Socioeconomic and sociocultural analysis report (Final)

A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 1 І151 D.7.9. Socioeconomic and sociocultural analysis report (FINAL) February 2025 Authors: Alba Matamoros (KVC); Rebeca Lucas (KVC), Beatriz Vallina (KVC), Maite Ferrando (KVC), Edoardo Croci (UB), Matteo Donelli (UB), Tania Molteni (UB) Ref. Ares(2025)1625402 - 28/02/2025 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 2 І151 Technical references Project Acronym Agro2Circular Project Title TERRITORIAL CIRCULAR SYSTEMIC SOLUTION FOR THE UPCYCLING OF RESIDUES FROM THE AGRIFOOD SECTOR Project Coordinator Fuensanta Monzó CETEC [email protected] Project Duration October 2021 – September 2024 (36 months) Deliverable No. D7.9. D56 Dissemination level* PU Work Package WP 7 - A2C systemic solution adoption, replication and scalability Task Task 7.4 Social and economic analysis Lead beneficiary KVC Contributing beneficiary/ies UB Due date of deliverable 28 February 2025 Actual submission date 28 February 2025 * PU = Public PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Document history V Date Comments v0.6 13/02/2025 First draft of document v0.7 25/03/2025 Revised version based on the comments of Carlos Serra (UVEG), José Carpintero (EURADA). A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 3 І151 v1.0 28/02/2025 First final version, approved by the WP leader and the project coordinator, (will be) submitted to EC. v1.1 First draft based upon first final version v2.0 Second final version, approved by the WP leader and the project coordinator, (will be) submitted to EC. Document Distribution Log Version Date Distributed to v0.6 21/02/2025 Carlos Serra (UVEG) and José Carpintero (EURADA) v0.7 28/02/2025 Fuensanta Monzó (CETEC) Verification and approval Name Date Verification Final Draft by WP leader Maite Ferrando 27/02/2025 Approval Final Deliverable by coordinator Fuensanta Monzó 28/02/2025 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 4 І151 Disclaimer and acknowledgement This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101036838 Disclaimer This document reflects only the views of the author(s) the European Research Executive Agency (REA) is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Whilst efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this document, the A2C consortium shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, however caused. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 5 І151 Table of contents List of abbreviations 12 Glossary .......................................................................................... 13 Executive summary <abstract> ...................................................... 15 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 16 2 Evaluation levels rationale ......................................................... 18 3 Macro-level evaluation: sociocultural change ............................ 21 3.1 A2C Theory of change: from expected to effective outcomes ...................... 21 3.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 25 3.3 Social impact assessment of interventions: Framework matrix analysis .... 28 3.3.1 Circular Game .............................................................................................. 30 3.3.2 Alhama Market innovation community-based scheme ................................. 32 3.3.3 Mentoring programme and participation in A2C ........................................... 37 3.3.4 DEMO 4 visit ................................................................................................ 40 3.3.5 Effects of A2C on project partners’ workers ................................................. 40 4 Micro-level evaluation: A2C Life-Cycle Assessment ................. 46 4.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 46 4.2 LCC implementation .......................................................................................... 48 4.2.1 Results & conclusions: Agri-food chain – demo 3 ........................................ 49 4.2.1.1 Physical input and output conventional costs ........................................ 50 4.2.1.2 Equipment and installation costs ........................................................... 51 4.2.1.3 Labour costs .......................................................................................... 52 4.2.1.4 Maintenance costs ................................................................................ 52 4.2.1.5 Waste management costs ..................................................................... 52 4.2.1.6 Agri-food chainDemo 3: total eLCC .................................................... 53 4.2.1.7 Agri-food recycled products vs conventional products: demo 3 ............ 71 4.2.1.8 Agri-food chain – demo 3: conclusions.................................................. 74 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 6 І151 4.2.2 Results & conclusions: Agri-food chain – demo 4 ........................................ 75 4.2.2.1 Physical input and output conventional costs ........................................ 76 4.2.2.2 Equipment and installation costs ........................................................... 77 4.2.2.3 Labour costs .......................................................................................... 78 4.2.2.4 Waste management costs ..................................................................... 78 4.2.2.5 Agri-food chain-Demo4: total eLCC ...................................................... 78 4.2.2.6 Agri-food recycled products vs conventional products: demo 4 ............ 89 4.2.2.7 Agri-food chain – demo 4: conclusions.................................................. 93 4.2.3 Results and conclusions. Plastic chain ......................................................... 94 4.2.3.1 Physical input and output conventional costs ........................................ 95 4.2.3.2 Equipment and installation costs ........................................................... 96 4.2.3.3 Labour costs .......................................................................................... 96 4.2.3.4 Maintenance costs ................................................................................ 96 4.2.3.5 Waste management costs ..................................................................... 97 4.2.3.6 Plastic chain: total eLCC ....................................................................... 97 4.2.3.7 Plastic-film recycled products vs conventional products. ....................... 99 4.3 SO-LCA territorial systemic solution ............................................................. 101 4.3.1 Goal & scope .............................................................................................. 101 4.3.2 Inventory and procedure methodology ....................................................... 102 4.3.3 Data gathering tools and process ............................................................... 105 4.3.4 Results per stakeholder category ............................................................... 106 4.3.4.1 Stakeholder category: workers ............................................................ 106 4.3.4.2 Stakeholder category: value chain actors ............................................ 112 4.3.4.3 Stakeholder category: society ............................................................. 114 4.3.4.4 Stakeholder category: local community ............................................... 117 4.3.4.5 Stakeholder category: consumers ....................................................... 121 5 Conclusions ............................................................................. 124 6 Bibliography ............................................................................. 128 7 ANNEXES ................................................................................ 138 Annex 1. Framework matrix analysis: interventions social impacts evaluation... 138 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 7 І151 Annex 2. Materials ...................................................................................................... 151 List of Tables Table 1 A2C sociocultural evaluation by intervention ........................................................ 25 Table 2 Samples characterisation ...................................................................................... 28 Table 3 Alternatives for plastic reduction: frequency table ................................................. 42 Table 4 Government actions to facilitate recycling by citizens: frequency table ................. 42 Table 5 Different input and output assessed in the agrifood demo 3 and 4 eLCC ............. 48 Table 6 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case eLCC .................. 50 Table 7 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case LCC – equipment costs ........................................................................................................................... 51 Table 8 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon waste (Euro) . 55 Table 9 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro ........................................................................................................................... 55 Table 10 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled artichoke waste (Euro) ................................................................................................................................... 56 Table 11 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled artichoke waste (Euro) ............................................................................................................... 57 Table 12 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled broccoli waste (Euro) ................................................................................................................................... 57 Table 13 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled broccoli waste (Euro) ............................................................................................................... 58 Table 14 Default and alternative scenarios main assumptions – fibre and phenolic extract from lemon waste ....................................................................................................... 68 Table 15 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis ...................................................................................................... 69 Table 16 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................... 70 Table 17 Potential benchmark products for fibre and phenolic extract. ............................. 71 Table 18 A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – fibre from lemon waste .... 72 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 8 І151 Table 19 A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – phenolic extract from lemon waste .......................................................................................................................... 73 Table 20 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case eLCC ................ 76 Table 21 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case LCC – equipment costs ........................................................................................................................... 78 Table 22 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case LCC – personnel costs ........................................................................................................................... 78 Table 23 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon/artichoke waste (Euro) .......................................................................................................................... 80 Table 24 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) .......................................................................................................................... 80 Table 25 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled artichoke waste (Euro) ............................................................................................................... 81 Table 26 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon/artichoke waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................... 87 Table 27 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................... 88 Table 28 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled artichoke waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis ............................................................................... 89 Table 29 Potential benchmark products for fibre and phenolic extract. ............................. 90 Table 30 A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – fibre from lemon/artichoke waste .......................................................................................................................... 91 Table 31 A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – phenolic extract from lemon and artichoke waste .................................................................................................... 92 Table 32 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the plastic chain demo case eLCC ......... 95 Table 33 Equipment life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the plastic film demo case eLCC .... 96 Table 34 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of recycled plastic pellet from recycled agricultural mulch film waste (Euro) ............................................................................ 97 Table 35 A2C recycled product vs conventional product - total LCC – plastic pellet ......... 99 Table 36 SO-LCA groups of entities analysed ................................................................. 101 Table 37 List of stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, indicators and SDGs ..... 103 Table 38 Workers: results and references for comparison ............................................... 107 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 9 І151 Table 39 Living, minimum & average wage .................................................................... 108 Table 40 Value chain actors: results and references for comparison .............................. 112 Table 41 Society: results and references for comparison ................................................ 114 Table 42 S1 indicator results per Group .......................................................................... 115 Table 43 S3 & S4.1. per group of organisations .............................................................. 116 Table 44 Local community: results and references for comparison ................................. 117 Table 45 Consumers: results and references for comparison .......................................... 121 List of Figures Figure 1 A2C evaluation logic ............................................................................................ 18 Figure 2 A2C ToC .............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3 Relation with A2C project .................................................................................... 37 Figure 4 Reasons why respondents considered sorting waste correctly important (ranked by importance) ................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 5 A2C Evaluation Timeline ..................................................................................... 46 Figure 6 Production chain of enzymatic extraction ............................................................ 49 Figure 7 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of fibre from lemon waste (EURO/kg) .............. 59 Figure 8 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (EURO/kg) ................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 9 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of fibre from artichoke waste (EURO/kg) ......... 60 Figure 10 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of phenolic extract from artichoke waste (EURO/kg) .................................................................................................................. 60 Figure 11 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of fibre from broccoli waste (EURO/kg) ......... 61 Figure 12 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of phenolic extract from broccoli waste (EURO/kg) .................................................................................................................. 61 Figure 13 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of fibre from lemon waste (%) ....... 62 Figure 14 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (%) .............................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 15 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of fibre from artichoke waste (%) .. 64 Figure 16 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of phenolic extract from artichoke waste (%) .................................................................................................................... 65 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 16 І151 1 Introduction Understanding people’s awareness and behaviours in the context of the Circular Economy (CE) is essential because individuals are not just passive recipients but active agents of change [1]. Their actions are shaped not only by personal motivations, but also affected by broader organisational and societal structures [2]. This highlights the need for interventions that operate at multiple levels, from individual-focus to broader objectives. In line with this, Agro2Circular (A2C) has developed a systemic approach aimed to identify and assess the environmental, socio-economic, and other key factors—such as governance, regulation, and policy standards—that influence the transition of different actors of the Quadruple Helix towards circularity. By assessing the effects of these factors at different levels, A2C seeks to understand the drivers and barriers to circularity in a holistic manner. This integrated perspective ensures that the circular economy solutions developed within the project will be aligned with both grassroots behaviours and the overarching systems in which they operate. Moreover, A2C has been conceived to bring the socio-economic and environmental dimensions at the core of the systemic circular solution and the current document (D.7.9.) is the final output of this purpose 1 . D7.9 is structured in four parts. 1. Evaluation levels rationale. 2. Macro-level evaluation: sociocultural change (results) 3. Micro-level evaluation: A2C Life-Cycle Assessment (results) 4. Conclusions First, the conceptual explanation of the evaluation levels rationale (5. Evaluation levels rationale), which provides a reminder of the evaluation framework (D.7.5.) and details the methodology followed in the economic and social dimensions of the project. Then, the results of the economic and social evaluations are presented by levels of assessment (6.Macro-level evaluation: sociocultural change & 7. Micro-level evaluation: A2C Life-Cycle Assessment). In each section, the methodology followed by level (macro and micro) is explained in detail. Finally, the fourth and final part contains the conclusions. 1 Two evaluation exercises, at M18 (screening exercise) and M42 (final evaluation) have been carried out during the project. The main outputs of the screening exercise are D.7.6. Environmental assessment, LCA and A2C circularity monitoring (Draft) – VTT & D.7.8. Socioeconomic and sociocultural analysis report (Draft) – KVC. The main outputs of the final evaluation will be: D.7.7. Environmental assessment, LCA and A2C circularity monitoring (Final) – VTT & D.7.9. Socioeconomic and sociocultural analysis report (Final) – KVC A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 17 І151 The integration of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) disciplines plays a crucial role in the A2C project, particularly within Work-Package 7 (WP7): A2C systemic solution adoption, replication and scalability. Indeed, one of the most significant applications of SSH in A2C is the evaluation of its impact, as addressed in Task 7.4: Social and economic analysis. However, given the multidimensional nature and sustainability goals of the project, the evaluation extends beyond social and economic dimensions to include environmental aspects. This is covered in Task 7.3: Environmental assessment, LCA, and A2C circularity monitoring. The link between these three evaluation dimensions—social, economic, and environmental—was established in Task 7.2: Evaluation framework, whose main output was Deliverable D7.5: Evaluation framework and methodology. This interconnected approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of the project impacts across all relevant dimensions. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 18 І151 2 Evaluation levels rationale A2C proposes a systemic solution to the circular economy in the agrifood sector, with a strong focus on public engagement, which means that the four stakeholder groups supporting innovation processes (i.e. Public Administration, Industry, Research and technology institutions and Citizens) are strongly involved in the project activities. A2C moves beyond the organisations themselves, promoting a multi-level approach, aimed at achieving a paradigm shift of the agrifood waste management in the long term. Following this scope, the evaluation logic distinguishes between two levels of evaluation: macro and micro level, represented by a green and a yellow square respectively, as shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 A2C evaluation logic Source: elaborated by the authors The macro-level evaluation focuses on the systemic impact of the project and its activities across multiple dimensions (environmental, socioeconomic, governance, policy and regulatory, funding and financial elements, standardization, capacity building and technology, research and innovation), involving various stakeholders (policy makers, government, research community, civil society organisations, business and industry and E I EGI L L I ystemic re ional model Environmental Socioeconomic overnance olicy and regulatory Funding financial elements Standardi ation Capacity building echnology esearch innovation Social Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Costing Assessment ec nolo ical olution Life ycle ssessmen t ualitative uantitative met ods A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 19 І151 education community). The macro-level evaluation has been designed to measure the effects of circular and climate-neutral practices on the different stakeholders involved in A2C, their participation in circular systemic solutions, the development of circular approaches through knowledge transfer, and the replication and visibility of the project solution. Public awareness is an essential element to achieve sustainable development and to involve citizens in circular practices. In A2C public engagement is therefore a core dimension, where all actors are encouraged to participate through the co-creation process. Therefore, the primary goal of the macro-level evaluation is to ensure that public engagement has been effectively achieved. The macro-level evaluation is also closely linked to the Multidimensional Model developed in Task 7.5 (D.7.10) since the regional status of the different model dimensions was analysed through desk research in order to build up the Multidimensional Model and the Self-Assessment tool. In the present deliverable, the results linked with the macro-level evaluation can be found in section 3 Macro-level evaluation: sociocultural change The micro-level evaluation focuses on the technological dimension and is grounded in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, which considers the three pillars (or dimensions) of sustainability: environmental, economic and social. The micro-level evaluation aims to assess the impact of the technological developments achieved during the project across these three dimensions. Each dimension has been evaluated by a dedicated partner (VTT-environmental dimension, UBeconomic dimension, KVC-social dimension). Due to the nature of this evaluation, a preliminary screening exercise was conducted during the project (Deliverables 7.6 and 7.8). However, at this stage, the technological solution was not yet fully developed. Now the results of the evaluation on the social and economic dimensions 2 are included in sections 4.2 LCC implementation and 4.3 SO-LCA territorial systemic solution respectively. The A2C project combines a systemic, participatory and methodologically sound approach to address the challenges of the circular economy in the agrifood sector. The integration of macroand micro-level evaluation, together with an emphasis on public awareness and interdisciplinary collaboration, positions this approach as a comprehensive tool to foster sustainable, inclusive and replicable practices in other contexts. 2 The final environmental results are presented in deliverable D.7.7. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 20 І151 In the following sections, the results of the macro-level evaluation and the social and economic assessment at micro-level are presented in detail. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 21 І151 3 acro-level evaluation: sociocultural c an e This section presents the macro-level evaluation in detail, highlighting the sociocultural change created by the project’s interventions during its last year. The aim is to assess the effect triggered by the project in participants’ awareness acceptance and behavioural change. The social evaluation of the A2C project goes beyond the LCA evaluation, value chains and technical aspects through a multidimensional approach, with a strong focus on public engagement and co-creation, including citizens and all relevant stakeholders in the process towards circularity. 3.1 A2C heory of change: from expected to effective outcomes The Theory of Change (ToC) is a powerful tool to define the planning and implementation of a project or initiative [3]. When used at the design stage, it increases the likelihood that project partners and stakeholders will have clearly identified the intended outcomes of the initiative, the activities that need to be implemented to achieve those outcomes, and the contextual factors that are likely to influence them. The focus of this approach is on the longterm vision of an initiative and is likely to relate to a timescale that lies beyond the timeframe of the initiative, and its aim should be closely linked to the existence of a local, regional or national problem [3]. In A2C, a ToC was developed in Task 7.5 to understand how the project activities would lead to a set of expected results. The aim was to understand how the final impact of the project would contribute to a better understanding of (i) the sustainability factors and (ii) the framework conditions for the applicability of the A2C Multidimensional Model. In the case of A2C, the identified need was the urgency of achieving higher levels of sustainability in the agrifood sector, which determined the defined objective: the adoption and replication of the circular economy (A2C) model. Figure 2 shows the project activities, outputs and outcomes. All elements are based on a needs assessment carried out matching the project´s needs with the planned activities that will lead to the expected outputs and intended outcomes along the A2C Multidimensional Model dimensions (See D.7.10 A2C systemic solution model and self-assessment tool). This needs assessment and matching with project activities, was approached according to A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 22 І151 the dimensions of the Multidimensional Model (technology research and innovation, environmental, socioeconomic, governance, policy and regulatory, funding and financial and capacity building). This decision was taken to ensure methodological coherence of the activities in WP7. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 23 І151 Figure 2 A2C ToC Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v0.7 Page 24 І151 On the technology, research and innovation dimension the lack of identification, classification, and sorting techniques in the food waste field as well as a lack of plastic multilayer residues sorting & recycling techniques were identified as the main challenges. The bioactive extraction technologies and the low level of digitalization in the agrifood industry were also detected. Also, the lack of standardized methods in food waste and plastic value chains were acknowledged. On the environmental dimension, the lack of environmentally sustainable demonstrated technologies (recycling, sorting, extraction, digitalization) and the need to reduce environmental externalities were clearly identified. The dimensions previously mentioned are of a more technical nature. What was identified on the social-related dimensions (socioeconomic, governance, policy and regulatory, funding and financial and capacity building) conditioned the results presented in this section, and are linked with the acceptance, awareness and behavioural change of different groups of stakeholders. The low level of citizens' involvement in circular and climate practices produced a lack of awareness, acceptance, and knowledge related to these practices. In addition, the lack of demonstrated economic sustainability of circular economy techniques and technologies, compounded by market failures arising from the absence of circular value and supply chains, and the lack of viable business models, further hampers progress. Sustainable consumer behaviour adoption remains low, and there is a significant gap in the creation of decent jobs within the circular economy, increasing the risk of exclusion for vulnerable populations in both awareness and consumer adoption. Moreover, a lack of skills and environmental literacy to support the transition to a circular economy model persists. The challenges are exacerbated by insufficient cross-thematic and multistakeholder coordination, ineffective national legislation despite EU directives, and the lack of practices tailored to specific territorial contexts. Together, these barriers create a complex socioeconomic landscape that hinders the advancement of circular and climate change practices. Following a comprehensive needs assessment, a series of activities were formulated to address the identified barriers and needs, with a focus on the expected project outputs and outcomes. These activities (the launch of video game contest, and the creation of a community-based scheme in Alhama market, among other activities detailed in section 3.2) were undertaken under WP7 and WP8 and were evaluated using a range of SSH techniques, to assess one of the expected outcomes, namely to “raise acceptance, A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 25 І151 awareness and knowledge among citizens & stakeholders about the circular economy […]”. Understanding people’s awareness and behaviours in the context of the circular economy is essential because individuals are not just passive recipients but active agents of change [4]. Personal behaviours are not only self-motivated but also affected by– and interact with– broader organisational and societal structures. Thus, stressing the need for interventions that operate at multiple levels [4]. In A2C we have focused our study on the analysis of awareness and knowledge, acceptance and behavioural change of different interventions and their effect on the different groups of stakeholders related to the project. 3.2 Methodology Environmental awareness directly influences acceptability by shaping perceptions of need, urgency and effectiveness of environmental solutions. However, economic, social and communication factors also play an important role in this dynamic [5]. Following the community-based participatory research schema, the social impact of A2C interventions was evaluated through mixed methods, as outlined in Table 1 and detailed below. Table 1 A2C sociocultural evaluation by intervention A2C responsible partner Intervention Tool Dimensions assessed Target and sample PRIMAFRIO CIRCULAR GAME INTERVIEW Acceptance, awareness, behavioural change TEACHERS (N=3) KVC ALHAMA MARKET INTERVIEW Acceptance, awareness, behavioural change MARKET VENDORS (N=3) KVC ALHAMA MARKET SURVEY Acceptance, awareness, behavioural change CITIZENS (N=30) KVC ALHAMA MARKET PARTICIPATION IN A2C INTERVIEW Acceptance, awareness, behavioural change PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (N=2) A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 32 І151 Most teachers expressed optimism regarding the overall impact of the activity, highlighting its potential benefits. Others, adopted a more critical stance, asserting that the activity fell short of achieving its intended outcomes. 3.3.2 Alhama Market innovation community-based scheme One of the key findings related to the acceptance dimension is the reported satisfaction by market vendors (MVs) and the public administration (APs) in labelling long-standing generational behaviours as circular practices. For instance, AP02 noted that recognising activities such as repurposing excess fruits and vegetables for projects like A2C or feeding livestock animals had provided MVs with a newfound sense of appreciation and acknowledgment that they had not experienced before (“Yes, you can see that the market vendors are satisfied now that the practice is being named and that they see that it is important. They are happy to do it.”). Additionally, MV01 expressed a highly positive perception of the project describing it as a “beautiful initiative” that promotes employment and urban cleanliness. Similarly, MV02 supported the continuation and replication of the initiative, emphasising its significant benefits for the local economy. However, interviews with MVs also highlighted several barriers and challenges associated with the acceptance dimension, primarily linked to economic factors and cultural attitudes toward circular products. Key points include: - Economic and educational concerns: MV01 suggested that while consumers might be willing to pay a premium price for recycled products, he was critical of efforts to reduce plastic usage. He viewed this as an educational challenge and expressed scepticism about the feasibility of achieving significant plastic reduction in the marketplace. - Regional resistance: MV02 identified a notable reluctance within the region to embrace recycled products compared to other areas. He attributed this to the dominance of traditional farming practices and economic constraints, contrasting this with a higher demand for eco-friendly products in international markets. - Pricing challenges: MV02 further emphasized that the higher cost of ecological products limits accessibility, which, in his view, hinders widespread adoption despite a growing environmental awareness among consumers. - Generational differences: A generational divide in sustainable practices was also evidenced. Older generations were perceived as more reluctant to change, whereas younger generations demonstrated greater awareness and willingness to adopt sustainable behaviours. MV03 noted a gradual shift in consumer habits, such as the use of reusable shopping bags, but stressed that broader behavioural changes A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 33 І151 require time to fully materialize. Time, in this context, is considered a critical factor for evaluating the long-term impacts of activities designed to enhance awareness. Regarding citizens' (C0) acceptance of consuming products made from fruits and vegetables (F&V) waste, 50% of participants agreed with consuming such products, while only 7% strongly disagreed. Those who strongly agreed were predominantly women over 50 years old with primary or secondary education. Conversely, those who strongly disagreed also fell into the demographic of individuals over 50 with similar educational backgrounds. When considering products made using biodegradable or plant-based plastics, acceptance was even higher: 53% of respondents strongly agreed, while only 7% strongly disagreed. Those who strongly agreed were primarily women of mixed ages, and the education profile expanded to include individuals with vocational education and training (VET). Interestingly, citizens displayed greater enthusiasm for upcycled products made from biodegradable or plant-based plastics than from those derived from F&V waste (53% vs. 30%). Comments such as “not to eat, to use, yes” suggest that consumers may have trust issues regarding the edibility of products based on F&V waste. Despite initial concerns, respondents' perceptions of products made from F&V waste improved once they had experienced the products first-hand. Observations from the survey highlight several key findings: - Many participants expressed a positive attitude toward using products made from food waste. - Several respondents believed these products contribute to reducing waste, minimizing plastic use, and decreasing environmental impact. - Participants appreciated the underlying concept and expressed a desire to see such practices adopted more widely. These findings suggest that while trust and familiarity remain potential barriers, exposure to and awareness of upcycled products can enhance public perception and acceptance over time. Given the characteristics of the population participating in this initiative, it was important to assess whether respondents fully understood the concept of the CE and their level of awareness (awareness & knowledge). According to AP02, market vendors demonstrated awareness of the CE concept, though not necessarily in theoretical terms. Instead, their understanding was reflected through actions, as many had already been independently practicing CE principles (“Sometimes they don't understand it, when you talk to them about circular economy, they say “what are you talking to me about, what I have left over, to the A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 34 І151 livestock farmer, for the goats". They were already applying it [circular economy] without giving it a name. It is true that, from this [activity in the Alhama Market], and the awareness that has been raised, it is noticeable that there are fewer vegetable waste products in the weekly market.”). Some MVs, such as MV01, indicated that they were already familiar with the topic before engaging in the project and felt that their knowledge had neither significantly improved nor expanded as a result of their participation in the initiative. In contrast, MV02 acknowledged limited initial awareness of CE. However, exposure to the project helped clarify the concept and deepen his understanding of its practical applications. These findings suggest a varied baseline of awareness among participants, ranging from pre-existing knowledge to enhanced comprehension through project involvement. This highlights the value of initiatives that not only encourage CE practices but also strengthen conceptual understanding to foster broader engagement. Among surveyed citizens (C0), the majority expressed agreement with the potential of recycled food to address food waste. Specifically, 40% strongly agreed, and 47% agreed with this proposition, while only 10% strongly disagreed. Those who strongly agreed were predominantly women, covering various age groups and educational levels, mainly primary or secondary education. Conversely, those who strongly disagreed were also mainly women, aged over 50, with similar educational profiles. Regarding biodegradable plastic packaging made from plant waste, 37% of respondents strongly agreed that it could help mitigate pollution problems, and 43% agreed. Additionally, 17% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed. Respondents reported increased knowledge and understanding of these products, particularly their uses and environmental benefits. Some participants noted that while they were already familiar with the information presented, the initiative reinforced their beliefs about sustainability. However, a few concerns were raised, including: - The potential presence of pesticides in recycled food products. - Waste generation during the production process. - Lack of clarity regarding specific products and their environmental impact. Understanding people’s awareness and behaviours (behavioural change) within the framework of the CE is crucial since individuals are active contributors to change [1]. In the case of this initiative, AP02 observed a noticeable reduction in waste following the weekly A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 35 І151 market, showing a tangible shift in behaviour. While the level of selective waste collection did not meet initial expectations, market vendors demonstrated increased responsibility by minimizing residues and adopting improved waste management practices. As noted by AP02: “It is true that, from this, and the awareness that has been raised, it is noticeable that there is less vegetable waste at the weekly market.” Additionally, participation in community-based innovation schemes such as this activity appeared to influence participants’ awareness and behaviours not only in professional contexts, but also in their personal lives. AP02 reflected on this broader impact: "Work in an activity like this makes you more aware and makes you be much more responsible, even at a personal level, at home." These findings highlight the dual impact of such initiatives: fostering immediate behavioural changes in specific contexts and cultivating long-term awareness and responsibility in participants’ everyday lives. In terms of consumer (C0) acceptance of upcycled products, 43% of respondents agreed they would purchase products made from F&V waste, while 23% strongly agreed. Conversely, only 10% strongly disagreed, and 13% neither agreed nor disagreed. Those who strongly agreed were predominantly women over 50 years old with primary or secondary education, while those who strongly disagreed were primarily men over 50 with basic education. Regarding the personal actions carried out to prevent food waste at home, the most popular ones included (in order of relevance): checking the fridge/ pantry before buying, considering how food should be stored to keep it fresh, considering the portion sizes and using leftovers. The least popular action was to write down a food plan. Regarding the incorporation of upcycled products into their routines, responses varied: - Some participants reported gradually integrating these products, expressing a willingness to adopt them “little by little.” - Others already practiced the concept and demonstrated enthusiasm for expanding its use. However, personal barriers, such as age and ingrained habits, were cited as obstacles to behavioural change despite a positive perception of the idea. Notable preferences also emerged, such as a willingness to use these products for cosmetics but reluctance to consume them as food. These findings highlight both the opportunities and challenges in promoting upcycled products, emphasising the need to address personal barriers and build consumer confidence in using these products across various applications. