Assessing the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle: the case of nano-enabled biocidal paint

PurposeAssessment of the social aspects of sustainability of products is a topic of significant interest to companies, and several methodologies have been proposed in the recent years. The significant environmental health and safety concerns about nano-enabled products calls for the early establishment of a clear benefit-risk framework in order to decide which novel products should be developed further. This paper proposes a method to assess the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle that is (a) quantitative, (b) integrates performance and attitudinal dimensions of social impacts and (c) considers the overall and stakeholder balance of benefits and costs. Social life cycle assessment (s-LCA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are integrated to address this need, and the method is illustrated on a case study of a nano-enabled product.MethodsThe s-LCA framework comprises 15 indicators to characterize the social context of the product manufacture placed within the classification structure of benefit/cost and worker/community. The methodology includes four steps: (a) normalization of company level data on the social indicator to country level data for the year, (b) nested weighting at stakeholder and indicator level and its integration with normalized scores to create social indicator scores, (c) aggregation of social indicator scores into benefit score, cost score and net benefit scores as per the s-LCA framework and (d) classification of social indicator scores and aggregated scores as low/medium/high based on benchmarks created using employment and value-added proxies.Results and discussionA prospective production scenario involving novel product, a nano-copper oxide (n-CuO)-based paint with biocidal functionality, is assessed with respect to its social impacts. The method was applied to 12 indicators at the company level. Classification of social indicator scores and aggregated scores showed that the n-CuO paint has high net benefits.ConclusionsThe framework and method offer a flexible structure that can be revised and extended as more knowledge and data on social impacts of nano-enabled products becomes available. The proposed method is being implemented in the social impact assessment sub-module of the SUN Decision Support (SUNDS) software system. Companies seeking to improve the social footprint of their products can also use the proposed method to consider relevant social impacts to achieve this goal.

[1]  Liselotte Schebek,et al.  Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA) , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[2]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Integrating the Social Impacts into Risk Governance of Nanotechnology , 2016 .

[3]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Decision Support Systems and Environment: Role of MCDA , 2009 .

[4]  David Barling,et al.  Social impacts and life cycle assessment: proposals for methodological development for SMEs in the European food and drink sector , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[5]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance , 2016, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[6]  Daniela Thrän,et al.  Social life cycle assessment: in pursuit of a framework for assessing wood-based products from bioeconomy regions in Germany , 2018, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[7]  Jessica E. Leahy,et al.  Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[8]  Catherine Benoît Norris,et al.  Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Technique Providing a New Wealth of Information to Inform Sustainability‐Related Decision Making , 2012 .

[9]  Luigia Petti,et al.  Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment , 2018, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[10]  Roland Clift,et al.  Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA) , 1996 .

[11]  Gregory A. Norris,et al.  Identifying Social Impacts in Product Supply Chains:Overview and Application of the Social Hotspot Database , 2012 .

[12]  G. Norris Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles - Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment , 2006 .

[13]  Luigia Petti,et al.  Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 2: application in Natura’s cocoa soap , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  David Hunkeler,et al.  Societal LCA Methodology and Case Study (12 pp) , 2006 .

[15]  Andreas Jørgensen,et al.  Methodologies for social life cycle assessment , 2008 .

[16]  Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun,et al.  Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[17]  N. Guan,et al.  A Comprehensive Review of Copper-Based Wood Preservatives , 2009 .

[18]  Saeed Mansour,et al.  Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[19]  Andreas Ciroth,et al.  The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! , 2010 .

[20]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  LICARA nanoSCAN - A tool for the self-assessment of benefits and risks of nanoproducts. , 2016, Environment international.

[21]  Judd Harrison Michael,et al.  Management decisions in the forest products industry: Where good companies go astray , 2008 .

[22]  Craig R. McIntyre,et al.  Copper-Based Wood Preservatives A Comprehensive Review of Copper-Based Wood Preservatives , 2008 .