Addressing societal needs in batteries research: Insights from the social sciences and humanities task force

19th International Conference on Society & Materials, SAM19, 2025 Addressing societal needs in batteries research: Insights from the social sciences and humanities task force Viera Pechancová1, Adam Cooper2, Francesco Ghezzi3, Spyridon Pantelis4, Jens Peters5, Patrick Stuhm6, Yamina Guidoum7 1Tomas Bata University in Zlín, 2UCL, 3Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, 4EERA, Batteries Europe, 5University of Alcalá, 6Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, KIT, 7LOMARTOV Email of corresponding author pechanco[email protected] Abstract Advancing battery technologies is vital for sustainable development, underpinning transport electrification, renewable energy integration, and decarbonization. However, the life cycle of batteries poses challenges due to the exploitation of critical raw materials like cobalt and lithium, leading to environmental degradation, health risks, and social inequities, particularly in resource-rich countries. The battery supply chain also faces significant ethical issues, including child labour, gender discrimination, and geopolitical inequalities. Despite these hurdles, opportunities exist to develop a circular battery value chain, reduce energy poverty, and enhance public trust through transdisciplinary collaboration and robust regulatory frameworks. The Batteries Europe Task Force on Social Sciences and Humanities advocates for integrating societal demands into battery research & innovation to address these issues. By developing methods like Social Life Cycle Assessment with wider work on value-sensitive design, energy justice and responsible research and innovation, a deeper understanding of how battery designs can be fairer - from extraction to recycling - is possible. This promotes participatory approaches with stakeholders to enable more equitable and inclusive policies and design. The Task Force envisions a sustainable, human-centric battery ecosystem, addressing challenges to social acceptance of batteries, aligning innovation with societal well-being, environmental conservation, and economic equity, and urging stakeholders to embed the social demands at every stage of the energy transition process. Keywords: battery, SSH, social impact, energy transition, sustainable development Extended abstract 1. Background and motivation The transition to a low-carbon future depends significantly on the advancement of battery technologies, which are pivotal in enabling the electrification of transport, integration of renewable energy sources, and innovation in industrial applications. Batteries are instrumental in achieving the European Green Deal's zero-pollution ambitions, with the Strategic Action Plan on Batteries, adopted in 2018, aiming to develop an innovative and sustainable battery ecosystem [8]. These technologies provide critical solutions for smart energy systems, addressing supply-demand variability and accelerating decarbonization. 19th International Conference on Society & Materials, SAM19, 2025 While batteries present notable energy and environmental benefits during their operational phase, looking at their life cycle serious concerns arise regarding production and related resource exploitation, including the extraction of critical raw materials such as cobalt, lithium, and nickel [13]. These processes are associated with environmental degradation, public health risks, and geopolitical tensions, which usually concentrate in resource-rich countries where the upstream phases of the batteries supply chain take place [8, 12]. Moreover, social issues like child labour, gender discrimination, and ethnic inequities exacerbate the ethical challenges inherent in the global battery supply chain [6]. As highlighted in [8], the battery industry must address these risks to achieve its potential of creating 10 million fair and high-quality jobs globally and providing 600 million people with access to electricity by 2030. By integrating Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) perspectives into the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan and its associated Batteries European Partnership Association (BEPA) initiatives, the SSH Task Force seeks to address these critical gaps. It advocates for a holistic transdisciplinary approach of research and innovation (R&I) that aligns technological innovation with societal well-being, environmental sustainability, and economic equity [7, 14]. 2. Objectives The SSH Task Force aims to foster transdisciplinary collaboration and societal engagement to ensure the sustainable development of battery technologies. A primary objective is to align the industry’s practices with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizing human rights, economic development, and equitable energy access [8]. Central to the task force's mission is the development of frameworks that integrate societal perspectives into research and policy processes. This includes assessing the social risks associated with the battery value chain, such as environmental justice concerns, and advocating for solutions that prioritize equity and inclusivity. Furthermore, the task force seeks to enhance public trust in battery technologies by addressing challenges to social acceptance, which relates to socio-political, community and market adoption factors [12]. 