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 36 І151 Market vendors emerged as the stakeholder group exhibiting the greatest resistance in this dimension. While they expressed a favourable attitude toward expanding such practices in the future, they acknowledged that the current project had not influenced their own behaviour or that of consumers (MV01). This perspective reflects an openness to future change but a lack of immediate action. As in the other dimensions, some MVs also highlighted resistance to adopting ecological practices, due to their over-reliance on traditional farming methods and the higher costs associated with sustainable alternatives. These factors present significant barriers to implementing circular and sustainable practices within the market context. Regarding consumer behaviour, MV03 observed a noticeable shift in preferences. Consumers increasingly prioritize purchasing high-quality products in smaller quantities while avoiding F&V with visual imperfections. As a final remark and additional information from this activity, a key observation is the recognition of CE's importance and the role that local development agents can play in fostering these practices. However, significant barriers, such as limited time, resources, and public servant expertise, constrain effective adoption: “What is most lacking is time and knowledge. The technicians, the Public Administration is quite aged, the workers are older, and they don't have the necessary knowledge” (A 02). MVs and AP both demonstrated engagement with CE-related practices but lacked comprehensive understanding of the concept beyond recycling. For MVs, the connection to CE is predominantly linked to individual actions, such as recycling at home and consumers bringing reusable bags to the market. Despite these efforts, economic barriers—particularly the initial investment required—prevent broader implementation of sustainable practices. MVs also noted that consumer preferences for visually perfect and high-quality products challenge the integration of more sustainable alternatives. Citizens (C0), predominantly older women with basic educational levels, expressed mixed familiarity and motivations toward CE-related products. While 70% of respondents were unaware of the A2C project, many were motivated to consume upcycled products due to environmental and health benefits, alignment with ecological values, and visible progress in product care. Conversely, barriers to consumption included doubts about product quality, unclear pricing, and selectiveness based on personal preferences. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 37 І151 A notable divergence emerged between A s’ and MVs’ perceptions of the project success. While APs recognised the potential for cost savings through waste reduction, they emphasised the lack of economic incentives for citizens and businesses to make additional efforts. In contrast, MVs showed willingness to engage in future initiatives but indicated that current efforts have not significantly shifted consumer or vendor behaviours. 3.3.3 Mentoring programme and participation in A2C Figure 3 shows the relationship that survey respondents have with the A2C project (raw material supplier, new product developer) and the instrument by which they got to know the project (stakeholder meetings, dissemination events, mentoring programme, website). Figure 3 Relation with A2C project Being involved in A2C has provided the surveyed business with specific knowledge and actionable insights on concrete practices namely: - By-product management - R&D&I for new products - New working systems - Acquisition of know-how for future projects - Increased market knowledge By-product management and R&D&I for new products, were the two more valuated options. Just one participant stated that none-specific actions were implemented in their business after the contact with A2C. This familiarity has influenced the business by an improvement of quality, production or R&D department and by restructuring of work in daily operations. None of the respondents selected the option “change in the entity’s strategic decisions” and just one of the respondents stated that the actions did not influence their business. In terms of the benefits generated for the company as a result of its participation in or relationship with A2C, the majority of respondents (75%) indicated that no effects had been generated or 'not yet'. Although these types of tangible results require longer periods of time to be evaluated [9], some respondents indicated that an improvement in customer satisfaction, more positive 20% 10% 20% 10% 40% Raw material supplier New product developer Stakeholder meetings Dissemination events Mentoring programme Web site A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 38 І151 attitudes/behaviours and better efficiency were some of the results observed after their participation in A2C activities. Even though 62% of the respondent’s knowledge was not improved due to the participation in A2C, participants in the mentoring activity stated that their knowledge was improved “at the level of mentality, decisions and actions” and by keeping the same dynamic implemented through the years in CE. It was also remarked that these types of activities were positive as they allow examples to be set, improving the understanding of the CE. When asked to identify which stakeholder group is most important in accelerating the adoption of the CE, respondents provided a unanimous response, identifying the business sector as the key actor. However, it should be noted that this response may be influenced by the demographic of the respondents, who were exclusively from the corporate sector. The regional and national authorities, along with the European Union, were considered to be equally significant, followed by consumers, universities, and technological centres in descending order. In addition, consensus was reached on the areas where investment should be directed to facilitate the transition from a linear to a CE model. These areas include the qualification of secondary raw materials, followed by research into product design and education. It needs to be noted that the respondents belong to the regional market of Murcia, where the market for secondary raw materials has been identified since the beginning of the A2C research as a hot topic to deploy a CE model. Although respondents perceive a trend towards more sustainable products, practices, and the use of recycled materials, purchase costs and trust are the factors that have the greatest influence on consumers' willingness to purchase upcycled products. Regarding the strategies that could be used to generate trust among consumers, general publicity campaigns from public administration and knowledge of legislation on the use and application aimed at companies were the two more valued options. Two more additional strategies were added by the respondents: “quality comparisons with no recycling” and “consumers should not be fooled by false promises”. One of the most valued strategies for strengthening the adoption of the CE is the identification of collaboration opportunities, which can help expand business lines and drive innovation. Respondents also emphasised the importance of solutions that enhance business growth through CE practices. In terms of current actions being implemented, many businesses have systems in place for the recovery of waste, by-products, and raw materials, A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 39 І151 and are actively working on energy management. These efforts reflect a commitment to sustainability within the framework of the CE. Respondents also highlighted other crucial aspects for the successful implementation of CE in their fields, particularly the recycling and reuse of goods/products and the consumption of products from renewable sources. The overall rationale for these practices is that improved knowledge leads to better production techniques, reduces waste, and enhances transportation and distribution systems. Additionally, it promotes the reuse of by-products in parallel industries and emphasises the importance of information exchange for advancing the CE. However, cultural awareness remains limited among some stakeholders. Despite these positive insights, there are challenges to successfully implement the CE, particularly related to financial resources for investments and personnel costs. Respondents identified challenges such as limited financial investment, insufficient qualifications, and reluctance from clients to share associated costs as significant barriers to progress. Mentoring programme evaluation (N=2): The programme effectiveness has been rated with 6 (out of 10) by the respondents. When asked about concrete examples of how the programme impacted positively in the company, the following responses were given: • “Expansion of contacts for future contracts or projects” • “More positive attitudes/behaviours towards circular economy products in their business” • “Increased willingness to pay for reused products in their business practices (i.e. value chain inputs, service providers...)” • “Awareness raising among workers” • “Organisation of work to be more efficient” According to the barriers and drivers to promote Circular Economy Business Models-CEBM identified in literature [10], the results stated by the respondents are very positive in order to achieve the final intended outcome of the programme, which was to generate innovative results oriented to respond to circular business challenges. Finally, satisfaction with the mentoring programme in terms of increasing awareness and CE practices acceptance was rated 6,5 out of 10, giving an acceptable rate. As this result was obtained solely from the perspectives of two informants, it would have been beneficial to obtain feedback from the remaining participants. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 40 І151 3.3.4 DEMO 4 visit This survey was centred on evaluating the generation of informal initiatives for transferring the CE to the work activity of the DEMO 4 visit’s participants. After the visit, most of the respondents (78%) considered that the results presented by DOMCA could be applicable to their activities. The most useful and adaptable results were: - the presentation of the plan equipment (microwave extraction equipment); - methodology for extraction of compounds of interest; - obtaining polyphenols fractions for use as antioxidants. Other participants stated that their activity was related to consultancy or the academic field and therefore this question was not applicable to them. On average, 43% of the respondents felt that their knowledge of practical ways to reduce food and plastic waste had improved after the visit, by seeing on a pilot scale what is done in the laboratory, by improving their practical knowledge of the technologies used for waste valorisation and by gaining knowledge of extraction methods/ processes. It was also highlighted that some of them had no previous knowledge on the method. Also, on average, 4 respondents considered that the demonstration could be of interest to their colleagues/ peers in their field or related areas, due to the availability of equipment in which the whole process can be carried out at a larger scale than the laboratory, being of great interest in circular bioeconomy projects. Moreover, the possibility of R&D collaboration and the usefulness of knowing about waste valorisation alternatives were also highlighted. Showing how the process was scaled up from laboratory to pilot scale was seen as the most useful insight by participants. 3.3.5 Effects of on project partners’ workers Employees of the organisations participating in the SO-LCA assessment were surveyed to evaluate their awareness and acceptance of various recycling-related behaviours. Among the aspects analysed was the workers' awareness of recycling practices. The findings revealed that individuals place significant importance on understanding the destination and purpose of "waste" after it is collected. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) strongly agreed that knowing what happens to items post-collection is essential. This closely aligns with the observations gathered by teachers, who reported that students also expressed a strong A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 41 І151 desire to understand the subsequent steps in the recycling process. These results highlight the critical role of transparency and education in fostering greater engagement with recycling practices. he most relevant reason for respondents to correctly separate waste is “to reduce environmental pollution” followed by “for ethical choices and future generation”. he most significant reason, reducing environmental pollution, underscores a collective concern for ecological preservation. Ethical considerations and the well-being of future generations reflect a strong sense of social responsibility, indicating that respondents value long-term impacts over immediate gains. Additionally, the emphasis on reducing plastic use in food and drink packaging highlights the growing awareness of the detrimental effects of plastic waste. Lastly, the inclusion of economic benefits suggests that while environmental and ethical motivations dominate, practical incentives also play a role in encouraging waste separation. Employees were also asked how the problem of plastic recycling could be reduced. Table 3 provides insights into respondents’ attitudes towards different strategies to address plastic use. 86% of respondents ("agree" and "fully agree") support reusing existing plastic products. Disagreement (7%) and neutrality (7%) are minimal, suggesting a broad consensus on this approach. The support for the second measure (“supporting the use of alternative materials at informational, cultural, and economic levels”) is also high, with 81% ("agree" and "fully agree"). This suggests that respondents value efforts to promote alternatives to plastic. The approach that generated less support was to drastically limit plastic use by law, with only 47% ('agree' and 'strongly agree') supporting it and a significant 28% disagreeing. The higher levels of neutrality (20%) and disagreement suggest reluctance, probably due to concerns about the feasibility or potential consequences of strong legal action. Lastly, informational strategies receive strong support, with 90% ("agree" and "fully agree"). This indicates a widespread belief in the value of education and 1To reduce environmental pollution 2For ethical choices and future generation 3To reduce plastic use in the food and drink packaging 4For economic benefits Figure 4 Reasons why respondents considered sorting waste correctly important (ranked by importance) A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 48 І151 value chain allows for a more nuanced analysis of their social contributions and challenges, enabling a clearer understanding of the specific dynamics within each organisational category. These adjustments aim to address the methodological challenges while maintaining the robustness and relevance of the social assessment. 4.2 LCC implementation As it was performed in the LCA (see Deliverable D7.6) an eLCC assessment has been conducted on different agri-food demo case studies, which are focused on utilizing waste streams from the agri-food sector. The objective of the different demos which apply the recycling process is to extract value from waste from its high value bioactive compounds, to produce new foods, nutraceuticals and cosmetics. In particular, demo 3 and demo 4 have been selected to perform an eLCC assessment. The following table reports the output of demo 3 and demo 4 which has been assessed in the eLCC from the processing of different waste input. Table 5 Different input and output assessed in the agrifood demo 3 and 4 eLCC DEMO Input Output Demo 3 Lemon waste Fibers Phenolic extract Artichoke waste Broccoli waste Demo 4 Lemon waste Fibers Phenolic extract Artichoke waste Source: elaborated by the authors In addition, in conjunction with LCA (see Deliverable D7.6) an eLCC assessment has been conducted on the plastic chain case study, which is focused on upcycle plastic residues from the food sector to high added value products. The demo consists of recycling agricultural mulch film waste and waste from aseptic bags produced by the food industry, into new plastic pellet, which can substitute conventional LDPE virgin pellet, currently available on the market. The next chapters report the results of these eLCC assessments. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 49 І151 4.2.1 Results & conclusions: Agri-food chain – demo 3 The eLCC model has been created on top of the LCA model, in order to assess the conventional and environmental externality costs related to the same input and output included in the LCA model 5 . The next figure shows the same detailed flow chart used for the LCA. Figure 6 Production chain of enzymatic extraction 6 The following cost categories have been included in the demo: 1. physical input and output conventional costs (raw materials, energy, water, transport, waste management); 2. equipment costs; 3. labour costs; 4. maintenance costs. 5 For a more detailed description of the LCA model, please consult Deliverable D7.6. 6 he flow chart is taken from Deliverable D7.6 “Environmental assessment LCA and A2C circularity monitoring” Essi aronen (V ) Eveliina Hylkilä (V ) Katri Behm (V ). A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 50 І151 As it was done in the LCA, all the costs have been allocated between the 2 co-products, the fibre (solid phase) and phenolic extract (liquid phase): - in those processes where both solid and liquid phases are present (tank and filtration), 75 % of the shared costs are allocated to the solid phase and 25 % to the liquid phase (dry mass allocation); - costs related to the oven phase are entirely allocated to the solid phase, - costs related to the concentration and lyophilization phases are entirely allocated to the liquid phase. The following sections report the life cycle inventories (LCI) of all single processes included in this demo case. 4.2.1.1 Physical input and output conventional costs As previously reported, the same input/out table used for the LCA has been integrated with the relevant costs, which cover the physical input, such as raw materials, water, energy and transport, as well as the physical output, such as condensed water which is treated as waste. The conventional costs related to each LCA input and output are described in Table 6. Table 6 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case eLCC Input Amount Unit Conventional Cost (EURO) Comment agri-food waste (lemon/artichoke/broccoli) 50 kg 45,66 Inbound transportation cost enzyme 0,005 kg 0,15 water (boiler feed water) 0,19 m3 0,76 water (for extraction) 0,15 m3 0,60 Water (for fibre washing) water 233,6 kg 0,53 Purification process (solid phase) Oxidising agent 0,69 kg 0,37 Purification process (solid phase) Electricity (total) 105,6 kWh 14,67 3 months average cost Electricity (for waste pretreatment) 1 kWh 0,14 Waste cutting process Electricity (for the tank) 3,5 kWh 0,49 Electricity (for filtration) 1,7 kWh 0,24 Electricity (for the oven) 38,4 kWh 5,34 Electricity (for concentration) 36 kWh 5,00 Electricity (for lyophilisation) 25 kWh 3,47 natural gas 6 m3 27,48 Output Amount Unit Conventional Cost (EURO) Comment condensed water 0,08 m3 0,025 Waste management cost carbon dioxide to air 11,13 kg - No conventional costs attached (only environmental externalities) A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 51 І151 evaporated water 305,5 kg - No conventional costs attached (only environmental externalities) discharged water 233,6 kg 0,042 Waste management cost Fiber (product) 3,6 (from lemon waste) 4,25 (from artichoke waste) 4,2 (from broccoli waste) kg - Recycling process output Phenolic extract (product) 0,95 (from lemon waste) 0,5 (from artichoke waste) 0,6 (from broccoli waste) kg - Recycling process output Source: elaborated by the authors 4.2.1.2 Equipment and installation costs In order to process the input waste stream, no new equipment is needed. Therefore, no installation costs occur, while equipment costs include the yearly amortisation cost of the existing equipment that is used both for the recycling process, as well for other types of productions. To reflect the proper utilization of the equipment involved in the recycling process, the amortization costs have been allocated on the basis of the total yearly production (in mass), where the cost of the A2C project represents 32%, according to expert judgement from CTNC). Table 7 reports, per each type of equipment, its amortization cost and the allocated cost to the recycled co-products. Table 7 Used life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the agrifood demo case LCC – equipment costs Input Conventional Cost for the whole production (Amortization cost per year7) (EURO) Conventional Cost for the recycled coproducts production (Amortization cost per year) (EURO) Tank 1450 464 Cutting and homogenising machine 8343 2669,76 7 Amortization has been calculated over 8,33 years of use of each equipment. Only 32% of these equipment costs have been allocated to the lemon waste recycling process. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 52 І151 Oven 930 297,60 Filtration equipment 1845 590,4 Freeze dryer/Lyophiliser 8134 2602,88 Source: elaborated by the authors 4.2.1.3 Labour costs According to expert judgement from CTNC, to process 150 kg of food waste (from pretreatment to purification and stabilisation, i.e. the whole process), it takes about 5 days x 8 hours/day x 3 persons with an hourly cost of 20 €/h. Since no further information was available, labour cost has been allocated 75% to the fibre and 25% to the phenolic extract. 4.2.1.4 Maintenance costs Total yearly maintenance costs, for the equipment reported in the use in the process, sums up to 37 000 € per year while the cost of the A2C project represents 32% (12 000€) according to expert judgement from CTNC. Maintenance cost includes preventive and corrective costs. Since no further information was available, maintenance cost has been allocated 75% to the fibre and 25% to the phenolic extract. 4.2.1.5 Waste management costs The food waste recycling process does not produce any solid waste, but only condensed water (from the concentration phase) and the wastewater generated in the fibre washing process, that need to be treated as wastewater. Waste management cost therefore includes the cost of the treatment of condensed water, as already reported in Table 6 as well as the discharged water from fibre washing. Since the concentration phase is entirely dedicated to the production of the phenolic extract, the relative wastewater treatment cost has been fully allocated to the phenolic extract, while, on the contrary, the wastewater treatment cost for the fibre washing process has been fully allocated to the fibre output. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 53 І151 4.2.1.6 Agri-food chainDemo 3: total eLCC The current paragraph reports the results of the whole recycling process of the Demo 3 and their co-products, fibre and phenolic extract, including the associated environmental costs, deriving from the application of the Delft University of Technology to the LCA results, with the details per cost category and per life cycle phase. For the environmental externalities, the Delft University of Technology impact assessment method has been applied to the same model and input data used in the LCA. Environmental Prices is a method developed by CE Delft for expressing environmental impacts in monetary units. The environmental prices are available for the following impact categories: • Climate change (kg CO2 eq) • Ozone depletion (kg CFC-11 eq) • Terrestrial acidification (kg SO2 eq) • Freshwater eutrophication (kg P eq) • Marine eutrophication (kg N eq) • Human toxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq) • Photochemical oxidant formation (kg NMVOC) • Particulate matter formation (kg PM10 eq) • Terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq) • Freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq) • Marine ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq) • Ionising radiation (kBq U235 eq) • Agricultural land occupation (m2a) • Urban land occupation (m2a) • Natural land transformation (m2) • Water depletion (m3) • Metal depletion (kg Fe eq) • Fossil depletion (kg oil eq) The tables and figures below show the results of the eLCC assessment of the production of 1 kg of fibre and 1 kg of phenolic extract from, respectively, recycled lemon waste, artichoke waste and broccoli waste. From these tables and figures, it is evident that for both coproducts, the total eLCC is driven by the conventional cost, which represents approximately 99% of the overall costs both for the fibre and the phenolic extract. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 54 І151 For the fibre, personnel costs and maintenance costs are the largest contributors, followed by equipment costs, while for the phenolic extract equipment costs and personnel costs, followed by maintenance costs, are the largest contributors. Since only the output yield varies among the 3 different types of agrifood waste, the cost structure is the same for all these waste streams and the only difference is the total eLCC cost per kg of output. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v0.7 Page 55 І151 Table 8 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon waste (Euro) Cost category Waste input collection&pretreatment Recycling process - general activities Recycling process – extraction&filtra tion Recycling process - purification Recycling process - stabilization Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,03 - 0,17 - 1,48 1,69 0,5% Energy cost - thermal energy - - 6,54 - - 6,54 1,8% Equipment cost 25,43 - 10,04 - 3,31 38,77 10,6% Maintenance cost - 114,29 - - - 114,29 31,3% Personnel cost - 190,48 - - - 190,48 52,2% Raw materials cost - - 0,04 0,36 - 0,40 0,1% Transport cost 10,87 - - - - 10,87 3,0% Waste management cost - - 0,02 - - 0,01 0,0% Water cost - - 0,32 0,26 - 0,47 0,2% Total conventional cost 36,33 304,76 17,12 0,64 4,79 363,64 99,7% Environmental costs 0,02 - 0,38 0,05 0,61 1,05 0,3% Total eLCC 36,35 304,76 17,50 0,69 5,40 364,69 100% Source: elaborated by the authors Table 9 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro Cost category Waste input collection&pretreatment Recycling process - general activities Recycling process – extraction&filtra tion Recycling process - purification Recycling process - stabilization Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,02 - 0,11 5,43 3,66 9,22 2,6% Energy cost - thermal energy - - 4,13 - - 4,13 1,2% Equipment cost 16,06 - 6,34 - 109,59 132,00 37,8% Maintenance cost - 72,18 - - - 72,18 20,7% Personnel cost - 120,30 - - - 120,30 34,5% A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 56 І151 Raw materials cost - - 0,02 - - 0,02 0,0% Transport cost 6,87 - - - - 6,87 2,0% Waste management cost - - - 0,03 - 0,03 0,0% Water cost - - 0,20 - - 0,20 0,1% Total conventional cost 22,95 192,48 10,81 5,46 113,25 344,95 98,9% Environmental costs 0,01 - 0,24 2,24 1,50 3,98 1,1% Total eLCC 22,96 192,48 11,05 7,70 114,75 348,93 100% Source: elaborated by the authors Table 10 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled artichoke waste (Euro) Cost category Waste input collection&pretreatment Recycling process - general activities Recycling process – extraction&filtra tion Recycling process - purification Recycling process - stabilization Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,03 - 0,15 - 1,26 1,43 0,5% Energy cost - thermal energy - - 5,54 - - 5,54 1,8% Equipment cost 21,54 - 8,51 - 2,80 32,84 10,6% Maintenance cost - 96,81 - - - 96,81 31,3% Personnel cost - 161,34 - - - 161,34 52,2% Raw materials cost - - 0,03 0,30 - 0,34 0,1% Transport cost 9,21 - - - - 9,21 3,0% Waste management cost - - - 0,02 - 0,02 0,0% Water cost - - 0,27 0,22 - 0,49 0,2% Total conventional cost 30,78 258,15 14,50 0,54 4,06 308,03 99,7% Environmental costs 0,01 - 0,32 0,04 0,51 0,89 0,3% Total eLCC 30,79 258,15 14,82 0,59 4,57 308,92 100% Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 57 І151 Table 11 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled artichoke waste (Euro) Cost category Waste input collection&pretreatment Recycling process - general activities Recycling process – extraction&filtra tion Recycling process - purification Recycling process - stabilization Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,04 - 0,21 10,32 6,95 17,51 2,6% Energy cost - thermal energy - - 7,85 - - 7,85 1,2% Equipment cost 30,51 - 12,05 - 208,23 250,79 37,8% Maintenance cost - 137,14 - - - 137,14 20,7% Personnel cost - 228,57 - - - 228,57 34,5% Raw materials cost - - 0,04 - - 0,04 0,0% Transport cost 13,05 - - - - 13,05 2,0% Waste management cost - - - 0,05 - 0,05 0,0% Water cost - - 0,39 - - 0,39 0,1% Total conventional cost 43,60 365,71 20,54 10,37 215,18 655,40 98,9% Environmental costs 0,02 - 0,45 4,26 2,84 7,57 1,1% Total eLCC 43,62 365,71 20,99 14,62 218,02 662,97 100% Source: elaborated by the authors Table 12 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled broccoli waste (Euro) Cost category Waste input collection&pretreatment Recycling process - general activities Recycling process – extraction&filtra tion Recycling process - purification Recycling process - stabilization Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,03 - 0,15 - 1,27 1,45 0,5% Energy cost - thermal energy - - 5,61 - - 5,61 1,8% Equipment cost 21,79 - 8,61 - 2,83 33,24 10,6% Maintenance cost - 97,96 - - - 97,96 31,3% Personnel cost - 163,27 - - - 163,27 52,2% A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 64 І151 Figure 15 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of fibre from artichoke waste (%) Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 65 І151 Figure 16 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of phenolic extract from artichoke waste (%) Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 66 І151 Figure 17 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of fibre from broccoli waste (%) Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 67 І151 Figure 18 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of phenolic extract from broccoli waste (%) Source: elaborated by the authors Personnel cost, as well as maintenance and equipment cost, are highly influenced by the demo testing small scale, which prevents the recycling process from achieving a high level A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 68 І151 of efficiency. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted to assess how the total cost would change if a higher scale and higher efficiency were applied. According to CTNC expert judgment, the current equipment set could treat up to 7500 kg of food waste input, instead of the 1250 kg assessed in the default scenario. Moreover, the increased efficiency could bring scale economy to personnel cost, as well as maintenance and equipment cost. Personnel hours, according to CTNC expert judgment, could be cut by 50%, dropping from the default 120 hours 8 per 150 kg of food waste input, to 60 hours to treat the same amount. Table 14 reports the main assumption for the default and the alternative scenario assessed in the sensitivity analysis. Table 14 Default and alternative scenarios main assumptions – fibre and phenolic extract from lemon waste Default scenario Default scenario Alternative scenario Fiber & Phenolic extract ● 120 hours of personnel per 150 kg of lemon waste input ● 1250 kg of food waste input yearly treated ● 60 hours of personnel per 150 kg of lemon waste input ● 7500 kg of food waste input yearly treated Source: elaborated by the authors Figure 19 and Figure 20, and Table 15 and Table 16 show the results of the total eLCC assumptions for 1 kg of fibre and 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste, which has been selected as representative also for other type of food wastes, being the assumptions the same for all waste streams. From the sensitivity analysis it is evident the considerable cost reduction for both co-products, as the fibre cost is reduced by 61% and the phenolic extract by 59%, thanks to a reduction in maintenance and equipment costs (-83%) and in personnel cost (-50%). 8 It was assumed that it takes about 5 days* 8 hours/day * 3 persons to treat 150 kg of lemon waste input. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 69 І151 Figure 19 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - fibre from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis Source: elaborated by the authors Table 15 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis Cost category Default scenario Alternative scenario Cost reduction (%) Energy cost - electricity 1,69 1,69 0% Energy cost - thermal energy 6,54 6,54 0% Equipment cost 38,77 6,46 -83% Maintenance cost 114,29 19,05 -83% Personnel cost 190,48 95,24 -50% Raw materials cost 0,40 0,40 0% Transport cost 10,87 10,87 0% Waste management cost 0,02 0,02 0% Water cost 0,58 0,58 0% Total conventional cost 363,64 140,85 -61% Environmental costs 1,05 1,05 0% Total eLCC 364,69 141,90 -61% Source: elaborated by the authors - 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 Default scenario Alternative scenario Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - fibre from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis Energy cost - electricity Energy cost - thermal energy Equipment cost Maintenance cost Personnel cost Raw materials cost Transport cost Waste management cost Water cost Environmental cost 364,69 EUR 141,90 EUR A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 70 І151 Figure 20 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - phenolic extract from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis Source: elaborated by the authors Table 16 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis Cost category Default scenario Alternative scenario Cost reduction (%) Energy cost - electricity 9,22 9,22 0% Energy cost - thermal energy 4,13 4,13 0% Equipment cost 132,00 22,00 -83% Maintenance cost 72,18 12,03 -83% Personnel cost 120,30 60,15 -50% Raw materials cost 0,02 0,02 0% Transport cost 6,87 6,87 0% Waste management cost 0,03 0,03 0% Water cost 0,20 0,20 0% Total conventional cost 344,95 114,65 -67% Environmental costs 3,98 3,98 0% Total eLCC 348,93 118,63 -66% Source: elaborated by the authors - 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 Default scenario Alternative scenario Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - phenolic extract from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis Energy cost - electricity Energy cost - thermal energy Equipment cost Maintenance cost Personnel cost Raw materials cost Transport cost Waste management cost Environmental cost 348,93 EUR 118,63 EUR A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 71 І151 4.2.1.7 Agri-food recycled products vs conventional products: demo 3 This section focuses on a possible comparison of the total eLCC assessment of the fibre and the phenolic extract from recycled food waste, against conventional (virgin) products that could be considered as alternative products already available. Since the function of both the fibre and the phenolic extract is not yet fully defined, given that these substances can be included in a wide range of different formulations, the identification of possible benchmark products is still uncertain. For the phenolic extract, which is rich in antioxidant compounds (polyphenols, flavonoids), currently there is no proper reference product, since there is no nutritional claim on polyphenols or antioxidant capacity. In the LCA, some benchmark products have been investigated, as reported in the next table. Unfortunately, the conventional cost was not available for the whole list of products. On the contrary, for quercetin, only the conventional cost was provided Table 17. Table 17 Potential benchmark products for fibre and phenolic extract. Agri-food recycled product Benchmark product: More information: Scale: Source: Kg/CO2 emissions per kg of product9 Conventional cost (euro/kg) Fiber from food waste Inulin from root chicory Root chicory is defined as an herbaceous plant with a fleshy taproot, and it is the main source of inulin. It is used to enrich products with fibre. It is soluble fibre, and the purity is usually around 80-90% fibre. Industrial Hingsamer et al. [83] 1,41 4,9/7 Phenolic extract from food waste Antioxidantrich powder extract from beet wastes Ten different scenarios using beet root and leaf residues as inputs and five different extraction techniques. Used reference is pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) on beet leaves, for 1 g. Laboratory Arias et al.[84] 60 Not available Antioxidants from olive mill wastewater (OMW) Three polyphenolic compounds recovered with liquid-liquid solvent extraction (three different solvents tested). Used reference is hydroxytyrosol extraction (0,247 kg from 1 m3 OMW) with ethyl acetate solvent. Laboratory Kalogerakis et al. [85] 13300 Not available 9 Data from deliverable D7.6 “Environmental assessment LCA and A2C circularity monitoring” Essi aronen (VTT), Eveliina Hylkilä (VTT), Katri Behm (VTT). A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 72 І151 Starch aerogel tablets containing vitamin E Corn-based starch, aerogel preparation using supercritical carbon dioxide impregnation. Used reference the vitamin E (α-tocopherol, TOC) amount (15 mg) in a tablet (120 mg). Industrial De Marco et al. [86] 1687 Not available C-vitamin, ascorbic acid production Dataset name: “ascorbic acid production” location RER. LCIA results, EF v3.0. Industrial ecoinvent 3.8 database 2,9093 9,8 Quercetin antioxidant flavonoid present in onions Industrial CTNC expert judgement Not available 28 Hydroquinone Organic compound naturally present in some foods and plants Convention al ecoinvent 3.10 database 4,717410 8,3 Source: elaborated by the authors For this comparison, the environmental costs considered both for the conventional and the A2C product, are limited to the CO2 equivalent emissions. Since for quercetin no LCA information was available, the comparison is purely based on the conventional cost. Table 18 and Table 19, as well as Figure 21 and Figure 22, show the results of the comparison. Table 18 A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – fibre from lemon waste Type of product Product Conventional LCC Environmental cost Total eLCC Recycled (A2C) Fiber (from lemon waste) – default scenario 363,64 1,05 364,69 Recycled (A2C) Fiber (from lemon waste) – optimized scenario 140,85 1,05 141,90 Conventional Inulin from root chicory11 7,44 0,08 12 7,52 Source: elaborated by the authors 10 Environmental impact data are derived from Ecoinvent 3.10 dataset “Hydroquinone { E }| hydroquinone production | Cut-off U” 11 Organic inulin price is currently 7-10€/kg. It is used to enrich products with fibre. It is soluble fibre and the purity is usually around 80-90% fibre (expert judgement from CTNC). 12 Only environmental externalities associated to CO2 equivalent emissions have been included in the calculation. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 73 І151 Figure 21 A2C product vs conventional product – total eLCC – Fiber from lemon waste Source: elaborated by the authors From the comparison, the cost of the fibre from lemon waste appears still significantly higher than the organic inulin. Table 19 A2C products vs conventional systems - total LCC – phenolic extract from lemon waste Type of product Product Conventional LCC Environmental cost Total eLCC Recycled (A2C) Phenolic extract (from lemon waste) – default scenario 344,95 3,98 348,93 Recycled (A2C) Phenolic extract (from lemon waste) – optimized scenario 114,65 3,98 118,63 Conventional C-vitamin, ascorbic acid production 9,8 0,93 10,73 Conventional Hydroquinone13 8,8 0,77 9,57 Source: elaborated by the authors | n.a =not available 13 Hydroquinoneinulin price is currently 7,3-10 3 €/kg (www.pharmacompass.com/price/hydroquinone). It is used as a source of phenolic substances. - 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 Fiber from lemon waste (default scenario) Fiber from lemon waste (optimized scenario) Inulin from root chicory A2C product vs Conventional product - eLCC - fibre from lemon waste (EUR/kg) Conventional LCC Environmental cost A2C – Deliverable D7.9v0.7 Page 80 І151 Table 23 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon/artichoke waste (Euro) Cost category Waste input collection Recycling process - pretreatment Recycling process - extraction Recycling process - centrifugation Recycling process - ultrafiltration Recycling process - dehydratati on Waste manageme nt Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,00 0,02 0,26 2,32 0,00 5,56 0,00 8,16 1,5% Equipment cost 0,00 258,68 114,43 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 373,11 68,8% Personnel cost 0,00 10,00 124,97 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 134,96 24,9% Raw materials cost 0,00 0,00 8,72 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,72 1,6% Transport cost 12,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 12,50 2,3% Water cost 0,00 0,13 0,19 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,31 0,1% Waste management cost 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0% Total conventional cost 12,50 268,83 248,57 2,32 - 5,56 - 537,76 99,2% Environmental costs 0,34 0,01 0,24 1,07 0,30 2,57 - 4,53 0,8% Total eLCC 12,84 268,84 248,81 3,39 0,30 8,13 - 542,29 100% Source: elaborated by the authors Table 24 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) Cost category Waste input collection&pretreatment Recycling process - general activities Recycling process – extraction&filtration Recycling process - purification Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,03 0,35 59,83 180,66 240,87 2,2% Equipment cost 344,91 152,57 8139,53 1625,00 10262,01 92,7% Personnel cost 13,33 166,62 0,00 250,00 429,95 3,9% Raw materials cost 0,00 11,63 0,00 0,00 11,63 0,1% Transport cost 16,66 0,00 0,00 0,00 16,66 0,2% Waste management cost 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,64 0,64 0,0% Water cost 0,17 0,25 1,32 0,00 1,74 0,0% A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 81 І151 Total conventional cost 374,93 331,17 8.199,37 2.056,30 10.961,77 99,0% Environmental costs 0,47 0,32 27,66 83,80 112,25 1,0% Total eLCC 375,40 331,49 8.227,03 2.140,10 11.074,01 100% Source: elaborated by the authors Table 25 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled artichoke waste (Euro) Cost category Waste input collection&pretreatment Recycling process - general activities Recycling process – extraction&filtration Recycling process - purification Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,03 0,35 59,83 180,66 240,87 1,9% Equipment cost 344,91 152,57 8139,53 1625,00 10262,01 81,6% Personnel cost 13,33 166,62 0,00 250,00 429,95 3,4% Raw materials cost 0,00 11,63 1267,43 132,02 1411,08 11,2% Transport cost 16,66 0,00 0,00 0,00 16,66 0,1% Waste management cost 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,64 0,64 0,0% Water cost 0,17 0,25 1,32 0,00 1,74 0,0% Total conventional cost 374,93 331,17 9.466,79 2.188,32 12.361,22 98,2% Environmental costs 0,47 0,32 125,41 93,98 220,18 1,8% Total eLCC 375,40 331,49 9.592,21 2.282,30 12.581,40 100% Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v0.7 Page 82 І151 Figure 24 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of fibre from lemon/artichoke waste (EURO/kg) Source: elaborated by the authors Figure 25 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (EURO/kg) Source: elaborated by the authors - 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 Waste input collection Recycling process - pretreatment Recycling process - extraction Recycling process - centrifugation Recycling process - ultrafiltration Recycling process - dehydratation Waste management Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - fibre from lemon/artichoke waste Energy cost - electricity Equipment cost Personnel cost Raw materials cost Transport cost Water cost Environmental costs - 1.000,00 2.000,00 3.000,00 4.000,00 5.000,00 6.000,00 7.000,00 8.000,00 9.000,00 Waste input collection & pre-treatment Recycling process - extraction & filtration Recycling process - MAE Recycling process - purification & concentration Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - antioxidants from lemon waste Energy cost - electricity Equipment cost Personnel cost Raw materials cost Transport cost Waste management cost Water cost Environmental costs A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 83 І151 Figure 26 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (EURO/kg) Source: elaborated by the authors Focusing on the conventional costs, Figure 27, Figure 28 & Figure 29 clearly show the % contribution of each type of cost to the total conventional costs (the thickness of the arrow is proportional to its impact). For the fibre, cost from the cutting and homogenizing machine (pre-treatment), represents around 48% of the total conventional costs, while personnel costs bring an additional 25% and the equipment for extraction (microwave) another 21%. For the phenolic extract the microwave equipment for MAE and purification and concentration covers 75% and 67% of the total conventional cost for, respectively, lemon waste and artichoke waste input. For the latter, the weight of ethanol represents around 11% of the total conventional cost. - 2.000,00 4.000,00 6.000,00 8.000,00 10.000,00 12.000,00 Waste input collection & pre-treatment Recycling process - extraction & filtration Recycling process - MAE Recycling process - purification & concentration Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - antioxidants from artichoke waste Energy cost - electricity Equipment cost Personnel cost Raw materials cost Transport cost Waste management cost Water cost Environmental costs A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 84 І151 Figure 27 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of fibre from lemon/artichoke waste (%) Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 85 І151 Figure 28 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon waste (%) Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 86 І151 Figure 29 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of phenolic extract from artichoke waste (%) Source: elaborated by the authors As for Demo 3, Equipment cost and Personnel cost, are highly influenced by the demo testing small scale, which prevents the recycling process from achieving a high level of efficiency. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted to assess how the total cost would change if a higher scale and higher efficiency were applied. According to DMC expert judgment, the current equipment set could allow a total output up to 20 kg per year, treating a double amount of food waste input, in comparison to the default scenario. The increased production can bring scale economy to equipment cost. Figure 31 and Figure 32, and Table 26, Table 27 show the results of the total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of fibre and 1 kg of phenolic extract from lemon and artichoke waste. From the sensitivity analysis it is evident the considerable cost reduction for both coproducts, as the fibre cost is reduced by 34% and the phenolic extract by 34-39%, thanks to a reduction in equipment costs (between -42% and -50%). A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 87 І151 Figure 30 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - fibre from lemon/artichoke waste - sensitivity analysis Source: elaborated by the authors Table 26 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of fibre from recycled lemon/artichoke waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis Cost category Default scenario Alternative scenario Cost reduction (%) Energy cost - electricity 8,16 8,16 0% Equipment cost 373,11 186,55 -50% Personnel cost 134,96 134,96 0% Raw materials cost 8,72 8,72 0% Transport cost 12,50 12,50 0% Water cost 0,31 0,31 0% Total conventional cost 537,76 351,21 -35% Environmental costs 4,53 4,53 0% Total eLCC 542,29 355,74 -34% Source: elaborated by the authors €- €100 00 €200 00 €300 00 €400 00 €500 00 €600 00 Default scenario Alternative scenario Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - fibre from lemon/artichoke waste - sensitivity analysis Environmental cost Economic cost 542,29 EUR 355,73 EUR A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 88 І151 Figure 31 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - phenolic extract from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis Source: elaborated by the authors Table 27 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled lemon waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis Cost category Default scenario Alternative scenario Cost reduction (%) Energy cost - electricity 240,87 240,87 0% Equipment cost 10.262,01 5.943,51 -42% Personnel cost 429,95 429,95 0% Raw materials cost 11,63 11,63 0% Transport cost 16,66 16,66 0% Waste management cost 0,64 0,64 0% Water cost 1,74 1,74 0% Total conventional cost 10.963,50 6.645,00 -39% Environmental costs 112,25 112,25 0% Total eLCC 11.075,75 6.757,24 -39% Source: elaborated by the authors - 2.000,00 4.000,00 6.000,00 8.000,00 10.000,00 12.000,00 Default scenario Alternative scenario Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - phenolic extract from lemon waste - sensitivity analysis Energy cost - electricity Equipment cost Personnel cost Raw materials cost Transport cost Waste management cost Water cost Environmental cost 11,075,75 EUR 6.757,24 EUR A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 89 І151 Figure 32 Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - phenolic extract from artichoke waste - sensitivity analysis Source: elaborated by the authors Table 28 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of phenolic extract from recycled artichoke waste (Euro) - sensitivity analysis Cost category Default scenario Alternative scenario Cost reduction (%) Energy cost - electricity 240,87 240,87 0% Equipment cost 10.262,01 5.943,51 -42% Personnel cost 429,95 429,95 0% Raw materials cost 1.411,08 1.411,08 0% Transport cost 16,66 16,66 0% Waste management cost 0,64 0,64 0% Water cost 1,74 1,74 0% Total conventional cost 12.362,95 8.044,45 -35% Environmental costs 220,18 220,18 0% Total eLCC 12.583,14 8.264,63 -34% Source: elaborated by the authors 4.2.2.6 Agri-food recycled products vs conventional products: demo 4 As it was done for demo 3, this section focuses on a possible comparison of the total eLCC assessment of the fibre and the phenolic extract from recycled food waste, against - 2.000,00 4.000,00 6.000,00 8.000,00 10.000,00 12.000,00 14.000,00 Default scenario Alternative scenario Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - phenolic extract from artichoke waste - sensitivity analysis Energy cost - electricity Equipment cost Personnel cost Raw materials cost Transport cost Waste management cost Water cost Environmental cost 12.583,14 EUR 8.264,63 EUR A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 96 І151 Input Amount Unit Conventional Cost (EURO) Comment carbon dioxide to air 6,10 kg - No conventional costs attached (only environmental externalities) A2C pellet 1000 kg - Recycling process output Source: elaborated by the authors 4.2.3.2 Equipment and installation costs In order to process the input waste stream, 2 types of equipment are needed: a washing plant and an extruder, which are fully dedicated to the recycling process. Equipment costs include the installation costs as well as the yearly amortization cost which has been calculated considering a yearly production based on 17.721,78 kg of input waste and 10 years life span (Table 33). Table 33 Equipment life cycle inventory (LCI) data in the plastic film demo case eLCC Input Conventional Cost for the whole production/recycling process (Amortization cost per year22) (EURO) Washing plant 40500 Extruder 28700 Source: elaborated by the authors 4.2.3.3 Labour costs According to expert judgement from GWC plastics, to get 1 t of recycled pellet (for cleaning/decontamination and recycling, i.e. the whole process), it takes about 1,5 hours, with an hourly cost of 86 63 €/h. 4.2.3.4 Maintenance costs Total yearly maintenance costs, for the equipment reported in the use in the process, sum up to 131.508 € per year with a yearly production based on 17.721 78 kg of input waste. 22 Amortization has been calculated over 10 years of use of each equipment. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 97 І151 4.2.3.5 Waste management costs The agricultural film waste recycling process produces soil, as solid waste, and plastic sawdust, that needs to be treated as wastewater. Waste management cost therefore includes the cost of the treatment of both waste streams, as already reported in Table 32. 4.2.3.6 Plastic chain: total eLCC The current paragraph reports the results of the whole recycling process and its product, the recycled pellet, including the associated environmental costs, deriving from the application of the Delft University of Technology to the LCA results, with the details per cost category and per life cycle phase. Table 34 and Figure 35 and Figure 36 show the results of the eLCC assessment of the production of 1 kg of recycled plastic pellet from recycled agricultural mulch film waste. It appears clearly that the total eLCC is driven by the conventional cost, which represents around 91% of the overall costs, whereas raw material cost, as waste input collection, is the largest contributor, followed by electricity and personnel cost. Table 34 Total eLCC for the production of 1 kg of recycled plastic pellet from recycled agricultural mulch film waste (Euro) Cost category Total Cost % on total Energy cost - electricity 0,17 26,0% Energy cost - thermal energy 0,00 0,4% Equipment cost 0,02 3,2% Maintenance cost 0,04 6,2% Personnel cost 0,13 19,2% Raw materials cost 0,20 29,3% Transport cost 0,02 3,7% Waste management cost 0,02 3,0% Water cost 0,00 0,2% Total conventional cost 0,61 91,0% Environmental costs 0,06 9,0% Total eLCC 0,67 100% Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 98 І151 Figure 35 Total eLCC assessment for 1 kg of recycled pellet from agricultural film waste (EURO/kg) Source: elaborated by the authors Focusing on the conventional costs, Figure 36 clearly shows the % contribution of each type of cost to the total conventional costs (the thickness of the arrow is proportional to its impact). Maintenance represents about 45% of the total conventional costs, while equipment as a whole brings an additional 23%, and waste management cost, mainly to treat soil waste, is about 20%. - 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 Waste input collection Transport Raw materials Energy Recycling process - general activities Recycling process - equipment Total eLCC per life cycle phase (EUR/kg) - pellet recycled Energy cost - electricity Energy cost - thermal energy Equipment cost Maintenance cost Personnel cost Raw materials cost Transport cost Waste management cost Environmental cost A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 99 І151 Figure 36 Total conventional cost breakdown for 1 kg of recycled pellet from agricultural film waste (%) Source: elaborated by the authors Since equipment cost, and partly maintenance, are influenced by the demo testing small scale, which prevents the recycling process from achieving high level of efficiency, the overall eLCC cost of the recycled plastic pellet would certainly be reduced with a higher scale of yearly production. 4.2.3.7 Plastic-film recycled products vs conventional products. This section focuses on a possible comparison of the total eLCC assessment of the recycled pellet from agricultural film waste against the conventional (virgin) pellet that could be considered as an alternative product already available. Since the final product is a pellet which is a mix of 1/3 of A2C recycled plastic pellet and 2/3 of virgin LDPE pellet, an additional conventional cost of 1,5 euro per kg has been attached to the virgin LDPE pellet, according to expert judgement from GWC Plastic. The following tables and figures Table 35 and Figure 37 show the results of the comparison. Table 35 A2C recycled product vs conventional product - total LCC – plastic pellet Type of product Product Conventional LCC Environmental cost Total eLCC Recycled (A2C) Plastic pellet (33% recycled content) 1,20 0,28 1,48 Conventional Plastic pellet (100% virgin content) 1,5 0,39 1,89 Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 100 І151 Figure 37 A2C product vs conventional product – total eLCC – Plastic pellet Source: elaborated by the authors From the comparison, both environmental externalities costs and the conventional cost for the recycled pellet are lower than the virgin pellet ones. Therefore the total eLCC of the 33% recycled pellet is 21% lower than the 100% virgin pellet. - 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 1,60 1,80 2,00 A2C pellet 33% - Virgin LDPE pellet 67% Virgin LDPE pellet 100% A2C product vs Conventional product - eLCC - plastic pellet from agricultural film waste (EUR/kg) Environmental cost Conventional LCC A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 101 І151 4.3 SO LCA territorial systemic solution This section presents the results of the social organisational evaluation (micro-level evaluation). These are framed under deliverable D.7.5. Evaluation framework and methodology and follow the procedure of the results presented in the deliverable submitted in March 2023 D7.8. Socioeconomic and sociocultural analysis report (Draft). Therefore, to avoid repetition and for the sake of simplicity, the methodological information used in the screening phase is presented in D.7.8. and updated (when necessary) in the next sections of this deliverable (D.7.9). 4.3.1 Goal & scope The social evaluation is based on the Social-Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SOLCA). This approach is grounded on the key role of organisations in the transition towards sustainability and CE [12]. Therefore, the selected unit of analysis has been the organisation. As in the screening stage, the goal of this study (SO-LCA) is to analyse the performance of the organisations in order to promote the improvement of social conditions and/or their contribution to the social development of each organisations’ stakeholders. The selected organisations belong to both value chains (Agrifood and Plastic), but in this occasion are grouped by type of organisation (see section 4.1 Methodology) and the groups are presented in the following table: Table 36 SO-LCA groups of entities analysedError! Reference source not found.. Table 36 SO-LCA groups of entities analysed Private for-profit organisations Research Organisations Other (Civil Society OrganisationsCSO) Murcia (Spain) CITROMIL, GWC, SOLPLAST, MCTS, CETECBIO CTNC, CETEC PRIMAFRIO, PROEXPORT Granada (Spain) DMC Catalunya (Spain) IRIS Reference year 2023 2023 2023 Source: elaborated by the authors A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 102 І151 The SO-LCA is carried out by type of organisation in an aggregated way, not considering the organisations individually. Also, the results must be considered carefully due to the heterogeneity of the organisations (different number of employees, activities…). In the group of private for-profit organisations, the majority of the organisations belong to the agrifood Value Chain (VC) (CITROMIL, DMC, MCTS, CETECBIO). In this group, there are two entities based outside of the region of Murcia: DMC and IRIS. Moreover, 43% of the entities are SMEs. The average number of employees is 70,7, ranging from 203 to 3. Regarding the Research organisations group, both institutions (CTNC and CETEC) are based in the region of Murcia. CTNC operates in both the agrifood and the plastic value chains whereas CETEC only in the plastic one. The average number of employees is 25. The last group, named other, is composed of a foundation (PRIMAFRIO), operating in the agrifood VC, and an association (PROEXPORT), operating in the plastic value chain. The average number of employees is 4,5. The reporting organisation was chosen as the unit of analysis by setting the boundaries of the system “from cradle to gate” in accordance with the UNE guidelines for SO-LCA [13]. The SO-LCA calls upon a stakeholder approach where the potential impacts on different stakeholder categories are considered. he quality of an organisation’s relationships and engagement with its stakeholders is critical for its social performance. As in the screening exercise, the stake olders’ cate ories included in the UNEP guidelines are considered as well as several of their corresponding impact subcategories (see 4.3.2. Inventory and procedure methodology ). Specifically, the selected stakeholders’ categories are workers, value chain actors, society, local community and consumers. The category “children” has been excluded due to its irrelevance with respect to the sectorial dimensions of the organisations under assessment. 4.3.2 Inventory and procedure methodology The criteria to choose the metrics was the same followed in the screening stage (D.7.8.). The indicators are mainly based on the UNEP guidelines and on the results of fuzzy Delphi 23 23 This method combines Delphi method and fuzzy theory analysis to achieve a consensus by solving the vagueness and ambiguity of expert judgments to improve the efficiency and quality of traditional Delphi method A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 103 І151 study carried out by A. Padilla-Rivera, B.B.T. do Carmo, G. Arcese et al [14]. Bibliographic research was also conducted to review the most recent articles related with the selection of SO-LCA indicators [15], [16]. Thus, the metrics that meet the methodological requirements set in the evaluation framework (relevance, measurability, reliability, timeliness, comparability, clarity and availability) have been chosen, correlated with the stakeholders and the social impact categories. Moreover, and following the UNEP guidelines for SO-LCA and the scholars’ proposals site specific indicators were associated with the impact subcategories and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) as shown in the following table: Table 37 List of stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, indicators and SDGs Stakeholder category Impact subcategory Indicators Related SDGs WORKERS Forced labour - Employment terms (WQ1) - Forced Labour (W1) SDG 3 | SDG 8 | SDG 10 Fair salary - Minimum wage, per month (W3) - Organisation average wage, per month (W4) SDG 1 | SDG 2 | SDG 3 | SDG 4 Working hours - Flexibility (WQ2) - Full-time staff (W5) SDG 3 | SDG 8 Equal opportunities/ discrimination - Gender equality (W6) - Equal opportunities policies (W7) SDG 1 | SDG 4 | SDG 5 | SDG 8 | SDG 10 Health and Safety - Occupational safety measures (WQ3) - Lost time injury frequency rate (W8) - Presence of sufficient safety measures (W9) SDG 2 | SDG 3 | SDG 6 | SDG 8 Social benefits, legal issues - Evidence of violations of laws and employment regulations (W10.1 – W10.2) SDG 3 | SDG 8 | SDG 9 | SDG 11 Workers’ rights - Trade unions density (WQ4) - Collective Bargaining Agreement (W11.1, W11.2, W11.3, W11.4) SDG 8 | SDG 10 | SDG 16 Sexual harassment - Sexual harassment incidents reported (W12) SDG 8 VALUE CHAIN ACTORS Fair competition - Sanctions for anti-competitive behaviour (VC1.1VC1.2) SDG 12 Promoting social responsibility - Promotion of Corporate Social Responsibility (VC2) - Suppliers audit (VC3) SDG 12 Supplier relationships - Suppliers’ communication relationship (VC4) SDG 12 surveys through fuzzy set theory, which addresses situations in which humans cannot precisely describe a judgement. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 104 І151 Stakeholder category Impact subcategory Indicators Related SDGs Respect of intellectual property rights - Use of local intellectual property (VC5) SDG 9 Wealth distribution - Fair price definition (VC6) SDG 1 | SDG 8 | SDG 10 SOCIETY Public commitment to sustainability issues - Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues (S1) SDG 12 | SDG 17 Contribution to economic development - Total taxation per capita (S2) SDG 1 | SDG 2 | SDG 3 | SDG 4 | SDG 8 | SDG 9 | SDG 10 Technology development - Technology transfer (S3) - Investments in technology development/ transfer (S4) SDG 4 | SDG 9 | SDG 17 Corruption - Corruption (S5) SDG 16 Poverty alleviation - Poverty alleviation programme (S6) SDG 1 | SDG 2 LOCAL COMMUNITY Access to material resources - Environmental management system (LC1) SDG 9 | SDG 12 Access to immaterial resources - Community education initiatives (LC2) SDG 4 | SDG 12 Delocalization and migration - Immigrant workforce rate (LC3) - Organisational procedures for integrating migrant workers into the community (LC4) SDG 9 | SDG 10 | SDG 11 Cultural heritage - Funding dedicated to support and promote cultural heritage (LC5) SDG 11 Safe and healthy living conditions - Promotion of community health (LC6) SDG 3 | SDG 6 Community engagement - Diversity of community stakeholder groups that engage with the organisation (LC7) - Number of meetings with community stakeholders (LC8) - Organisational support (volunteer-hours or financial) for community initiatives (LC9) SDG 11 | SDG 12 Local employment - Workforce hired locally (LC10) - Spending on locally based suppliers (LC11) SDG 8 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 105 І151 Stakeholder category Impact subcategory Indicators Related SDGs Secure living conditions - Security complaints by the community (LC12) SDG 3 | SDG 16 CONSUMERS Health and Safety - Labelling (C1) - Consumer complaints (C2) - Presence of a Quality and/or Product Safety Management System (C3) SDG 2 | SDG 3 | SDG 12 Feedback mechanism - Presence of consumers feedback mechanism (C4) SDG 12 Consumer privacy - Consumers complaints related to breach of privacy (C5) SDG 8 | SDG 16 Transparency - Organisation communication transparency (C6) SDG 9 | SDG 12 End-of-life responsibility - Internal management systems (C7) SDG 12 | SDG 15 4.3.3 Data gathering tools and process The tools used in this stage were designed 24 during the preliminary screening phase and were also applied in the final project assessment. Two main questionnaires were utilised: the Project Manager Form and the Workers’ uestionnaire. The former was targeted at senior management positions within the selected organisations, focusing exclusively on questions related to the SO-LCA. he Workers’ Questionnaire on the other hand served a dual purpose: it gathered information to enrich the conclusions related to the Workers stakeholder category and included questions about awareness, desire, and CE consciousness. This provided an initial understanding of the perceptions of employees within the A2C organisations and contributed with valuable insights to the conclusions of the macro-level evaluation. This approach ensured a comprehensive data collection process, addressing both organisational and employee-level perspectives effectively. Slight changes were made in the workers questionnaire to make it more straightforward. Questions about electronic devices and smartphone applications were removed from the CE awareness section since, after the screening, it was observed that they were out of scope and did not provide any relevant information for the study. Thus, the final picture of the workers questionnaire is as follows: - Sociodemographic section, made up of 5 questions; - SO-LCA section, made up of 4 questions; 24 For more information regarding the questionnaires design see section 8.3.1. of D.7.8. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 112 І151 4.3.4.2 Stakeholder category: value chain actors The value chain actors showed the following results: Table 40 Value chain actors: results and references for comparison Impact Subcategory Indicators Group1: Private for-profit organisations Group2: Research Organisations Group3: Other (CSO) Reference Fair competition Sanctions for anti-competitive behaviour (VC1.1VC1.2) 0 0 0 4(MU); 87 (ES) [35] Promoting social responsibility Promotion of Corporate Social Responsibility (VC2) 57% 0% 50% 41% [36] Suppliers audit (VC3) (3/6) 69,9% (1/2) 12,8% 0% 29% (ES); ISO 14001: (ES 2018) >26000 orgs. ; total (ES 2014) 2413 [37], [38], [39] Supplier relationship Suppliers’ communication relationship (VC4) 5 5 5 n.d. Respect of intellectual property rights Use of local intellectual property (VC5) 0 0 0 307 (ES 2019 Software licences) [40]32 Wealth Fair price definition (VC6) 29% 50% 0% n.d. Source: elaborated by the authors Fair competition Fair competition was measured by analysing the sanctions for anti-competitive behaviour: specific items to evaluate this subcategory were VC1.1 Has your institution been sanctioned for unfair competition (anti-competitive behaviour)? And VC1.2 If yes, please indicate the number of sanctions in the last accounting year. Among the entities analysed, none of them was sanctioned during the past year. Comparing the regional and national situation, 4 sanctions occurred in Murcia and 87 in Spain in the same period [35]. Promoting social responsibility Social responsibility (SR) is an organisation’s obligation to consider the interests of their stakeholders as customers, employees, shareholders, or communities. By integrating SR into core business processes and stakeholder management, organisations can achieve the ultimate goal of creating both social and corporate value [41]. The promotion of SR was 32 Non comparable A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 113 І151 evaluated through the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) implementation and the audits conducted to suppliers. Items concerning CSR were VC2 Does your institution have a Corporate Social Responsibility agreement? (and also related to suppliers’ relationship), {VC3.1} Number of hired suppliers audited with regard to social responsibility in the last accounting year. Most specifically, the relationship with suppliers was evaluated through {VC3.2} Number of hired suppliers in the last accounting year and I3-VC4 Please, indicate how you would rate the relationship with the organisation suppliers. Firstly, in absolute terms, 980 suppliers were contracted whilst 536 were actively audited. Secondly, when asking about the number of hired suppliers after audition and/or homologation {VC3.1}, 3 of 6 Group1 organisations declared to conduct audits: just 1 of these 3 audited all providers. Just one of the Group2 organisations audited the suppliers in terms of social responsibility {VC3.1}, not applying for the 100% (14,28% of providers). Supplier relationship Supplier relationships are defined as affiliations with organisations that supply another organisation with goods and services. The supplier relationships also concern all mutual activities, co-operations, agreements that regulate the exchanges, trade, and relation among organisations, bearing in mind that every organisation in the value chain is responsible for complying with applicable laws and regulations [41]. In order to assess the organisations’ relationship with their suppliers they were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (coercive communication) to 6 (very fluent communication) their communication with this group of actors (VC4). In the three groups the communication was rated, on average, with a 5 out of 6, indicating a perception of good communication with suppliers. Respect of intellectual property rights Within the impact subcategory “respect of intellectual property rights” the organisations were asked to report the number of conflicts that arose due to the use of local intellectual property Figure 38 Reference analysis and maximum and minimum values in the value chain A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 114 І151 (VC5). The reported conflicts have been 0 (in the three groups of organisations) during the last accounting year. Wealth distribution The indicator evaluating this impact subcategory was VC6 Does the organisation have a specific policy for deciding a fair price (i.e., a price that covers all the production costs and returns an acceptable profit margin)?. It might be assumed that all private for-profit organisations with CSR certifications are subject to fair price procedures, bilaterally. At regional level less than ≈1% [42] of companies are accredited in CSR (e.g., BCorp ). However, given the fact that certifications vs fair price definition are not directly comparable dimensions, a reference point has not been fixed for this indicator (the item asks for gross margin matter, thus subject to uncertainty and organisations’ operations and research activities). In the groups of A2C organisations surveyed, there are some entities that have a policy for determining a fair price. In the case of Group 1, this represents 29% of the organisations, while in Group 2 this percentage rises to 50%. 4.3.4.3 Stakeholder category: society The society stakeholder category showed the following results: Table 41 Society: results and references for comparison Impact Subcategory Indicators Group1: Private for-profit organisations Group2: Research Organisations Group3: Other (CSO) Reference Public commitment to sustainability issues Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues (S1) 71% 0% 50% 29,70% [36] Contribution to economic development Total taxation per capita (S2) 3.990.159 03 € 467.071 30€ 86.642 07€ 159.561 (mill.€) [43]33 Technology development Technology transfer (S3) 29% 50% 50% 13,46% (Total; 753/5594compani es) [44], [45] Investments in technology development/ transfer (S4) 42% 78% 0% 6% (R&D; n=277 int; n=68 ext) [45] Corruption Corruption (S5) 57% 50% 50% % of companies with a code of conduct: 84% 33 Non comparable A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 115 І151 n=138 Companies (MU) [D7.8] Poverty alleviation Poverty alleviation programme (S6) 14% 50% 50% MU: 8% (IMV) [46]; Social services outreach: n=3211 [44]34 Source: elaborated by the authors Public commitment to sustainability issues A public commitment is a promise or agreement made by an organisation, or a group of organisations, to its customers, employees, shareholders, local community, or the general public whose fulfilment can be evidenced in a transparent and open way [41]. Typically, this will take the form of performance improvement targets with defined dates for achievement and public reporting of progress. The item S1 Does the organisation have any public available document as promises or agreements on sustainability issues? received 5 positive answers (35,7%; N=14 entities) being for-profit (Group1) and civil society organisations (Other – Group3) the most represented. Table 42 S1 indicator results per Group Activity S1 Does the organisation have any public available document as promises or agreements on sustainability issues? Yes (counts, n) Group3. Other 1 Group1. Private for-profit entities 5 Group2. Research Organisations 1 Source: elaborated by the authors Contribution to economic development This subcategory assesses to what extent the organisation contributes to the economic development of the society [41]. It can be measured at different geographical levels. In this case it is measured by the indicator “Total taxation per capita” (S2): Indicate in euros the total amount of taxes (all the paid taxes including VAT, social security contributions, Tax on Economic Activities, Corporate income tax, IRPF) paid in the last accounting year. The total taxation per capita (S2) in Group1 were 3.990.159 03€ ± 8.517.974 69€ (Min: 60000 03€; Max: 21.353.000 00€). In Group2, S2 were 467.071 30€ ± 18.283 94€ (Min: 454.142,60 €; Max: 480.000,00€). Finally, in Group3 the total taxation per capita (S2) were 86.642 07€ ± 120.844,48 € (Min: 1.192,12€; Max: 172,092,02€). 34 Non comparable A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 116 І151 Thus, corporate taxes reveal an important heterogeneity between the cases concerning its size and purchasing-supplying and negotiation power. When compared to the national reference of €159 561 million the contributions of these specific organisations represent a small fraction of the overall tax revenue. However, their role within their respective sectors is crucial for sustaining employment, funding public services, and supporting economic development initiatives. The disparities in tax contributions also reflect the structural differences in revenue streams, legal tax obligations, and the economic scale of these organisations. Technology development Concerning technology development and transfer, our analysis revealed that 5 organisations have technology transfer programmes in place: 2 for-profit entities (Group1, 40% of respondents), 2 research organisations (Group2, 40%), and 1 other organisation (Group3, CSO, 20%). All for-profit entities with such programmes were SMEs. The item was S3 Does you organisation have a technology transfer program, or any project related with results transfer? In global terms, responses revealed the following results: Table 43 S3 & S4.1. per group of organisations I3-S3 Does you organisation have a technology transfer program, or any project related with results transfer? YES (Counts; n) and % of the (total, N) entities sampled { I3-S4.1} Last accounting year investment in euros in technology development and/or transfer otal, € Group1. Private for-profit entities 2 40,00% 4.213.812 90 € Group2. Research Organisations 2 40,00% 10.337.000 00 € Group3. Other 1 20,00% - € Total 5 100,00% 14.550.81 ,90 € Source: elaborated by the authors In terms of investment in technology development and/or transfer during the last accounting year, Group1 (private for-profit entities) invested €4 213 812.90 while roup2 ( esearch Organisations) invested €10 337 000.00. roup3 reported no investment. he total investment across all groups amounted to €14 550 812.90. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 117 І151 Investment patterns varied significantly, with concentrations primarily in organizations focused on plastics rather than agri-food. roup1 companies account for €5.4 million of total investment, with plastic sector investments being particularly significant. The highest single investment was €4.2 million in the plastic sector by a roup1 entity. The variation in plastic sector investment and its standard deviation indicates significant disparities, suggesting that direct comparisons might be inadequate. Contextually, the investment in Group1 for-profit entities seems to be significantly greater than the regional reference, being 13,46% (i.e., n=753/5594companies; regional MU) [44], [45]. Comparison between Group2 entities is tough given the fact that research may imply mixed data on technology transfer: evidence in this field is scarce. Group3 organisations investment is also understudied. Corruption This impact subcategory assesses whether an organisation has implemented appropriate measures to prevent corruption and if there is evidence that it has engaged or has been engaged in corruption. 8 (57.1%; N=14) organisations responded to have a formal commitment against corruption, S5 Does the organisation have a formalized commitment to prevent corruption?. By activity, 5 were private entities (62,5% N=14), 2 were research organisations {Group2} (25%) and 1 was a civil society organisation {Group3} (12.5%). Poverty alleviation Responding to the item S6 Has the organisation carried out in the last accounting year any proactive activity, such as strategies, action plans, investment, to reduce the poverty of the society?, only 3 organisations provided a positive response (21%; N=14). Information at local or even national level on this investment and socially-responsible actions is scarce and comparable data is not available. 4.3.4.4 Stakeholder category: local community The mean results and the comparative analysis concerning the actions and impacts addressed to local communities are summarised in the following table: Table 44 Local community: results and references for comparison Impact Subcategory Indicators Group1: Private for-profit organisations Group2: Research Organisations Group3: Other (CSO) Reference A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 118 І151 Access to material resources Environmental management system (LC1) 57% 0% 0% ≈1% [42]; MU: 41 Companies SCR system (included) Access to immaterial resources Community education initiatives (LC2) 14% 50% 50% ≈13500 students reached by the CEEIM35 [47] Delocalization and migration Immigrant workforce rate (LC3) 10% 0% 0% 58%-77% [23], [48] Organisational procedures for integrating migrant workers into the community (LC4) 0% 0% 0% ≈1% [42]; MU: 41 Companies SCR Cultural heritage Funding dedicated to support and promote cultural heritage (LC5) 29% 50% 100% 76% [D7.8] Safe and healthy living conditions Promotion of community health (LC6) (6/7) 14% 0% 100% 1 Company BCorp certified in MU [42] Community engagement Diversity of community stakeholder groups that engage with the organisation (LC7) (4/6) 43% (5/6) 50% (6/6) 50% 1,48%; MU: 41 Companies SCR system [42] Number of meetings with community stakeholders (LC8) >36 5 175 n.d Organisational support (volunteer hours) for community initiatives (LC9) 50 0 2.184 n.d Organisational support (financial) (LC9). 17.607 46 € 0 426.176 85 € Local employment Workforce hired locally (LC10) 59% 12% 0% 83%36[49, p. 25] Spending on locally based suppliers (LC11) 13% 29% n.d. 80% [D7.8] Secure living conditions Security complaints by the community (LC12) 0 0 0 220637 [50] Source: elaborated by the authors Access to material resources 35 Non comparable 36 508612 local (Murcian) workers/ 614838 Total workers (MU, 2023) 37 Non comparable A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 119 І151 Organisations may contribute to sustainable development by protecting existing natural resources and their related ecosystem services. With the impact subcategory “Access to material resources” the aim was to assess whether the organisations have a certified environmental management system (LC1). The idea is to take the existence of certified EMS as a proxy for the commitment of companies in a sector to environmental protection. At this final stage of assessment, 57% of organisations of Group1 declared to have a certified EMS. The rest of the organisations in the other groups have declared that they do not have this type of management system. Access to immaterial resources This impact subcategory assesses the extent to which organisations respect, work to protect, to provide, or to improve community access to immaterial resources and is measured by the indicator “community education initiatives” (LC2). The reason for this indicator relies on the fact that organisations should also transfer knowledge to the community through formal training programs and general community education initiatives [41]. Across the different groups, several organisations declared to have initiatives in place to foster education in the community. Group 1 is the group with the lowest percentage (14%) of entities that reported having carried out this type of activity. In the case of Group 2 and Group 3, 50% of the organisations in both cases stated that they had carried out this type of activity during 2023. Delocalization and migration In the case of migrant workers entering a community, the organisation should consider how well workers will integrate with more permanent residents. Organisations should provide opportunities for communication and education between migrant workers and permanent residents. In our case study, just 10% of the organisations in Group1 reported having migrant employees in their workforce. The rest of the groups declared 0%. Moreover, out of this 10% of organisations in Group1, none of them declared to have in place organisational procedures for integrating migrant workers into the community. Cultural heritage As a proxy to assess if the organisations promote and preserve cultural heritage, they were asked if they dedicated financial resources to support and promote cultural heritage in the last accounting year (2023) (LC5). 100% of the organisations in Group 3 stated that they have dedicated funding to cultural activities, compared to only 50% in Group 2 and 29% in A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 120 І151 Group 1. There is a clear difference between types of organisations in this impact subcategory, being the private for-profit organisations group (Group1) the one with the smallest percentage of organisations providing support to culture. Safe and healthy living conditions The indicator established for this impact subcategory has been “Promotion of community health” (LC6). Organisations were asked if they dedicated financial resources to strengthen community health in their last accounting year. This includes the general safety conditions of operations and their public health impacts. All the organisations that declared providing support to communities on this aspect were those in Group 3 (100%). In contrast, no organisations in Group 2 expressed any intention to implement these actions, while only 14% of the six respondents in Group 1 indicated plans to deploy such initiatives. Community engagement An organisation should attempt to engage with a broad range of stakeholders that represent balanced community interests [41]. To caption the diversity of engaged stakeholders, the organisations were asked to indicate, using a Likert scale, how diverse their engaged stakeholders are being 1 “not very diverse” and 6 “very diverse” (LC7). The group that declared to have the more diverse community is Group3 (50% rated the engaged stakeholders with 6/6). It was followed by Group2 (50% of the organisation rated its community with a 5 out of 6). Lastly, 43% of the organisation of Group1 rated its community diversity with a 4 out of 6. Other indicators selected to assess this impact subcategory was “Number of meetings with community stakeholders” (LC8). 175 were organised by Group3 in 2023, compared to over 36 had by Group1 and the 5 had by Group2. Organisations can also foster community engagement through direct involvement in community initiatives (LC9) and/or through financial support (LC10) to this type of projects. Organisational support in this case varies significantly, with Group3 contributing the most in both volunteering hours (2.184) and financial support (426.176,85€), while Group1 provided moderated contributions (50 hours, 17.607 46€), and Group2 reported no support in either category. Local employment Local employees have unique knowledge of important community issues and can help the organisation build strong community relations. Furthermore, local employment improves the living conditions of communities, limits the risk of poverty and keeps people from emigrating. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 121 І151 In our analysis, local employment (LC10) and local suppliers spending (LC11) show significant disparities across organisational groups. Group1 hired the highest percentage of local workers (59%), while Group2 lagged behind (12%), and Group3 reported none. In terms of spending on locally based suppliers, Group2 allocated a higher share (29%) compared to Group1 (13%), though both fell below the reference indicator (80%). This suggests that Group1 contributes more to local employment, whereas Group2 engages more with local suppliers. Secure living conditions The objective of this subcategory is to assess if the local community has complained about the organisations practices of private personnel security through the indicator “security complaints by the community” (LC12). The number of reported complaints in total (considering all the organisations) is 0. 4.3.4.5 Stakeholder category: consumers The results concerning consumers and the involved organisations are summarised below: Table 45 Consumers: results and references for comparison Impact Subcategory Indicators Group1: Private for-profit organisations Group2: Research Organisations Group3: Other (CSO) Reference Health and Safety Labelling (C1) (6/6* 1NA) 100% NA 50% Mandatory RD 1055/2022 [51] Consumer complaints (C2) 544 0 0 Complaints (Total): 374338[52] Presence of a Quality and/or Product Safety Management System (C3) 100% 100% 0% GFSI: ≈15 7% ES (n=6067) [53] ISO 9001: ES n=30.341 & ISO 22000: ES n=601 [54] Feedback mechanism Presence of consumer feedback mechanism (C4) (6/7) 71% (1/2) 0% 0% GFSI: ≈15 7% ES (n=6067) [53] Consumer privacy Consumers' complaints related to breach of privacy (C5) (6/7) 0 0 0 EU: 1200 39attacks to supply chains (general; privacy breaches) [55] Transparency Organisation communication transparency (C6) (6/6) 43% (4/6) 50% (6/6) 50% GFSI: ≈15 7% [53] ISO 9001: ES n=30.341. 