefit assessments 6) Social Index Measurement The structure of the Social Impact Assessment is based on a logic model illustrated in the following Figure 7Figure 7 (see also chapter 3.2) Figure 7: Social Impact Assessment - logic model (illustrated for stakeholder category “workers”) Source: Own illustration Based on the logical model shown in Figure 7Figure 7, Fraunhofer ISI developed a Social Impact Assessment Matrix which entails the following information (see Table 12Table 12): 1. Social Impact 2. Social Impact subcategory 3. Social indicator 4. Specification of RTD project achievements 5. Benchmark (reference technology/product) 6. Stakeholder category 7. Social performance assessment Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 40 8. Social risk/opportunities assessment Table 12Table 12 summarizes the methodological set-up of the Social Impact Assessment Matrix. Con formato: Fuente: Century Gothic, 12 pto, Inglés (Estados Unidos) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 41 Table 12: S-LCA Matrix based on Fraunhofer ISI methodology (exemplified for one social impact) Social Impact design Social performance Social risk and opportunity Social Impact category Social Impact subcate gory Social Indicator Specificati on of RTD achievements Benchmark (reference technology /product) Main Stakeholder category affected Social impact assessment Probability of social impact occurence Social Indicator/ Impact relevance Social hotspots Sustainabl e develop ment Contribu tion to sustaina ble transitio n of the econom y Upscaling using state-ofthe-art technolo gy State-of the arttechnologi es can be used Established production technologi es Value chain actors Negative / Medium / Positive Lower / Medium / Higher Social Index High risk / Medium risk / Low risk … Source: Own illustration Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 48 products (Ahmed et al. (2022). But processing of hemp fibres causes water contamination. Health & safety Human Health and well being Human health and safety effects based on CO2eq emissions Lower C02eq emissions: Higher biobased content of ESTELLA epoxy resin (30-38%) through reduction of synthetic catalysts and oils (usage of epoxidized soybean oil as reactive diluent, sorbitol and propylene glycol) and green solvents (like cyrene) and by adding plantbased fibers (see Del. 2.2 and Del. 2.4). The energy required to produce hemp fibers is significantly lower, with a production energy of around 5.5 MJ/kg, compared to 54 MJ/kg for glass fibers (Thandavamoorthy et al. (2025). Higher C02eq emissions as feedstocks are 100% based on fossil sources impacting ecosystem and human health. Society Potential environmental benefits through reduction of CO2eq emissions by using biogenic raw materials and epichlorohydrin made from glycerin from biobased sources. In addition, hemp fibers act as carbon storage: - 1.393 kg carbon dioxide is stored per kg hemp fiber (Essel (2013). The uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the biomass used in biobased materials can have a potential benefit on the environmental impacts of these composites. In addition, when renewable energy Potential medium impact with medium probability Medium risk Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 49 source are used additional CO2 emission reduction can be achieved. Thus, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potentials (GWP) are reduced. Health & safety Accident s and work related diseases Health and Safety effects based on a reduced contamination with hazardous/ risky materials The ESTELLA resin utilizes a crosslinking system based on succinic anhydride and succinic acid as curing agents and Dibutylamine (DBA) which may originate from curing agents having toxic properties to human health (irritating to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes) (see Del. 4.1, Del. 5.3 and (Worberg (2025). The usage of scCO2 and Resin Transfer Molding (RMT) offers safer production environment (see Del. 4.4 and Del. 6.4) Harsh conditions as well as toxic materials are used as modifying agents for treating epoxy resins (like BPA and epichlorohydrin), and for resin production by physical hazards posed by autoclave technology, through heat, steam and pressure conditions and high levels of trim/processing waste. Workers Usage of less toxic solvents (like supercritical carbon dioxide (scCO2) for extraction process), RMT technology is causing a safer production environment and thus less severe accidents. SSbD-principles are applied in the production process. Potential medium impact with medium probability Medium risk Green transition Sustaina ble develop ment of society Contribution to green transition based on Resin: Depolymerization “solvolysis” is one of the most promising chemical recycling Chemical recycling of thermoset fiberreinforced composites is at research status. Local community Higher recyclability, lower carbon footprint and lower toxic waste generation of ESTELLA Potential positive impact with higher probability Low risk (social benefit) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 50 recycling technologies method (see Del. 4.4 and Del. 6.4). The chemical recyclability of the resin is highly dependent on the type