3. Methods The SSH Task Force integrates a variety of interdisciplinary methodologies with a transdisciplinary orientation ranging from the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) to more qualitative participatory approaches augmented by conceptual frameworks that enhance societal goals in innovation. These include energy justice, value-sensitive design and responsible research and innovation (RRI) [15]. The S-LCA enables the assessment of the social impacts of the battery lifecycle phases, from raw material extraction to recycling, and identify their organizational and societal consequences and benefits throughout the supply chain [1]. The S-LCA framework leverages a stakeholder approach where different impact categories are considered and related indicators evaluated for each different stakeholder cate-gory. The S-LCA impact categories are linked to the 17 SDGs, offering a pathway to align battery production with ethical practices for sustainable development [11]. At the same time, this forces societal concepts into a quantitative framework which may result in underplaying the role of concepts of justice and responsibility. Hence, the careful employment of S-LCA within a broader conceptual framework represents a key challenge in integrating SSH into battery innovation. Participatory approaches are also central to the task force’s methodology, fostering dialogue between stakeholders, including policymakers, industry leaders, and affected communities. Such approaches emphasize the importance of energy justice, value sensitive design, and RRI, ensuring that S-LCA remains rooted in broader societal considerations rather than being confined to quantitative analyses 19th International Conference on Society & Materials, SAM19, 2025 tailored to technical design demands. This collaborative approach ensures that diverse perspectives inform the development of sustainable policies. Moreover, the task force emphasizes the integration of gender analysis into materials research and engineering to address the gender-specific impacts of battery technologies and promote equitable workforce representation [7]. While integral to advancing battery innovation, achieving such integration remains a significant challenge. To address this, the Task Force draws on lessons from transdisciplinary research and engineering to develop more effective approaches to facilitate this integration [14, 16]. 4. Challenges in addressing societal needs Addressing societal needs within the battery sector involves several interconnected challenges, beyond those of integrating SSH in battery innovation. The exploitation of critical raw materials is a primary concern, contributing to resource depletion, environmental pollution, and health hazards. The few scientific studies available on S-LCA and batteries widely share that significant risks originate from the extraction of these materials [1]. Indeed, the mining of materials like cobalt and lithium is associated with poor workers’ conditions, especially in terms of health and safety, absence of freedom of collective bargaining, and unfair wages, and with human rights violations, including child labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo [2, 10, 5]. These issues underscore the need for stringent supply chain due diligence and sustainability regulations alongside a shift toward battery designs that utilize alternative materials. Such approaches would empower manufacturers to adapt their supply chains, fostering more sustainable and ethical production practices. Gender discrimination represents another significant challenge. Women account for only 32% of the renewable energy workforce, and their underrepresentation limits the sector’s inclusivity. Genderspecific challenges also affect technology adoption, as evidenced by research on differences in perceptions of battery electric vehicles [8]. The integration of gender perspectives into policy and innovation processes is thus critical for achieving equitable outcomes. Geopolitical and ethical challenges further complicate the transition to a sustainable battery economy. The dominance of certain countries in raw material production and energy sector employment exacerbates global inequalities and poses risks to energy security [13, 4]. Balancing the geopolitical implications of resource dependence with the need for equitable energy access remains a pressing issue [12]. 5. Opportunities for addressing societal needs Despite these challenges, significant opportunities exist to align battery technologies with societal values. The development of a circular battery value chain, as envisioned by the Paris Agreement’s 2°C scenario, could generate substantial social and economic benefits, including job creation and poverty alleviation [8]. This requires fostering innovation in battery recycling, second-life applications and use of sustainable materials, but also systematically integrating social issues and concerns in the R&I process. Collaboration between SSH and STEM disciplines offers a pathway to holistic solutions [6]. By integrating social insights into technical research, the SSH Task Force can enable the design of technologies that are both effective and socially responsible. For example, stakeholder engagement mechanisms can enhance public trust by addressing concerns about sustainability and inclusivity. Additionally, frameworks like S-LCA, energy justice, value-sensitive design, and RRI, if properly developed, could offer a more holistic approach to evaluating the social impacts of battery production, empowering policymakers to make informed decisions and enabling engineers to create innovations that better address societal needs [11]. 19th International Conference on Society & Materials, SAM19, 2025 The promotion of equitable energy access is another key opportunity. By leveraging battery technologies to expand electricity availability, the industry can help reduce energy poverty and support economic development in underserved regions. Examples of this can be found in Renewable Energy Communities where batteries are employed alongside renewable energy-production technologies for energy storing, given the discontinuous production patterns that characterize renewable generation [3]. Such a scope aligns with the broader goals of the European Green Deal and the UN SDGs, reinforcing the importance of batteries in a just and sustainable energy transition [12]. 