Understanding Lithium Extraction Through Social Life Cycle Assessment in the American Context: A Critical Review Megan Jermak, Sarah Cribb, Joseph Bozeman III, PhD CEM Georgia Institute of Technology | Social Equity and Environmental Engineering Lab Benoît, C. et al. (2021). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020. Life Cycle Initiative. United Nations Environmental Programme. www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products-and- Organizations-2020-22.1.21sml.pdf. Benoît, C. et al. (2009). The Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products: Just in time! The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 15, no. 2, 21 Jan. 2010, pp. 156–16., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0147-8. Riofrancos, T. (2022). The Security–Sustainability Nexus: Lithium Onshoring in the Global North. Global Environmental Politics, 23(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00668 Jaskula, B. W. (2024). Lithium. In U.S. Geological Survey mineral commodity summaries 2024. U.S. Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-lithium.pdf Mancini, L., & Sala, S. (2018). Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison of indicators frameworks. Resources Policy, 57(57), 98–111. ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.02.002 Chhipi-Shrestha, G. K., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2014). “Socializing” sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(3), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0841-5 Grubert, E. (2016). Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 481– 491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1117-6 Ramirez, P. K. S., Petti, L., Haberland, N. T., & Ugaya, C. M. L. (2014). Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(8), 1515–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0761-y Bozeman, J. et al. (2022). A path toward systemic equity in life cycle assessment and decision-making: Standardizing sociodemographic data practices. Environmental Engineering Science, vol. 39, no. 9, 1 pp. 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2021.0375. Social Life Cycle Application Conclusion and Recommendations Acknowledgements In this critical review, lithium mining is examined under the context of its extraction phase, examining how social and environmental outcomes in foreign mining projects may be echoed in new American mining endeavors. Industrial ecology tools, such as Social Life Cycle Assessments (SLCAs), can be utilized to draw comparisons of unit operations across varying countries and contexts. As part of the guidelines established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) for implementing SLCAs, two Life Cycle Inventories (LCI) were conducted analyzing the social impacts of lithium mining operations. One LCI addressed lithium mines currently operating within South America (SA), while the other LCI investigated data on a Thacker Pass, a proposed mine within the United States (US). Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) is a tool developed by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) for the analysis of social impacts associated with a product’s life cycle from cradle to grave (UNEP, 2009). Although SLCA has evolved significantly in recent years, limited standardization of procedures has restricted its use in the US. Meanwhile, the U.S. is rapidly expanding its lithium mining industry to meet electric vehicle (EV) demand and stabilize lithium supply chains (Riofrancos, 2022). While US mining companies posit American mines as safer and more sustainable than those in the global South, storied negative social implicati