of crosslinker, their concentrations, and recycling conditions. Thermal stability of the composite’s material after chemical recycling can increase or decrease depending on the extent of degradation of the polymer, fibers and their interfaces. RTD results with hemp fibers reinforced composite (PP-resin as thermoplastic polymer) show no crystallinity change after thermochemical recycling (Zhao et al. 2022). Recycling of the ESTELLA epoxy resin only with scCO2 is not possible, solvents (amine-based) have to be added (see Del 4.4.) However, a disadvantage is the strong dependence of the solvent on the chemical structure of the polymer. In addition, often solvents classified as hazardous or toxic are used and high temperatures or pressures are necessary for depolymerization (Seiler et al. (2021). epoxy resin, resulting in less landfilling. But best recycling technic still needs to be developed, as e.g. the usage of solvolysis is costly and causes significant environmental impacts, in addition biodegradability has not been achieved. Thus, more research has to be spent as recycling methods of ESTELLA epoxy resin is not yet efficient and sustainable enough and not yet scalable. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 51 Chemical recycling of ESTELLA epoxy resin could achieve a dissolution of up to 70% (see Del 4.4). Inserting 15-30% of recycled resins different effects on tensile strength and elongation are shown (see Del 4.2). Mechanical recyclability of the resin by grinding and injection moulding (6 recycling steps) of PP resin with hemp fibers show no change in tensile strength and modules changes (Zhao et al. 2022). ESTELLA resin shows mechanical recyclability by cutting and grinding without modifying the chemical structure (see Del 4.3). Biological recycling of the ESTELLA epoxy resin does not meet the requirements for being biodegradable and therefore not being Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 52 compostable. (see Del. 4.5) Hemp fibers: A fibre biodegradability is achieved from 60-101% based on the amount of glucose released (but no evidence of properties yet) (see Del 4.4). Green transition Sustaina ble develop ment of society Contribution to green transition based on upscaling technologies. Technologies for the production of biobased composites are still at proof-of-concept stage, and still not costcompetitive. ESTELLA epoxy resin can be easily integrated into established epoxy manufacturing workflows by using RTM technology. ESTELLA epoxy resin shows potential costcompetitiveness (see Del 6.4). The upscaling process is well established, high costcompetitiveness. Society Further upscaling and industrial standardization can be achieved by using state-of-the-art technologies like Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM) process. The RTM process is compatible with industrial production due to its closedmould design, controlled injection, and reproducibility. Although ESTELLA demonstrated the feasibility of integrating hemp fibers in RTM production of composites, RTM process needs to be Potential positive impact with higher probability Low risk (social benefit) Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 53 further optimized and standardized for the usage of biobased materials also in view of improving costeffectiveness. Pretreatments and strict quality control are required to enhance fiber-matrix adhesion and reduce hemp fiber variability. The usage of scCo2 is only economically viable for high-value applications due to its higher costs. Green transition Market uptake and social well being Spill-over effect to other industries, contributing to a broader market uptake. Upscaling & recycling technologies still need to be established targeting higher value products. ESTELLA epoxy resin shows cost competitiveness (see next impact category). In addition, state-of-theart RTM technology is compatible with industrial production processes enabling spillover effects (see Del. 6.4). Broad usage in many sectors and market applications. Society When production and recycling process is scaled up and standardized, spillover effects will be expected targeting higher and lower value-added parts or components. But as still more research has to be spent, a broader market penetration is expected to happen with lower chance in the near future. Potential medium impact with lower probability Low risk Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 54 Economi c develop ment Employm ent Job creation in the European biotechnology and primary sector. Upscaling & recycling technologies for ESTELLA epoxy resin still need to be further developed. Hemp fiber production costs are comparable to carbon fiber production costs but more expensive than glass fiber (see Del. 6.4). ESTELLA epoxy resin shows cost competitiveness compared to carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resin (see Del. 6.4). In general, biomaterials are currently still more expensive to produce than fossil materials (Andrew und Dhakal (2022). High competitiveness and broad market penetration incl. job creation Society Although the ESTELLA epoxy resin can be cost competitive under the given exante limitations, additional cost savings need to be achieved