6. Position Statement of Task Force SSH The SSH Task Force envisions a future where battery technologies are developed and deployed in ways that prioritize societal well-being. This vision is rooted in the belief that technological advancements must align with public values, equity principles, and sustainability goals. By integrating SSH perspectives into the SET Plan, the Task Force seeks to foster a human-centric innovation agenda that addresses the complex interplay between technology and society [7]. The Task Force is committed to bridging the gap between STEM and SSH disciplines, advocating for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration and increased funding for SSH research. It emphasizes the long-term benefits of integrating societal perspectives into battery technologies, including enhanced public trust, equitable energy access, and sustainable development. 7. Conclusions and Recommendations The integration of societal needs into battery R&I is essential for achieving a sustainable and just energy transition. Key challenges include addressing both environmental and social risks with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives that bridge technology and SSH and aligning policies with societal values [9]. Recommendations include increasing funding for SSH research, fostering interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration especially between SSH and engineers, and adopting and strengthening frameworks like S-LCA to evaluate social and environmental impacts comprehensively [17]. By prioritizing equity and inclusivity, the SSH Task Force aims to ensure that battery technologies contribute to societal well-being and environmental conservation. This requires a unified effort from researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to embed SSH perspectives at every stage of the innovation process, creating a battery sector that aligns with the principles of sustainability and justice [7]. Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Horizon Europe project TwinVECTOR of the European Union (Grant Agreement No. 101078935). References [1] Cellura, M., De Luca, A.I., Iofrida, N., & Mistretta, M. (2024). Social Life Cycle Assessment of Batteries. In Passerini, S., Barelli, L., Baumann, M., Peters, J., & Weil, M. (Eds.), Emerging battery technologies to boost the clean energy transition (pp. 291-301). The Materials Research Society Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2_17 [2] Egbue, O. (2012). Assessment of social impacts of lithium for electric vehicle batteries. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Industrial Engineers Annual Conference. Norcross (2012), pp 1–7 [3] Iannone, F., Annunziata, E., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2023). Renewable Energy Communities in Africa: evidence from a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the SIMA Conference. SIMA conference (2023), Bari, Italia. 19th International Conference on Society & Materials, SAM19, 2025 [4] IEA (2021). The role of critical minerals in clean energy transition. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions [5] Mancini, L., Eslava, N. A., Traverso, M., & Mathieux, F. (2021). Assessing impacts of responsible sourcing initiatives for cobalt: Insights from a case study. Resources Policy, 71, 102015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102015 [6] Niri, A. J., Poelzer, G. A., Zhang, S. E., Rosenkranz, J., Pettersson, M., & Ghorbani, Y. (2024). Sustainability challenges throughout the electric vehicle battery value chain. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 191, 114176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.114176 [7] Pechancová, V., Cooper, A., Peters, J., et al. (2024). Batteries Europe Social Sciences & Humanities Task Force: Position Paper. Batteries Europe. https://batterieseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-Force-SSH.pdf [8] Pechancová, V., Sáha, P., & Pavelková, D. (2024). Social implications. In Passerini, S., Barelli, L., Baumann, M., Peters, J., & Weil, M. (Eds.), Emerging battery technologies to boost the clean energy transition (pp. 279-290). The Materials Research Society Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2_16 [9] Rajaeifar, M. A., Ghadimi, P., Raugei, M., Wu, Y., & Heidrich, O. (2022). Challenges and recent developments in supply and value chains of electric vehicle batteries: A sustainability perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 180, 106144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106144 [10] Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T.S., & Sodhi, M.S. (2019). Assessment of social sustainability hotspots in the supply chain of lithium-ion batteries. Procedia CIRP, 80, pp 292–297. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.009 [11] UNEP (2020). The Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-forSocial-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products-and-Organizations-2020-22.1.21sml.pdf [12] Weil, M., Martins, A., A., Fisher, P., Peters, J., et al. (2024). Batteries Europe Task Force Sustainability: Position Paper. Batteries Europe. https://batterieseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Task-ForceSustainability.pdf [13] Yang, Z., Huang, H., & Lin, F. (2022). Sustainable electric vehicle batteries for a sustainable world: perspectives on battery cathodes, environment, supply chain, manufacturing, life cycle, and policy. Advanced Energy Materials, 12(26), 2200383. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202200383 [14] Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x [15] Jenkins, K. E. H., Spruit, S., Milchram, C., Höffken, J., & Taebi, B. (2020). Synthesizing value sensitive design, responsible research and innovation, and energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 101727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101727 [16] Wognum, N., Bil, C., Elgh, F., Peruzzini, M., Stjepandić, J., & Verhagen, W. (2018). Transdisciplinary engineering research challenges. Transdisciplinary Engineering Methods for Social Innovation of Industry 4.0, 753–762. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-898-3-753 [17] Cooper, A. C. G. (2017). Building physics into the social: Enhancing the policy impact of energy studies and energy social science research. Energy Research & Social Science, 26, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.01.013