38 Non comparable; most complaints corresponded to telephone and electricity services 39 Non comparable A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 128 І151 6 Biblio rap y [1] J. dos S. L. Gonella, M. G. Filho, L. M. de S. Campos, and G. M. D. Ganga, ‘People’s awareness and behaviours of circular economy around the world: literature review and research agenda’, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1118–1154, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2022-0413. [2] F. Vidal-Ayuso, A. Akhmedova, and C. Jaca, ‘The circular economy and consumer behaviour: Literature review and research directions’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 418, p. 137824, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137824. [3] A. Blamey and M. Mackenzie, ‘Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation: Peas in a Pod or Apples and Oranges?’, Evaluation, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 439–455, Oct. 2007, doi: 10.1177/1356389007082129. [4] J. dos S. L. Gonella, M. G. Filho, L. M. de S. Campos, and G. M. D. Ganga, ‘People’s awareness and behaviours of circular economy around the world: literature review and research agenda’, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1118–1154, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2022-0413. [5] A. Muscio and R. Sisto, ‘Are Agri-Food Systems Really Switching to a Circular Economy Model? Implications for European Research and Innovation Policy’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 14, Art. no. 14, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12145554. [6] ‘Combina Tecnología y Economía Circular con Circular Game – Agro2Circular’. Accessed: Dec. 23, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://agro2circular.eu/es/news/combina-tecnologia-yeconomia-circular-con-circular-game/ [7] Riley E. Dunlap, Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet Jones, ‘Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale’, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 425– 442, Jan. 2000. [8] R. K. Rosen et al., ‘Use of Framework Matrix and Thematic Coding Methods in Qualitative Analysis for mHealth: The FluidCalc app’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 22, p. 16094069231184123, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1177/16094069231184123. [9] M. Lewandowski, ‘Designing the Business Models for Circular Economy—Towards the Conceptual Framework’, Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.3390/su8010043. [10] M. Hina, C. Chauhan, P. Kaur, S. Kraus, and A. Dhir, ‘Drivers and barriers of circular economy business models: Where we are now, and where we are heading’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 333, p. 130049, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049. [11] Alba Matamoros Escobedo et al., ‘D7.8 – Socioeconomic and sociocultural analysis report (Draft)’, Deliverable D.7.8, Mar. 2023. [12] Catherine Saget, Tahmina Karimova, Trang Luu, Nicolas Maitre, and Sévane Ananian, ‘Greening Enterprises: Transforming processes and workplaces’, International Labour Organization, Report, Nov. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_861384/lang--en/index.htm [13] C. Benoît Norris et al., ‘Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations 2020’, United Nations Environment Programme, 2020. [14] A. Padilla-Rivera, B. B. T. do Carmo, G. Arcese, and N. Merveille, ‘Social circular economy indicators: Selection through fuzzy delphi method’, Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 26, pp. 101–110, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.015. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 129 І151 [15] A. Bianchini, P. Guarnieri, and J. Rossi, ‘A Framework to Assess Social Indicators in a Circular Economy Perspective’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 13, Art. no. 13, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14137970. [16] A. Padilla-Rivera, S. Russo-Garrido, and N. Merveille, ‘Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review’, Sustainability, vol. 12, p. 7912, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12197912. [17] CITCO Centro de inteligencia contra el terrorismo y el crimen organizado.Secretaría de Estado de Segruidad, ‘Trata y explotación de seres humanos en España. Balance estadístico 2018-22’, Ministerio del interior, 2022. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.interior.gob.es/opencms/export/sites/default/.galleries/galeria-deprensa/documentos-y-multimedia/balances-e-informes/2022/BALANCE-ESTADISTICO2018-2022.pdf [18] INE, ‘Coste laboral por trabajador, comunidad autónoma, sectores de actividad(6061). Resultado por Comunidades autónomas (desde el trimestre 1/2008) Componentes del coste laboral total’, INE. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=6061 [19] ‘El 42% de los trabajadores españoles se declara satisfecho: en línea con Italia, pero lejos de Alemania y Reino Unido’, Equipos&talento. Accessed: Jan. 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.equiposytalento.com/noticias/2024/12/23/el-42-de-los-trabajadores-espanoles-sedeclara-satisfecho-en-linea-con-italia-pero-lejos-de-alemania-y-reino-unido/ [20] N. Sánchez-Sánchez and A. C. Fernández Puente, ‘Public Versus Private Job Satisfaction. Is there a Trade-off between Wages and Stability?’, Public Organiz Rev, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 47–67, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11115-020-00472-7. [21] INE, ‘Ocupados por tipo de jornada, sexo y comunidad autónoma. Valores absolutos y porcentajes respecto del total de cada comunidad(65319)’, INE. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=65319&L=0 [22] INE, ‘Ocupados por nacionalidad, sexo y comunidad autónoma(65309)’, INE. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=65309 [23] P. Navarro-Gambín and K. Jansen, ‘Migrant agricultural workers in search of a dignified life: Labour conditions as a source of vulnerability in Spain’, Sociologia Ruralis, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 126–148, 2024, doi: 10.1111/soru.12462. [24] Expansión, ‘Alrededor del 40% de las empresas obligadas sigue sin tener aprobado un plan de igualdad’, EXPANSION. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.expansion.com/empresas/2024/03/03/65e44d68e5fdeadd178b45a6.html [25] E. T. Koroma and J. B. Kangbai, ‘Agro-industrial accidents linked to length of service, operation site and confidence in employer adherence to safety rules’, BMC Public Health, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 591, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08733-2. [26] X. Baraza and N. Cugueró-Escofet, ‘Immigration and occupational accidents: A comparative study of accident severity among foreign and Spanish citizens in the agricultural sector’, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 20, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.5424/sjar/2022203-18792. [27] INSST, ‘Últimos datos de siniestralidad - Portal INSST - INSST’, Portal INSST. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.insst.es/el-observatorio/estadisticas/ultimos-datosde-siniestralidad [28] Safeguru, ‘Regiones más sancionadas en seguridad y salud laboral en España’, Safeguru. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://safeguru.com/blog/article/regiones-massancionadas-en-seguridad-y-salud-laboral-en-espana A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 130 І151 [29] Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social, ‘Informe anual de la inspección de trabajo y Seguridad Social 2022’, Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social, 2023. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.mites.gob.es/itss/ITSS/ITSS_Descargas/Que_hacemos/Memorias/Memoria_ITSS _2022_4.pdf [30] OECD Data Explorer, ‘Trade union density’. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://dataexplorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_TUD_CBC%40DF_TUD &df[ag]=OECD.ELS.SAE&df[vs]=1.0&dq=ESP..&pd=2000%2C&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false &vw=tb [31] CREM Centro Regional de Estadística de Murcia, ‘RELACIONES LABORALES - 2. Convenios colectivos. Evolución de los convenios, trabajadores afectados y variación salarial pactada, según sección de actividad.’ Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://econet.carm.es/web/crem/inicio/-/crem/sicrem/PU134/sec3.html [32] Githa Roelans and Michael Elkin, Labour standards in global supply chains. Ho to meet them to become more competitive and sustainable. 2019. [33] ‘Implementing SDG #8 through the WFTO Fair Payment Process’, Trade Fair Live Fair (TFLF), 1050 Brussels, Belgium. [34] ‘Salario Mínimo 2023 España’. Accessed: Jan. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.salariominimo.es/2023.html [35] Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, ‘Memoria CNMC 2023’, 2023. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnmc.es/sites/default/files/editor_contenidos/CNMC/Memorias/Memoria%20CN MC_2023.pdf [36] Pacto Mundial de la ONU España, ‘Implantación de la Agenda 2030 en las empresas españolas. Resultados de la consulta de desarrollo sostenible 2024’, ONU España, 2024. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://info.pactomundial.org/implantacion-desarrollosostenible-agenda2030-ods-empresas-espanolas-2024 [37] J. C. Pérez-Mesa, L. Piedra-Muñoz, E. Galdeano-Gómez, and C. Giagnocavo, ‘Management Strategies and Collaborative Relationships for Sustainability in the Agrifood Supply Chain’, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13020749. [38] ACMS Consultores, ‘Certificaciones ISO en España 2019’, GRUPO ACMS Consultores. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.grupoacms.com/blog/informe-isosurvey-2019-espana-en-el-top-ten-mundial-de-certificaciones-iso [39] Revista Alimentaria, ‘Las empresas del sector agroalimentario tienen 2.400 certificados de AENOR’, Revista Alimentaria. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.revistaalimentaria.es/industria/bebidas/las-empresas-del-sector-agroalimentariotienen-2-400-certificados-de-aenor [40] Noticias Jurídicas, ‘Récord de denuncias contra empresas por uso de software ilegal’, Noticias Jurídicas. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://noticias.juridicas.com/actualidad/noticias/11795-record-de-denuncias-contra-empresaspor-uso-de-software-ilegal/ [41] Traverso, M. et al., ‘Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) 2021 - Life Cycle Initiative’, UNEP, 2021. Accessed: Feb. 01, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/methodological-sheets-for-subcategoriesin-social-life-cycle-assessment-s-lca-2021/ [42] Dun & Bradstreet, ‘Empresas comprometidas con la responsabilidad social.’, 2024. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 131 І151 https://cdn.informa.es/sites/5c1a2fd74c7cb3612da076ea/content_entry5c5021510fa1c000c25b 51f0/673469454fb7bd00e46502b6/files/Empresas_RSC_2024InformaDB_es.pdf?1731488069 [43] Agencia Tributaria, ‘Agencia Tributaria: Informes mensuales de Recaudación Tributaria’. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/Sede/datosabiertos/catalogo/hacienda/Informe_mensual_d e_Recaudacion_Tributaria.shtml [44] CREM Centro Regional de Estadística de Murcia, ‘RECURSOS SOCIALES - 2. Recursos sociales según colectivo y actividad, por municipios.’ Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://econet.carm.es/web/crem/inicio/-/crem/sicrem/PU265/sec3_c1.html [45] INE, ‘Empresas con gasto en innovación por comunidades y ciudades autónomas y por tipo de gasto’, INE. Encuesta sobre innovación en las empresas. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ine.es/jaxi/Datos.htm?tpx=61347 [46] Moncloa, ‘The Government’s protective action more than halves the poverty rate, lowest in 10 years’. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/paginas/2024/20241016-spain-povertyrate.aspx [47] murcia.com, ‘La Comunidad impulsa el talento y la creatividad emprendedora de cerca de 14.000 estudiantes en la Región -’. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.murcia.com/region/noticias/2025/01/16-la-comunidad-impulsa-el-talento-y-lacreatividad-emprendedora-de-cerca-de-14000-estudiantes-en-la-region.asp [48] J. Laine, D. Rauhut, and M. Gruber, Eds., Assessing the Social Impact of Immigration in Europe: Renegotiating Remoteness. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023. doi: 10.4337/9781803927695. [49] Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal, ‘Movilidad geográfica de la contratación en España 2024 (Datos 2023)’, Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Accessed: Jan. 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sepe.es/HomeSepe/que-es-el-sepe/comunicacioninstitucional/publicaciones/publicaciones-oficiales/listado-pub-mercado-trabajo/datosbasicosmovilidad.html [50] Portal de la Transparencia CARM, ‘Quejas y sugerencias -’. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://transparencia.carm.es/quejas-y-sugerencias? [51] ‘Novedades de etiquetado a partir del 1 de enero de 2025’, ELIKA Sostenibilidad. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://sostenibilidad.elika.eus/novedades-de-etiquetado-apartir-del-1-de-enero-de-2025/ [52] ORM, ‘Consumo Familiar. Thaderconsumo hace balance de 2024 | ORM’. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.orm.es/programas/el-rompeolas/consumo-familiarthaderconsumo-hace-balance-de-2024/ [53] S. Hensen, ‘BRC, IFS, FSSC 22000 Certification: overview of 11 countries’. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.qassurance.com/brc-ifs-and-fssc-22000-certification/ [54] ISO/CASCO - Committee on conformity assessment, ‘09. ISO Survey of certifications to management system standards - Full results’. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/committee/54998.html?t=KomURwikWDLiuB1P1c7SjLMLEAgXOA7e mZHKGWyn8f3KQUTU3m287NxnpA3DIuxm&view=documents#section-isodocuments-top [55] European Union Agency for Cybersecurity., ENISA threat landscape 2024: July 2023 to June 2024. LU: Publications Office, 2024. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2824/0710888 [56] A. Bianchini, P. Guarnieri, and J. Rossi, ‘A Framework to Assess Social Indicators in a Circular Economy Perspective’’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 13, Art. no. 13, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14137970. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 132 І151 [57] A. Peña and M. R. Rovira-Val, ‘A longitudinal literature review of life cycle costing applied to urban agriculture’’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1418-1435, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11367-020-01768-y. [58] M. Pagotto, A. Halog, D. F. A. Costa, and T. Lu, ‘A Sustainability Assessment Framework for the Australian Food Industry: Integrating Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Circular Economy’’, in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), S. S. Muthu, Ed., Ed., Singapore: Springer, 2021, pp. 15–42. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4562-4_2. [59] S. Valdivia, C. M. L. Ugaya, J. Hildenbrand, M. Traverso, B. Mazijn, and G. Sonnemann, ‘A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20’’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1673-1685, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0529-1. [60] S. Nakamura and Y. Kondo, ‘A waste input–output life-cycle cost analysis of the recycling of end-of-life electrical home appliances’’, Ecological Economics, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 494-506, May 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.002. [61] ‘American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems”’, ASTM E917-02, 2002, [Online]. Available: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/astm/astme91702 [62] A. Padilla-Rivera, S. Russo-Garrido, and N. Merveille, ‘Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review’’, Sustainability, vol. 12, p. 7912, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12197912. [63] ‘American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems”, ASTM E917-05 Accessed’, Mar, vol. 27, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/astm/astme91705 [64] S. Ntanos, G. Kyriakopoulos, M. Skordoulis, M. Chalikias, and G. Arabatzis, ‘An application of the new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale in a Greek context’’, Energies, vol. 12, no. 2, 2019, doi: 10.3390/en12020239. [65] J.-P. González, S. Femenia, L. Martin, and B. Branchini, ‘Baseline of Valencia demonstration’’. Valencia, Project Deliverable D2.3, 2020. [66] J. D. Kneifel and P. Lavappa, ‘BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability)’’, NIST, May 2009, [Online]. Available: https://www.nist.gov/servicesresources/software/bees [67] R. Caruana, M. J. Carrington, and A. Chatzidakis, ‘“Beyond the Attitude-Behaviour Gap: Novel Perspectives in Consumer Ethics”: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium’’, J Bus Ethics, vol. 136, no. 2, pp. 215-218, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2444-9. [68] I.S.O., ‘Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Part 1: General principles and framework’’, ISO, vol. 1, no. 2011, 2011, [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/45798.html [69] I.S.O., ‘Buildings and constructed assets — Service-life planning — Part 5: Life-cycle costing’’, ISO, vol. 5, no. 2017, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/61148.html [70] B. Ness, E. Urbel-Piirsalu, S. Anderberg, and L. Olsson, ‘Categorising tools for sustainability assessment’’, Ecological Economics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 498-508, Jan. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023. [71] I. V. Muralikrishna and V. Manickam, ‘Chapter Five - Life Cycle Assessment’’, in Environmental Management, I. V. Muralikrishna and V. Manickam, Eds., ButterworthHeinemann, 2017, pp. 57–75. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811989-1.00005-1. [72] V. Moyano and S. Paniagua, ‘Citizens and the circular economy’, Current situation and prospects for the future’, creafutur, Jul. 2018. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 133 І151 [73] A. Bjørn and M. Z. Hauschild, ‘Cradle to Cradle and LCA’’, in Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice, M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, and S. I. Olsen, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 605–631. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_25. [74] S. McCord, K. Armstrong, and P. Styring, ‘Developing a triple helix approach for CO 2 utilisation assessment’’, Faraday Discussions, vol. 230, no. 0, pp. 247-270, 2021, doi: 10.1039/D1FD00002K. [75] C. Xiao, R. E. Dunlap, and D. Hong, ‘Ecological Worldview as the Central Component of Environmental Concern: Clarifying the Role of the NEP’’, Society & Natural Resources, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 53-72, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1501529. [76] E. Cerdá and A. Khalilova, ‘ECONOMÍA CIRCULAR’’. [77] D. W. Pearce and R. K. Turner, Economics of natural resources and the environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. [78] M. Hingsamer, V. Kulmer, M. Roode, and M. Kernitzkyi, ‘Environmental and socio-economic impacts of new plant breeding technologies: A case study of root chicory for inulin production’’, Frontiers in Genome Editing, vol. 4, p. 27, 2022. [79] Ö. H. Aral and J. López-Sintas, ‘Environmental behavior patterns across clusters of European Union countries: Uncovering heterogeneity in the attitude-behavior-context relationship’’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 388, p. 135936, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135936. [80] G. Faraca, V. Martinez-Sanchez, and T. F. Astrup, ‘Environmental life cycle cost assessment: Recycling of hard plastic waste collected at Danish recycling centres’’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 143, pp. 299-309, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.014. [81] D. Hunkeler, K. Lichtenvort, and G. Rebitzer, ‘Environmental Life Cycle Costing’. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008. doi: 10.1201/9781420054736. [82] T. Swarr, ‘Environmental Life-Cycle Costing: A Code of Practice’’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 16, pp. 389-391, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0287-5. [83] I.S.O., ‘Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework’’, ISO, vol. 14040, no. 2006, Aug, [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html [84] I.S.O., ‘Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines’’, ISO, vol. 14044, no. 2006, Aug, [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html [85] C. Y. Johnson, J. M. Bowker, and H. K. Cordell, ‘Ethnic Variation in Environmental Belief and Behavior: An Examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in a Social Psychological Context’’, Environment and Behavior, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 157-186, Mar. 2004, doi: 10.1177/0013916503251478. [86] A. Arias, G. Feijoo, and M. T. Moreira, ‘Exploring the potential of antioxidants from fruits and vegetables and strategies for their recovery’’, Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, vol. 77, p. 102974, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2022.102974. [87] J. Harraway, F. Broughton-Ansin, L. Deaker, T. Jowett, and K. Shephard, ‘Exploring the Use of the Revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) to Monitor the Development of Students’ Ecological Worldviews’’, The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 177-191, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1080/00958964.2011.634450. [88] R. Griesshammer, ‘Feasibility Study: Integration of Social Aspects into LCA’; UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’. 