by e.g.: A) Replacing primary cost drivers like BPA and Zinc Acetylacetonate (Zn(acac)₂) as catalyst, B) Automation and efficient (local) supply chain management (offsetting higher material and high labour costs for production and processing of hemp fibres, C) Higher renewable energy usage, D) Higher amount of recycled material. As chemicals for hemp fiber production causes wastewater contamination, higher costs for wastewater Potential medium impact with lower probability Low risk Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 55 treatment are needed. This directly impacts cost-effectiveness and market penetration. Due to the need for further cost optimization at this research stage, market applications are more likely to happen first in niche markets that justify higher costs (valueadded pyramid model). Economi c develop ment Supplier relations hip Contribution to economic resilience based local on supply chains. Potential of establishing more sustainable local /regional supply chains based on agricultural producers and processors for hemp fibers and biotech companies for biochemicals etc. (Andrew and Dhakal (2022) Global supply chains based on fossil resources and chemicals. Value chain actors Hemp cultivation and processing as well as biotech sector are well established in the EU. When the upscaling challenges have been overcome (textile uniformity and treatment) Business models (BM) relying on local supply chains can be established and an increased autonomy in key strategic value chains for resilience industry Potential medium impact with lower probability Low risk Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 56 results can be achieved. This will potentially contribute to supply chain resilience and less logistic costs which can act as Value Proposition of BM. Economi c develop ment Rural develop ment Rural-to-urban migration ESTELLA contributes to keep the capacity of rural areas to provide the services and fulfil the needs of the rural population. When hemp and other biobased material are needed, rural areas can profit contributing to rural development (Andrew and Dhakal (2022). Extraction of fossil resources generates jobs, however these are often limited by time. Moreover, there is the risk, that rural areas become dependent from one single industry. Next to this, impacts on land degeneration, water contamination and air pollution exist effecting rural areas (Karduri (2023). Local communi ty Hemp and biobased material production from EU offers opportunities in diversification and generating additional income for local communities in rural areas. But hemp fiber production is not competitive to e.g. production costs in low-cost countries (like China). Potential medium impact with lower probability Low risk Credibilit y Reducin g uncertai nty Application of sustainability standards/ principles. ESTELLA applied SSbD principles (see Del. 5.3). Due to lack of data, proper E-LCA still needs to be made (see Del. 6.2). NA Consumers SSbD principles are applied to the ESTELLA epoxy resin. E-LCA is a standardized and acknowledged method for assessing environmental performance. Through proper communication, these Potential medium impact with higher probability Low risk Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 57 principles and standards can unfold their full potential contributing to further trust building and acceptance. Credibilit y Participa tion Involvement of social groups in the innovation (RTD)process, offering transparency in the decisionmaking process (cocreation). As ESTELLA is a RTD project focusing on early-stage technology developments, no major value chain actors from industry, primary sector or consumers were engaged. Fossil fuel extraction projects have often faced challenges related to stakeholders engagement (Ezeh et al. (2024). Value chain actors In order to proceed in the product development key actors from value chain must be involved in the further process. To engage with stakeholder is not often easy as they have different interests and aims. Potential medium impact with higher probability Medium risk Equality Contribut ion to justice Effect on biomass property and use rights. The use of local biomass (e.g. hemp) can promote equal power relations between different stakeholders offering new (local) markets and empower e.g. farmers to regain control of downstream markets by e.g. adaptation to market dynamics. Fossil resources (coal, oil, gas) are concentrated in specific regions and to certain suppliers, with the largest reserves found in countries like the United States, Russia, China, Australia and India causing dependencies (National Geographic). Value chain actors The rising demand for hemp biomass can strengthen the independence and autonomy of value chain actors (e.g. local suppliers (farmers and hemp fiber and textile producers)) in the EU. This enables value chain actors to become (new) value chain partners. In addition, added value can be created linked to the diversification of income and to soil Potential positive impact with lower probability Low risk Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 64 ii. Lowering landfilling or incineration of toxic waste; 2. Further upscale will be achieved using