IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p5945-d280349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Life Cycle Assessment of Brine Treatment in the Process Industry: A Consequential Approach Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis

    (Engineering Systems and Services department, Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherland)

  • Gijsbert Korevaar

    (Engineering Systems and Services department, Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherland)

Abstract

Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) was developed to complement the environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) and economic assessment. Contrary to LCA, SLCA is not yet standardized, and the consequential approach is little discussed in literature. This study aims to perform a consequential SLCA and investigate the applicability of the method in industrial decision making. The aforementioned assessment is done within the Zero Brine project, which works on zero liquid discharge technology for water, salt, and magnesium recovery from brine effluents. The developed SLCA systems are gate-to-gate, and the analysis is performed at two levels: Hotspot and site-specific. The system boundaries consist of a demineralized water (DW) production company, a chlor–alkali company, an electricity provider, a magnesium distributor in the Netherlands, and a Russian mining company. The latter exists only in the boundaries before the change due to the Zero Brine project, because recovered magnesium is expected to replace the Russian magnesium imported in the Netherlands. Within the system boundaries, the stakeholders contributing the most are the DW and the magnesium distributor companies. The former produces the brine and thus recovers the magnesium and salt. The latter is the exclusive distributor of Russian magnesium in the Netherlands. Overall, we find that the recovered magnesium results in improving social performance mainly in “Freedom of association and collective bargaining”, “Fair salary”, and “Health and Safety” due to decreasing the dependency of the Netherlands on Russia, while increasing operation in a country with much stronger environmental regulation and corporate commitment to sustainability issues. Modelling with SLCA may not result in the expected societal benefits, as the Russian community and workers may not benefit due to the large geographical boundaries of the system under study. Nevertheless, the application of the consequential approach can be considered suitable, yet complicated, for offering decision makers adequate social information. We recommend that decision makers in the DW company invest in magnesium recovery and that decision makers in the magnesium distributor company distribute the recovered magnesium.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis & Gijsbert Korevaar, 2019. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Brine Treatment in the Process Industry: A Consequential Approach Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5945-:d:280349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5945/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5945/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    2. Roland Clift & Sarah Sim & Henry King & Jonathan L. Chenoweth & Ian Christie & Julie Clavreul & Carina Mueller & Leo Posthuma & Anne-Marie Boulay & Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer & Julia Chatterton & Fabrice , 2017. "The Challenges of Applying Planetary Boundaries as a Basis for Strategic Decision-Making in Companies with Global Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Michael Kühnen & Rüdiger Hahn, 2017. "Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of Frameworks, Theories, and Empirical Experience," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1547-1565, December.
    4. Ruqun Wu & Dan Yang & Jiquan Chen, 2014. "Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-27, July.
    5. Frederiksen, Tomas, 2018. "Corporate social responsibility, risk and development in the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 495-505.
    6. Yuki Kudoh & Masayuki Sagisaka & Sau Soon Chen & Jessie C. Elauria & Shabbir H. Gheewala & Udin Hasanudin & Jane Romero & Vinod K. Sharma & Xunpeng Shi, 2015. "Region-Specific Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Biomass Utilisation in East Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-23, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Somayeh Rezaei Kalvani & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ibrahim Kabir Abdullahi, 2021. "Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Tsalidis, Georgios Archimidis & de Santo, Elena & Gallart, Jose Jorge Espí & Corberá, Joan Berzosa & Blanco, Frederic Clarens & Pesch, Udo & Korevaar, Gijsbert, 2021. "Developing social life cycle assessment based on corporate social responsibility: A chemical process industry case regarding human rights," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    3. Francisco Javier Flor-Montalvo & Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz & Agustín Sánchez-Toledo Ledesma & Leandro Álvarez-Kurogi, 2020. "Social-LCA. Methodological Proposal Applied to Physical Activity Program Implementation into Old People’s Routines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis, 2020. "Integrating Individual Behavior Dimension in Social Life Cycle Assessment in an Energy Transition Context," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Louisa Pollok & Sebastian Spierling & Hans-Josef Endres & Ulrike Grote, 2021. "Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.
    2. Svjetlana Janković Šoja & Ana Anokić & Dana Bucalo Jelić & Radojka Maletić, 2016. "Ranking EU Countries According to Their Level of Success in Achieving the Objectives of the Sustainable Development Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-10, March.
    3. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    4. Flávio Mattos & João Luiz Calmon, 2023. "Social Life Cycle Assessment in Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems with Contribution of Waste Pickers: Literature Review and Proposals for New Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Magdalena Krysiak & Aldona Kluczek, 2021. "A Multifaceted Challenge to Enhance Multicriteria Decision Support for Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-20, July.
    6. Mobolaji B. Shemfe & Siddharth Gadkari & Jhuma Sadhukhan, 2018. "Social Hotspot Analysis and Trade Policy Implications of the Use of Bioelectrochemical Systems for Resource Recovery from Wastewater," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    7. T.E.T Dantas & S.R Soares, 2022. "Systematic literature review on the application of life cycle sustainability assessment in the energy sector," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1583-1615, February.
    8. Ahmad Nadim Azimi & Sébastien M. R. Dente & Seiji Hashimoto, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment of Household Waste Management System in Kabul City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-26, April.
    9. Ricardo J. Bonilla-Alicea & Katherine Fu, 2019. "Systematic Map of the Social Impact Assessment Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-30, July.
    10. Somayeh Rezaei Kalvani & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ibrahim Kabir Abdullahi, 2021. "Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Michael Kühnen & Samanthi Silva & Janpeter Beckmann & Ulrike Eberle & Rüdiger Hahn & Christoph Hermann & Stefan Schaltegger & Marianne Schmid, 2019. "Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Insights from the Handprint research project," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 65-82, March.
    12. Katelin Opferkuch & Sandra Caeiro & Roberta Salomone & Tomás B. Ramos, 2021. "Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: A review of organisational approaches," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 4015-4036, December.
    13. María Jesús Muñoz-Torres & María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo & Juana M. Rivera-Lirio & Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero & Elena Escrig-Olmedo & José Vicente Gisbert-Navarro & María Chiara Marullo, 2018. "An Assessment Tool to Integrate Sustainability Principles into the Global Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    14. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Sanjuan Delmás, D. & Thomassen, G. & Dewulf, J., 2021. "The path to sustainable energy supply systems: Proposal of an integrative sustainability assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    15. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Sara González García & Enrica Imbert & Lucía Lijó & María Teresa Moreira & Almona Tani & Valentina Elena Tartiu & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2019. "Transitioning towards the bio‐economy: Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1135-1153, September.
    16. Mechthild Donner & Anne Verniquet & Jan Broeze & Katrin Kayser & Hugo de Vries, 2021. "Critical success and risk factors for circular business models valorising agricultural waste and by-products," Post-Print hal-03004851, HAL.
    17. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    18. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    19. Jim Butcher, 2006. "The United Nations International Year of Ecotourism: a critical analysis of development implications," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 6(2), pages 146-156, April.
    20. Denise Ravet, 2011. "Lean production: the link between supply chain and sustainable development in an international environment," Post-Print hal-00691666, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5945-:d:280349. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.