2006. [Online]. Available: https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/512499/file/633083 [89] M. Delley and T. A. Brunner, ‘Foodwaste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the population and suggestions for preventive measures’’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 122, pp. 172-184, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.008. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 134 І151 [90] C. Saget, T. Karimova, T. Luu, N. Maitre, and S. Ananian, ‘Greening Enterprises: Transforming processes and workplaces’’, International Labour Organization, Report, Nov. 2022, [Online]. Available: https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_861384/lang--en/index.htm [91] L. I. Schultz and S. F. Weber, ‘Guide to computing and reporting the life-cycle cost of environmental management projects’’. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C1392fc4d76815457fe8926443a2b9d1a71/pdf/GOVPUB-C1392fc4d76815457fe8926443a2b9d1a71.pdf [92] I.S.O., ‘Guidelines for performance evaluation of treatment technologies for water reuse systems — Part 8: Evaluation of treatment systems based on life cycle cost’’, ISO, vol. 8, no. 2022, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/77418.html [93] C. B. Norris, ‘Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations 2020’’, United Nations Environment Programme, 2020. [94] S. Bruyn, ‘Handboek Milieuprijzen 2017: Methodische onderbouwing van kengetallen gebruikt voor waardering van emissies en milieu-impacts’’, CE Delft, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://ce.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/CE_Delft_7A76_Handboek_Milieuprijzen_2017_DEF.pdf [95] M. D’Eusanio, A. Lehmann, A. Zamagni, M. Finkbeiner, and L. Petti, ‘How experiences and existing data of companies can be used to define the Goal and Scope in a Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA)’’, in Social LCA People and Places for Partnership, Pescara (Italy, 2018, pp. 208–214. [96] P. Rafiaani, ‘Identifying Social Indicators for Sustainability Assessment of CCU Technologies: A Modified Multi-criteria Decision Making’’, Soc Indic Res, vol. 147, no. 1, pp. 15-44, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11205-019-02154-4. [97] F. García-Muiña, M. S. Medina-Salgado, R. González-Sánchez, I. Huertas-Valdivia, A. M. Ferrari, and D. Settembre-Blundo, ‘Industry 4.0-based dynamic Social Organizational Life Cycle Assessment to target the social circular economy in manufacturing’’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 327, p. 129439, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129439. [98] ‘Informe del Mercado de Trabajo de Murcia’, Gobierno de España., Catálogo general de publicaciones oficiales, 2021. [99] B. Weidema, M. Goedkoop, E. Meijer, and R. Harmens, ‘LCA-based assessment of the Sustainable Development Goals’’. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://lca-net.com/files/ReportSDGs-Aug-2020.pdf [100] I. Marco, S. Riemma, and R. Iannone, ‘Life cycle assessment of supercritical impregnation: Starch aerogel + α-tocopherol tablets’’, The Journal of Supercritical Fluids, vol. 143, pp. 305312, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.supflu.2018.09.003. [101] I. Sell, D. Ott, and D. Kralisch, ‘Life Cycle Cost Analysis as Decision Support Tool in Chemical Process Development’’, ChemBioEng Reviews, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 50-56, 2014, doi: 10.1002/cben.201300007. [102] M. Degieter, X. Gellynck, S. Goyal, D. Ott, and H. Steur, ‘Life cycle cost analysis of agrifood products: A systematic review’’, Sci. Total Environ, vol. 850, p. 158012, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158012. [103] D. L. Management, ‘Life cycle costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable construction: a common methodology’, Final Report’, European Commission, 2007. [104] D. Dragos and B. Neamtu, ‘Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in the New EU Directive Proposal’’, European Public Procurement and Public Private Partnerships Law Review, Jan. 2013. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 135 І151 [105] F. Menna, J. Dietershagen, M. Loubiere, and M. Vittuari, ‘Life cycle costing of food waste: A review of methodological approaches’’, Waste Management, vol. 73, pp. 1-13, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.032. [106] V. Martinez-Sanchez, M. A. Kromann, and T. F. Astrup, ‘Life cycle costing of waste management systems: Overview, calculation principles and case studies’’, Waste Management, vol. 36, pp. 343-355, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033. [107] H. Estevan and B. Schaefer, ‘Life Cycle Costing State of the art report’’, ICLEI, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://sppregions.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Life_Cycle_Costing_SoA_Report.pdf [108] A. Ciroth, ‘Life Cycle Initiative. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Making informed choices on products’. 2011. [Online]. Available: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8001/UNEP_LifecycleInit_Dec_FIN AL.pdf?sequence=3&%3BisAllowed= [109] S. M. Cruz and B. Manata, ‘Measurement of Environmental Concern: A Review and Analysis’’, Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00363. [110] W. Dyr and M. Prusik, ‘Measurement of proecological attitudes within new ecological paradigm in Polish current settings’’, Soc. Psychol. Bull, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 3697, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.32872/spb.3697. [111] R. E. Dunlap, K. D. Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones, ‘Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale’’, vol. 56, no. 3. pp. 425-442, Jan. 2000. [112] M. Traverso, ‘Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) 2021 - Life Cycle Initiative’’, UNEP, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/methodological-sheets-for-subcategories-in-sociallife-cycle-assessment-s-lca-2021/ [113] A. Jørgensen, A. L. Bocq, L. Nazarkina, and M. Hauschild, ‘Methodologies for social life cycle assessment’’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 96-103, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1065/lca2007.11.367. [114] A. Bianchini, J. Rossi, and M. Pellegrini, ‘Overcoming the Main Barriers of Circular Economy Implementation through a New Visualization Tool for Circular Business Models’’, Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 23, Art. no. 23, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11236614. [115] I.S.O., ‘Petroleum and natural gas industries — Life cycle costing — Part 1: Methodology’’, ‘ISO, vol. 1, no. 2000, 2000, [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15663:-1:ed-1:v1:en [116] M. Traverso, M. N. Mankaa, L. Roche, A. Luthin, S. R. Garrido, and S. Neugebauer, ‘Pilot Projects on Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations’. Life Cycle Initiative, UNEP, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/05/Pilot-projects-on-UNEP-SLCA-Guidelines-12.5.pdf [117] K. Maister, C. Noi, A. Ciroth, and M. Srocka, ‘PSILCA v.3 Database documentation’’, Jun, 2020. [118] G. Finnveden, ‘Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment’’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 1-21, Oct. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018. [119] E. Comission, ‘Recommendation on the use of Environmental Footprint methods’’. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/recommendation-useenvironmental-footprint-methods_en [120] N. Kalogerakis, M. Politi, S. Foteinis, E. Chatzisymeon, and D. Mantzavinos, ‘Recovery of antioxidants from olive mill wastewaters: A viable solution that promotes their overall sustainable management’’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 128, pp. 749-758, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.027. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 136 І151 [121] A. Padilla-Rivera, B. B. T. Carmo, G. Arcese, and N. Merveille, ‘Social circular economy indicators: Selection through fuzzy delphi method’’, Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 26, pp. 101-110, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.015. [122] S. Sala, A. Vasta, L. Mancini, J. Dewulf, and E. Rosenbaum, ‘Social Life Cycle Assessment - State of the art and challenges for supporting product policies’’. 2015. doi: 10.2788/253715. [123] ‘Social Life Cycle Assessment for better-informed decision-making at policy and business levels’, vol. 10. Jul. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQqWJqNMHGc [124] D. Reinales, D. Zambrana-Vasquez, and A. Saez-De-Guinoa, ‘Social Life Cycle Assessment of Product Value Chains Under a Circular Economy Approach: A Case Study in the Plastic Packaging Sector’’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 16, Art. no. 16, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12166671. [125] L. Pollok, S. Spierling, H.-J. Endres, and U. Grote, ‘Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges’’, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 18, Art. no. 18, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su131810286. [126] K. Borg, J. Curtis, and J. Lindsay, ‘Social norms and plastic avoidance: Testing the theory of normative social behaviour on an environmental behaviour’’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 594-607, 2020, doi: 10.1002/cb.1842. [127] F. García-Muiña, M. S. Medina-Salgado, R. González-Sánchez, I. Huertas-Valdivia, A. M. Ferrari, and D. Settembre-Blundo, ‘Social Organizational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA) and Organization 4.0: An easy-to-implement method’’, MethodsX, vol. 101692, no. 9. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2022.101692. [128] L. Petti, M. Serreli, and S. Cesare, ‘Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment’’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 422-431, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4. [129] D. Hunkeler and G. Rebitzer, ‘The Future of Life Cycle Assessment’’, Int J Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 305-308, Sep. 2005, doi: 10.1065/lca2005.09.001. [130] U. Nations, ‘The Future We Want - Outcome document’’. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html [131] M. Anderson, ‘The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale’, The Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability: Indicators and Research Methods for Sustainability’. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://umaine.edu/soe/wpcontent/uploads/sites/199/2013/01/NewEcologicalParadigmNEPScale1.pdf [132] L. A. Derdowski, Å. H. Grahn, H. Hansen, and H. Skeiseid, ‘The New Ecological Paradigm, Pro-Environmental Behaviour, and the Moderating Effects of Locus of Control and SelfConstrual’’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 18, Art. no. 18, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12187728. [133] R. E. Dunlap, ‘The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use’’, The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 3-18, 2008, doi: 10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18. [134] L. J. Hawcroft and T. L. Milfont, ‘The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis’’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 143-158, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003. [135] D. Langdon, Towards a Common European Methodology for Life Cycle Costing (LCC)— Literature Review’. London, UK: Davis Langdon Management Consulting, 2007. [136] I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein, Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. PrenticeHall, 1980. [137] ‘United Nations Environment Programme, “Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA)”’. 2021. [Online]. Available: A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 137 І151 https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/MethodologicalSheets_2021_final.pdf [138] ‘United Nations Environment Programme, Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products’. UNEP, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/7912 [139] U. Consortium, ‘UpPET Consumer survey’’. [Online]. Available: https://uppet.eu/europeancitizens-awareness/community-engagement [140] C. Peña, ‘Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy’’, Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 215-220, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11367-020-01856-z. [141] J. J. Czarnezki and S. Garsse, ‘What is Life-Cycle Costing?’ Rochester, NY, Oct. 01, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3789958 A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 144 І151 Activity TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT Acceptance (recognition and approval) Awareness & knowledge (knowledge of something) Behavioural changes (action, change of the existing behaviours) NOTES scepticism towards the reduction of plastic in their market places. MV02: supports the continuation and replication of the project since he sees it as very beneficial MV02: notes resistance compared to other regions regarding consuming recycled products: - Highlights the traditional farming practices dominate due to economic barriers - Perceive higher demand for ecofriendly products abroad, contrasting with local tendencies MV02: economic barriers. Acknowledges that ecological products are more expensive MV02: limited initial awareness but exposure through the project has clarified the concept. MV03: he claims to have gained understanding, but is attributed to his personal background and habits, not directly to the project. using these products for cosmetics but not for consumption MV01: The project did not change his behaviour. Neither did consumers. MV01: he believes these practices should expand in the future (favourable attitude towards future change, although no current actions are evident). MV02: notes resistance to ecological practices due to adherence to traditional farming methods and their higher costs associated MV03: notes a shift in consumers preferences towards high-quality but smaller quantities of product. Rejection of carrying out CE practices and think that are important but are not aware of the name itself. Really willing to make more activities like this one. RESEARCHER COMMENT: market vendors link the CE just with recycling. The main two activities mentioned are recycling at home and the fact that people go to the market with their own bags. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 145 І151 Activity TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT Acceptance (recognition and approval) Awareness & knowledge (knowledge of something) Behavioural changes (action, change of the existing behaviours) NOTES and less accessible, which hinders widespread adoption despite the perceived increased environmental awareness MV03: observes a generational division in sustainable behaviour MV03: notes an increase in consumers bringing their own bags, but believes broader changes are gradual and will take time to be fully manifested MV03: he strongly supports the expansion of these practices (long-term potential) visual imperfect F&V (impact in price??) MENTORING PROGRAMME (N=2) B01: The programme effectiveness has been rated as 6/10. Benefits: - Expansion of contacts for future projects B01: the mentoring programme raised awareness among workers B01: Satisfaction with the mentoring programme in terms of increasing B01: More positive attitudes/behaviours towards circular economy products in their business, B01: Increased willingness to pay for reused products in their business practices RESEARCHER COMMENT: More information available but not DIRECTLY related with the project. A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 146 І151 Activity TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT Acceptance (recognition and approval) Awareness & knowledge (knowledge of something) Behavioural changes (action, change of the existing behaviours) NOTES - Organisation of work to be more efficient awareness and CE practices acceptance: 6,5 (i.e. value chain inputs, service providers...), DEMO VISIT (N=9) DEMO01: The visit has improved their knowledge regarding practical methods to reduce food & plastic waste: Not improved at all (1): 7% Slightly improved (2): 13% Moderately improved (3): 20% Improved (4): 27% Significantly improved (5): 33% How: - No previous knowledge of the method - Test on a pilot scale what is done in the laboratory DEMO01: 9 respondents: 6 M & 3 F, 78% of the respondents thinks that some of the results presented in the visit can be applied to their activity Useful results: - cell disruption for purification processes - plant equipment - obtaining polyphenol-rich fractions for use as antioxidants - Compound extraction A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 147 І151 Activity TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT Acceptance (recognition and approval) Awareness & knowledge (knowledge of something) Behavioural changes (action, change of the existing behaviours) NOTES - Knowledge on the extraction methods/ processes - Improve the practical knowledge of the technologies used for waste valorisation DEMO01: Exchange with peers about topics related to the demo: Nothing relevant (1): 0% Not very relevant (2): 11% Moderately relevant (3): 0% Quite relevant (4): 44% Very relevant (5): 33% DEMO01: Why this knowledge would be useful for their peers: A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 148 І151 Activity TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT Acceptance (recognition and approval) Awareness & knowledge (knowledge of something) Behavioural changes (action, change of the existing behaviours) NOTES - Waste valorisation alternatives - The availability of equipment in which the whole process can be carried out a larger scale than the laboratory is of great interest in circular bioeconomy projects - R+D collaboration B01: Byproduct management and R&I for new products (N=8) B01: Tangible benefits/ results identified in companies after the collaboration with A2C: • The two preferred options were: improved customer satisfaction (27%) and non-benefits at all (27%). B01: The project has improved the quality, production or R&D department of the companies. One company also states that it has contributed to restructure their work in daily operations. One company stated that the activities B01: 40% know the project mainly thanks to the website 20% raw materials supplier 20% Attendance to dissemination events 10% Attendance to stakeholders’ meetings A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 149 І151 Activity TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT Acceptance (recognition and approval) Awareness & knowledge (knowledge of something) Behavioural changes (action, change of the existing behaviours) NOTES • Then: increased efficiency (18%) and influenced more positive attitudes/behaviou rs towards circular economy products in your business (18%) • One respondent stated that “it generated discomfort in some workers” B01: The 62% of responders stated that A2C activities have not improved their compression of CE had no influence in their activity. 10% Participating in the mentoring programme WORKERS NEP analysis (awareness). General comments: - The average has increased from 48,78 to 55,56, which suggest a change towards values more aligned with a pro environmental view A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 150 І151 Activity TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT Acceptance (recognition and approval) Awareness & knowledge (knowledge of something) Behavioural changes (action, change of the existing behaviours) NOTES o Limits to growth: increased from 2,95 to 3,06, indicating a slightly higher awareness of growth limits (small change). SD decreased (less variability) o Antianthropocentrism: increase in the mean from 3,36 to 3,86, what reflects a stronger rejection of an anthropocentric worldview o Fragility of nature’s balance: increased from 3,84 to 3,88 → showing stability in the perception that nature is fragile (the SD decreased indicating a better consensus in this dimension) o Rejection of exemptionalism: decreased from 3,31 to 3,22. This might indicate a reduced willingness to reject the idea that humans are exceptional and not subject to natural laws. o Possibility of an Eco-crisis: mean decreased slightly from 3,79 to 3,70 à slightly lower perfection of the likelihood of an ecological crisis The results suggest a generally positive effect of the intervention General comments AP01: Acceptance of the sustainability voucher by A2C finalist companies positively rated (recognition and approval) AP01: companies have expressed interest in the CE, this derived in the creation of a CE practices map of the Region of Murcia and a dynamic catalogue of good practices AP01: Acknowledgement and identification of the importance of company feedback as key benefit of the project. AP01: lack of awareness of the public administration. Missing actions not in place (mainly related with the availability and facility of recycling infrastructures) AP01: Personal behavioural change (perspectives & activities) through participation in the project AP01: change in mindset and practice of companies, thanks to an improved attitude coupled with the adoption of new practices demonstrates a concrete shift in behaviour. This change is AP01: example of good practice in implementing CE is the sustainability voucher created by INFO A2C – Deliverable D7.9v1.0 Page 151 І151 Activity TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT Acceptance (recognition and approval) Awareness & knowledge (knowledge of something) Behavioural changes (action, change of the existing behaviours) NOTES triggered at some extent by the regulation. Annex 2. Materials In case the reader would like to have access to the templates of the different information gathering materials presented in the document, please contact [email protected]