standard industrial processes (e.g. state-of-the-art RTM technology) with impact on: iii. Market uptake and spill-over effects; iv. Cost reduction by economies of scale. Moreover, in order to achieve even wider social acceptance, the following should be considered: a. Reduce toxic effects on human health by substitution of BPA by biobased materials e.g. epoxidized vegetable oils and of succinic acid/anhydride and SVOC/VOC by the usage of bio-based succinic acid/anhydride and less organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs) incl. solvent recovery, having a positive effect on human health and the environment; b. Usage of renewable energy, recycled material and less-cost intensive processing (e.g. alternative for Zn(acac)₂ as catalyst) for further cost reduction and spill-over effects; c. Reduce effects on land use when producing hemp by focussing on marginal areas; d. Create transparency by applying and communicating sustainability standards and principles (e.g. in terms of CO2 reduction); e. Install co-creation processes involving all relevant stakeholder groups, offering participation and inclusiveness in the decision-making process; f. Built up regional/local supply chains to create “value for value” chain actors. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 65 Excurse: The following info box gives a more detailed overview on risks & benefits about the second thermoset composite of ESTELLA: “Epoxy resin with associative CAN with lignocellulose nanofibers from Eucalyptus” for applications with lower mechanical requirements, based on a literature review. Info Box: A) Risks: Availability of lignocellulosic fibres: The current production levels fall short of meeting the current demand of lignocellulose fibres. The availability of plants that produce lignocellulosic fibres with high cellulose content (which is important for tensile strength) is limited to specific regions based on their environmental conditions (Garriba et al. 2025). Environmental footprint: Nanofibrillated cellulose-reinforced epoxy composites have a higher environmental footprint in comparison to glass fiber-reinforced polypropylene due to the fact that for the production of nanofiber cellulose from kraft pulp numerous environmentally unfriendly consumables are required for the composite manufacturing process. The environmental profile for nanocellulose extraction showed that the purification process contributes to approximately 95 % of the impact. This is attributed to high energy consumption: The production of nanocellulose-reinforced composites is an energy-extensive process, required for dispersion/sonication of nanocellulose in the matrix, resin infusion by external pressure, providing processing conditions (heat, pressure, etc.), post-curing, and finishing as well as an extensive use of chemicals. Moreover, a higher GWP 4 and a higher abiotic depletion potential - fossil fuel under consideration of a cradle-to-gate LCA boundary has been found (Ilyas et al. 2024). Intensive monocultures e.g. in Spain and Portugal have negative impact on the ecosystem of native forests when introducing eucalyptus plantations. Costs: Cost intensive production due to high energy consumption and high costs for catalysts and solvents (ionic liquids) for lignin treatment during processing of natural fibres reinforced polymer composite (Zhao et al. 2022). 4 This takes into account the emissions of gas that will contribute to the greenhouse effects (heating effect due to the exposition of gases to sunrays) such as CO2, CH4, N2O and CFCs. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 66 Mechanical properties: The high degree of intermolecular interactions in lignin molecules, can result in poor fibre dispersion and fiber-matrix interactions in natural fibre reinforced polymer composite. (Zhao et al. 2022). Health effects: Dichloromethane (DCM) used for dissolving lignin fibres having negative effects on carcinogenicity (see Del. 5.3). B) Benefits: Mechanical properties: Natural lignocellulose fiber-reinforced polymers have excellent surface quality in molded-part composites and possess favorable mechanical properties, including tensile and flexural modulus. Nanocellulose derived from agricultural waste has demonstrated remarkable improvements in tensile strength and crack resistance, enabling high-performance, lightweight composites (Garriba et al. 2025). Cost benefits: Lignocellulosic fibres show cost benefits linked to manufacturing expenses of natural fibre composites (Garriba et al. 2025). Chemical recycling: The recycled lignocellulose composite can be reshaped for the formation of a new resin but at lower mechanical stability/properties (Zhao et al. 2022). C) Comparison with the epoxy resin reinforced by hemp: - Nanocellulose has the propensity to agglomerate due to its large surface area. Thus, the processing of nanocellulose and its dispersion in polymer matrices presents significant difficulties. - When compared to e.g. hemp fibres, nanocellulose fibres are still more expensive to produce, which may restrict its use in commercial applications. - Less scaling potential of composites with natural fibers from cellulose (less thermal and mechanical properties after recycling). - Most