SETAC Europe 28 th Annual Meeting, Rome, 13-17 May 2018 Social footprint of a deposit-refund system for packaging waste in Spain Ivan Muñoz 1 , Bo P. Weidema 1 , Alba Bala 2 , Pere Fullana 2 1 2.-0 LCA consultants, Denmark 2 UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change, ESCI-UPF, Spain
Contents The social footprint Introduction of a DSR in Spain Case study results Conclusions 2
The social footprint Existing social LCA methods hampered by: Excessive data requirement Lack of social/economic impact pathways Excessive focus on site-specific data The Social Footprint (SF) is the equity-weighted share of the wellbeing and productivity gap that can be ascribed to a product or service A complete top-down measure of all social, biophysical and economic externalities Low data requirement for screening purposes Uniform monetary valuation 3
The social footprint Productivity impact (PI) Other SF = PI-IR externalities Monetarisation LCA Environmental impacts Equity weighting Global wellbeing Production and internal costs consumption Income redistribution (IR) 4
The social footprint IR = Equity-weighted, purchase-power corrected, life cycle costs æ ö averageIncome Utility = ÷ ^ d ç è ø subgroupIncome d = elasticity of marginal utility of income Value VA, equity- Activity added weighted (VA) Apparel 1€ 0.2 € production, FR Apparel 1€ 7.4€ production, IN https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/daily_chart_1
The social footprint PI = Equity-weighted, purchase-power corrected, well-being and productivity gap = Difference between current GDP and potential GDP in the absence of externalities US GDP per capita as starting point Correction factors to account for externalities in US: 57,600 USD 2016 + 17.6% + 2.5% + 1% + 20% + 35% ≈ 115,000 USD 2016 Avoidable Underinvestment Household Trade Unemployment health in education production barriers impact 6
The social footprint A country-specific PI is calculated Distributed over the industries of each country in proportion to value added and utility-weighted: Activity PI PPP PI PPP, equity-weighted Raw milk production, SE 5.9 €/h 4.9 €/h Raw milk production, IN 18.4 €/h 219 €/h 7
Case study: A DRS in Spain In a deposit-refund system (DRS) consumers pay a deposit when purchasing a product; the deposit is refunded when the packaging is returned to a shop The goal is not to reuse, but to recycle materials Ongoing debate in several regions in Spain on the suitability of such a system in order to increase stagnant recycling rates Proposed DRS affects only beverages < 3 L, except dairy 8
Case study: scope A Two scenarios under study: A : current situation for packaging waste management (Green Dot System, GDS) B : Introduction of a DRS achieving 90% 2.5 million t collected return rate, coexisting with GDS for the 1.7 million t recycled rest of packaging waste B Functional unit is the total amount of packaging waste + managed in Spain in 2014: 2.5 million tonnes 1.4 million t 1.1 million t 2.0 million t recycled 9
Case study: Data Primary data used: Waste balances for both scenarios Operational data on current system (collection, transports, sorting, disposal of residues) Theoretical dimensioning and costs of the DRS in Spain (manual/automatic collection, type of commercial establishments involved, transports, sorting activities, etc.) Expected rebound effects on GDS (collection and sorting inefficiencies) 10
Case study: Data Background data used: Exiobase v3.3.10 Global, detailed Multi-regional Environmentally Extended Supply and Use/Input Output database 43 countries + 5 RoW regions 164 economic sectors per country Extended by 2.-0 LCA consultants with IR and PI values Implemented in SimaPro: 11
Case study: Results SF in MEUR 2011 PPP, utility-weighted Scenario IR PI SF = RI+IP A 181 -5,247 -5,066 B -100 -2,413 -2,513 Social footprint: system B minus system A (Million Euro 2011 PPP, utility-weighted) 3,000 2,568 2,553 2,500 Detrimental 2,000 1,500 1,000 681 500 215 135 131 6 0 Labelling Retailer Transports Recovery Recycling Disposal Other Consumers Net facility activities difference Beneficial -500 -29 B-A -1,000 -1,153 -1,500 12
100 150 200 250 300 50 0 Case study: Results Construction (ES) Auxiliary transport activities {ES} Manufacture of metal products {ES} Plastics, basic {ES} Other land transport {ES} Personnel costs, retail sector (ES) Construction {ES} Other land transport {WA} Other business activities {ES} Chemicals nec {IN} Auxiliary transport activities {WA} Manufacture of electrical machinery {ES} Chemicals nec {WF} Financial intermediation {ES} Wholesale trade and commission trade {ES} Other land transport {WF} Auxiliary transport activities {WF} Chemicals nec {WL} Pulp {ES} Paper {ES} Manufacture of textiles {IN} Manufacture of machinery {CN} Beneficial Detrimental -1,500 -1,000 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Manufacture of plastic products {ES} -500 500 0 Auxiliary transport activities {WE} Labelling 6 -400 -300 -200 -100 100 200 300 0 Retailer 2,568 Plastics, basic {ES} Transports Manufacture of glass and glass products {WA} Social footprint: system B minus system A 681 Aluminium production {ES} Recovery (Million Euro 2011 PPP, utility-weighted) Manufacture of glass and glass products {IN} facility 135 Manufacture of basic iron and steel {ES} Recycling Manufacture of basic iron and steel {IN} -1,153 Manufacture of glass and glass products {WF} Disposal Manufacture of glass and glass products {PT} -29 Manufacture of basic iron and steel {CN} activities Other Manufacture of basic iron and steel {RU} 131 Manufacture of glass and glass products {FR} Consumers 215 Manufacture of glass and glass products {ID} Manufacture of glass and glass products {WM} difference 2,553 B-A Net Aluminium production {WM} Aluminium production {WF} 13 Re-processing of steel {ES}
Conclusions In spite of higher recycling rates, the introduction of a DRS for beverage containers in Spain involves a higher social footprint than the current GDS Similar conclusions were drawn by parallel environmental and economic assessments The social footprint concept combined with Exiobase provides a powerful quantitative Life cycle-based sustainability screening Comprehensive assessments can be produced with much lower efforts than seen so far 14
Thank you! More info on social footprint: https://lca-net.com/clubs/social-lca/ Weidema B P (2018) The social footprint—a practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 23(3):700-709 More info on the DRS sustainability assessment: https://www.esci.upf.edu/en/unesco-chair-in-life-cycle-and-climate- change/ariadna-study 15
Recommend
More recommend
