D8.3.2 Social LCA: Screening Test and First Recommendations - Report
Creators: name: Zafar, Imaad
name: Stojceska, Valentina
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023

description: This report covers the second phase of the D8.3 that focuses on the social impact assessment of the ASTEP system throughout its life cycle. First, key findings from literature excerpts of Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) application on numerous Solar Thermal Energy (STE) and other related engineering systems were examined. The scoring criteria and results of Social Performance (SP) provided by those excerpts were elaborated upon. Next, the scope of the SLCA was formed to screen for SP at the downstream manufacturing and product development life cycle phases of ASTEP’s solar system. It included all boundary conditions consisting of the flow of material and human input at both life cycle phases. All affected project stakeholders as ASTEP’s employees and students who are actively engaged with manufacturing product development activities were identified for assessment. The human resources affecting these stakeholders were established as social impact categories, which included Fair Payment, Employee Training, Working Intensity, Professional Development and Health and Safety (H&amp;S). In the next phase of the SLCA, Social Hotspot Database (SHDB) software was used for assessing social risk on project stakeholders in the downstream phase only in the Fair Payment, H&amp;S, and Working Intensity social impact categories due to the limitations of data availability in the software’s database. The software inputs used material quantity data of each system component and then converted the data into its respective monetary value. Following the downstream phases, surveys and questionnaires were used to collect stakeholder perception in the form of employee satisfaction scores for stakeholders engaged in product development activities, which showed SP in the established social impact categories. There were two surveys and/or questionnaires given at this stage; a) Employee Survey and b) Principal Investigator (PI) Questionnaire. The scoring criteria for the surveys and questionnaires, used to enable the measurement of SP, was referenced from related literature. Additionally, the score sets from the two enlisted surveys were analysed for interdependency under each discussed social impact category through a regression model, supplementing critical evaluation.The results of the SHDB software analysis showed high risk to employee H&amp;S in geographical locations where the aluminium inserts were manufactured, which were used for the PCM Storage Tank. The results of surveys and questionnaires produced satisfaction scores in the following life cycle phases, which demonstrated positive SP across the ASTEP consortium regarding the Professional Development and Working Intensity social impact categories. Critical evaluation done through the regression model demonstrated a strong relationship between these scores and the level of human resources provided for employee development as reported by the PI questionnaire. This led to the justification of the measured SP results under each impact category, and was further validated by the literature. Recommendations to improve resource allocation were made at both life cycle phases analysed within this document. It was first recommended that the choice of material suppliers for the manufacturing phase of the PCM Tank’s subcomponents must be more thoroughly considered, due to the generation of Health and Safety related social risk on supply chain stakeholders in the geographical locations of those suppliers. Secondly, it was advised that SP could be improved if stakeholder engagement during the product development life cycle phase was enhanced through increased provision of training resources for ASTEP employees and students.