of the currently available studies on nanocellulose toxicity show that these are generally harmless. - Low supply of lignocellulosic fibres with high cellulose content. - Nanocellulose composites have the potential to produce strong, lightweight materials. Remaining challenges for the commercialization of nanocellulose composites: - Difficulty in processing, - Higher production cost, Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 67 - Lower compatibility with other materials, - Low supply of specific lignocellulosic fibers, - Limited knowledge of safety and toxic effects. D) General conclusion: For the production of “truly green” nanocellulose-reinforced polymer composites, it is desirable to reduce the energy necessary for the production of epoxy composites and employ composite manufacturing processes with lower environmental impact. In addition, cellulose sources other than from Eucalyptus have to be explored (best from local waste biomass sources with high cellulose content (e.g. paper pulp)). Due to the lower mechanical properties in comparison to hemp fibers, these composites are more suitable for applications with lower mechanical requirements like packaging or indoor car panels. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 68 7 Conclusions Our analysis showed that by applying our S-LCA methodology and under consideration of limitations encountered when assessing early-stage developments, 15 social impacts and three potential social hotspots by the production of epoxy resin reinforced by hemp fibres could be identified. Out of three potential social hotspots identified, two potential social benefits were detected, related to: - Recyclability and up-scale potential. The one potential social risk is linked to the usage of BPA as precursor in the ESTELLA epoxy resin. Both social benefits are linked to the Impact category “Green transition” which was rated by project partners as most relevant followed by “Health and Safety”. Although a 100% biobased epoxy resin could not be achieved for the applications foreseen in ESTELLA (see Del. 2.2), the results demonstrated advances in design, cost competitiveness, upscaling and recycling potential of the epoxy resin. Hence, ESTELLA showed that the integration of natural fiber and biobased material can help the composite industry become more sustainable and decrease its dependence on fossil fuels (see Del 6.4). This responds to the growing market demand for sustainable products (see Del. 6.1). In addition, already at this research stage, the ESTELLA epoxy resin shows potential cost and sustainability competitiveness in comparison to carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resins. This offers possibilities to target rather high value niche markets (like lightweight products for automotive etc.), which are in direct concurrence to carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resins. As industrial scale-up and efficient recycling processes will contribute to further cost savings, also other application scenarios are possible targeting rather downcycled applications like indoor car panels or leisure sector (like scooter platforms). Thus, further progress has to be made, especially in the following: (1) Scalability of the recycling process in view of achieving the same material quality as output, (2) Achieve further cost competitiveness in comparison to carbon or glass fiber reinforced epoxy resins by using automated processes, a higher amount of renewable energy and recycled materials. Consequently, further applied research in close collaboration with industrial stakeholders is needed to address remaining challenges (like Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 69 type of biobased material, sustainability, cost-effective production process and appropriate recycling technologies etc.). This applies not only for the epoxy resin enforced with hemp, but also for the second ESTELLA epoxy resin enforced by lignocellulose nanofibers and for the achievement of a 100% biobased epoxy resin. For all the epoxy resins developed by ESTELLA (but especially for a 100% biobased epoxy resin) it becomes crucial to use (new) plant-based material which are not in concurrence to food/feed production (primarily from local waste/sidestream sources and/or from marginal lands) that facilitate cost-efficient and sustainable fiber extraction methods, without sacrificing the quality of the fiber (like from hemp and flax stem or nettle bast) (Ludueña et al. (2013). In this sense, local value chains need to be developed offering diversification in cultivation, environmental improvements (soil health, carbon sequestration and biodiversity), access to new (local) markets and new income opportunities for farmers. This will enhance rural development and supply chain resilience. In this regard, less common biomaterials can create a completely new value chain for the crops used offering direct benefits for rural areas and local communities. In this respect, the production processes need to be aligned with industrial and sustainability standards like ISO 14040 for LCA and SSbD principles to achieve safety and sustainability over the full product life cycle (cradleto-cradle). Thus, tailored ex-ante S-LCA methodologies for emerging technologies covering the full product life cycle need to be developed. Likewise, in order to make biobased products commercially viable, they need to be timewise supported by policy regulations e.g. by low-carbon transition market policies and respective legal acts (like CO2 prizing, recycling quotes). This will boost the biobased industry to take over biobased solutions as well as the adoption of closed loop concepts. In this respect, the implementation of proper external recycling methods will be supported, too, that can produce reuseable materials by e.g. physical presorting due to the contamination and immiscibility of polymers during recycling stages. This policy support will help to respond to the growing market demand for sustainable products and address social sustainability issues enhancing further trust building and acceptance. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 70 8 Bibliography Literaturverzeichnis Ahmed et al. (2022): Hemp as a potential raw material toward a sustainable world: A review. In: Heliyon 8 (1), e08753. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08753. Alomoto, William; Niñerola, Angels; Pié, Laia (2022): Social Impact Assessment: A Systematic Review of Literature. In: Soc Indic Res 161 (1), S. 225–250. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-021-02809-1. Andrew, J. Jefferson; Dhakal, H. N. (2022): Sustainable biobased composites for advanced applications: recent trends and future opportunities – A critical review. In: Composites Part C: Open Access 7, S. 100220. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100220. Aparcana Robles (2013): DEVELOPMENT OF A SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR RECYCLING SYSTEMS IN LOW INCOME COUNTRIES. Online verfügbar unter https://epub.boku.ac.at/obvbokhs/content/titleinfo/1930544/full.pdf#:~:t ext=Aparcana%20S%2C%20Salhofer%20S%20%282013%29.%20Applicatio n%20of%20a,Journal%20of%20Life%20Cycle%20Assessment.%20DOI%2010 .1007%2Fs11367-013-0559-3%20%28online%29. Baur, Dorothee; Emmerich, Philip; Baumann, Manuel Johann; Weil, Marcel (2022): Assessing the social acceptance of key technologies for the German energy transition. In: Energ Sustain Soc 12 (1). DOI: 10.1186/s13705-021-00329-x. Bührer et al. (2022): Concepts and methods to measure societal impacts – an overview. Cadena et al. (2019): Social life cycle assessment methodology for evaluating production process design: Biorefinery case study. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 238, S. 117718. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117718. Carmo et al. (2017): Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment. In: Int J Life Cycle Assess 22 (12), S. 2007–2017. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-0171280-4. Cecere et al. (2025): A socio-economic assessment of an emerging technology in the mining industry. In: Int J Life Cycle Assess 30 (6), S. 1349– 1362. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-024-02392-w. Cucurachi et al. (2018): Ex-ante LCA of Emerging Technologies. In: Procedia CIRP 69, S. 463–468. DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.005. Con formato: Justificado Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 71 Dale et al. (2013): Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. In: Ecological Indicators 26, S. 87–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014. David et al. (2021): Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) as Environmental Pollutants: Occurrence and Mitigation Using Nanomaterials. In: International journal of environmental research and public health 18 (24). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413147. Essel (2013): Life cycle assessment of hemp fibre production and hemp products in Europe - including comparison to other natural fibres. Hg. v. Nova Institut. Online verfügbar unter https://eiha.org/media/attach/1051/13-11-28_Hemp_LCA.pdf. European Commission: Sustainable Development Goals. Online verfügbar unter https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/sustainabledevelopment-goals_en. European Commission (2005): Impact Assessment Guideline. Online verfügbar unter https://www.bing.com/search?q=RACER%20Eu%20Commission%20Impa ct%20%20Assessment%20%20Guidelines&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=- 1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=racer%20eu%20commission%20impact%20%20assess ment%20%20guidelines&sc=1250&sk=&cvid=FB2C01D1D53C4FF9977BBCB721C09D13. European Commission (2024): Measuring social impact: a new era for the social economy? Online verfügbar unter https://social-economygateway.ec.europa.eu/topics-focus/measuring-social-impact-new-erasocial-economy_en. European Parliament (2017): Measuring social impact in the EU. Online verfügbar unter https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2017) 603930. Ezeh et al. (2024): Stakeholder engagement and influence: Strategies for successful energy projects. In: Int. j. manag. entrep. res 6 (7), S. 2375–2395. DOI: 10.51594/ijmer.v6i7.1330. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello; González García, Sara; Imbert, Enrica; Lijó, Lucía; Moreira, María Teresa; Tani, Almona et al. (2019): Transitioning towards the bio‐economy: Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens. In: Corp Soc Responsibility Env 26 (5), S. 1135–1153. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1791. Garriba et al. (2025): Review of Lignocellulosic Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites for Sustainable Automotive Applications. In: Fibers Polym 26 (7), S. 2705–2728. DOI: 10.1007/s12221-025-01007-x. Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 72 GBEP (2020): The GBEP Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy. A TOOL FOR POLICY-MAKERS. Online verfügbar unter https://iinas.org/app/uploads/2021/08/200511_final_WEB_The-GBEPSustainability-Indicators-for-Bioenergy-2020.pdf. Global-Bio-Pact (2013): Global-Bio-Pact Global Assessment of Biomass and Bioproduct Impacts on Socio-economics and Sustainabilit. Online verfügbar unter https://www.globalbiopact.eu/. GreenDelta: PSILCA. Online verfügbar unter https://psilca.net/. Hüseyin et al. (2025): Empowering sustainability assessment of energy storage. In: Sustainable Energy & Fuels (9). DOI: 10.1039/d5se00750. Ilyas et al. (2024): A review of bio-based nanocellulose epoxy composites. In: Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 12 (5), S. 113835. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2024.113835. Karduri (2023): Impacts of Fossil Fuels on Rural Communities. Hg. v. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (10). Online verfügbar unter https://www.ijert.org/research/impacts-of-fossil-fuels-onrural-communities-IJERTV12IS100037.pdf. King and Benton (2024): The emerging global crisis of land use. Hg. v. Chatham House. Online verfügbar unter https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/11/emerging-global-crisis-landuse/05-land-and-energy-pressures. Laborda, Elena; Del-Busto, Felipe; Bartolomé, Carmen; Fernández, Víctor (2023): Analysing the Social Acceptance of Bio-Based Products Made from Recycled Absorbent Hygiene Products in Europe. In: Sustainability 15 (4), S. 3008. DOI: 10.3390/su15043008#. Ladu, Luana; Morone, Piergiuseppe (2024): Sustainability assessments of bio-based products: From research to practice (and standards). In: Societal Impacts 3, S. 100041. DOI: 10.1016/j.socimp.2024.100041. Laurentiis, Valeria de; Caldeira, Carla; Sala, Serenella; Tonini, Davide (2024): Life cycle thinking for the assessment of waste and circular economy policy: status and perspectives from the EU example. In: Waste management (New York, N.Y.) 179, S. 205–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2024.02.037. Life Cycle Initiative (2011): Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Making informed choices on products. Hg. v. UNEP/SETAC. Online verfügbar unter https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8001/UNEP_Life cycleInit_Dec_FINAL.pdf?sequence=3&%3BisAllowed=. Life Cycle Initiative (2020): Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products and Organizations. Hg. v. United Nations. Online verfügbar unter Grant Agreement 101058371 – Project ESTELLA ESTELLA_Deliverable_6.3_revised_17.11.25Deliverable 6.3 73 https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-ofProducts-and-Organizations-2020-22.1.21sml.pdf. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Decision-Making. Ludueña et al. (2013): Extraction of cellulose nanowhiskers from natural fibers and agricultural byproducts. Unter Mitarbeit von Leandro N. Ludueña, Antonella Vecchio, Pablo M. Stefani und Vera Alvarez: Formatex Research Cente (14). Macombe et al. (2013): Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 52, S. 205–216. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.026. Marting Vidaurre et al. (2020): Social Aspects in the Assessment of Biobased Value Chains. In: Sustainability 12 (23), S. 9843. DOI: 10.3390/su12239843. Mathe (2014): Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. In: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Bd. 19, S. 1506–1514. Mattioda et al. (2020): Social life cycle assessment of biofuel production, S. 255–271. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815581-3.00009-9. Melim-McLeod et al. (2022): EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System indicator update. Addressing indicator gaps: social impacts of trade and share of renewable energy in bio-based industry. Unter Mitarbeit von C. MelimMcLeod, E. Olsen, M. Follador, N. Online verfügbar unter https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8d92f851ca44-11ee-95d9-01aa75ed71a1/languageen#:~:text=This%20document%20describes%20the%20progress%20made %20in%202023,its%20current%20status%20and%20future%20outlook%20for %202024. National Geographic: Distribution of Fossil Fuels. Online verfügbar unter https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/distribution-fossilfuels/. OECD (2024): Measure, Manage and Maximise Your Impact. A GUIDE FOR THE SOCIAL ECONOMY. Online verfügbar unter https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024 /04/measure-manage-and-maximise-your-impact_e7b1099d/2238c1f1en.pdf. Peralta et al. (2021): Weighting with Life Cycle Assessment and Cradle to Cradle: A Methodology for Global Sustainability Design. In: Applied Sciences 11 (19), S. 9042. DOI: 10.3390/app11199042.