Training material for S-LCA addressed to decision-makers (D4.1)

Deliverable 4.1 vbbnbvX.x Training material for S-LCA addressed to decision-makers Ref. Ares(2024)5510801 - 30/07/2024 2 D 4.1 Training material for S-LCA addressed to decision-makers DELIVERABLE TYPE Report MONTH AND DATE OF DELIVERABLE Month 14, 31 July 2024 WORK PACKAGE WP 4 DELIVERABLE LEADER IME DISSEMINATION LEVEL Public AUTHORS S.K.R. Maddula, J. Dufour, D. Iribarren PROGRAMME HORIZON EUROPE GRANT AGREEMENT 101111933 START Jun. 2023 DURATION 24 Months 3 Contributors NAME ORGANISATION Sumanth K. R. Maddula IME Javier Dufour IME Diego Iribarren IME Peer Reviews NAME ORGANISATION Ilaria Schiavi Envipark Żaneta Kłostowska RIGP Revision History The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union, neither the European Union Institutions and Bodies nor any person acting on their behalf. VERSION DATE ORGANISATION MODIFICATIONS 1 02 July 2024 IME Complete version for internal review 2 31 July 2024 IME Final version after internal review 4 Index of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2 State of the art in Social Life Cycle Assessment .............................................................................................. 9 2.1 Goal and scope ................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Social life cycle inventory (S-LCI) ................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA).......................................................................................... 10 2.4 Interpretation ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 3 FCH S-LCA framework for decision-makers .................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Goal and scope ................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Materiality Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Social life cycle inventory (S-LCI) ................................................................................................................ 16 3.3 Social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA).......................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Social life cycle indicators ............................................................................................................................................ 17 3.4 Interpretation ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 4 FCH S-LCA framework for reporting to citizens ............................................................................................ 19 4.1 Goal and scope ................................................................................................................................................. 20 4.2 Social life cycle inventory (S-LCI) ................................................................................................................ 21 4.3 Social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA).......................................................................................... 21 4.3.1 Stakeholder category "workers" ................................................................................................................................ 22 4.3.2 Stakeholder category "society" ................................................................................................................................. 22 4.4 Interpretation ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 4.4.1 Visualisation of social risks .......................................................................................................................................... 23 5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................. 24 6 References .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 5 Index of Tables Table 1 Illustrative list of stakeholder categories and impact subcategories .............................................. 11 Table 2 Stakeholder category and impact subcategories from PSILCA v.3.1 database, based on Loubert et al. (2023) .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Index of Figures Figure 1 Interrelated stages of the general S-LCA framework ............................................................................ 9 Figure 2 Impact subcategories linked to SDGs, based on Benoît Norris et al. (2020) .............................. 12 Figure 3 Proposed framework for S-LCA of FCH systems for decision-makers ......................................... 14 Figure 4 Illustrative structure of a stakeholder category ..................................................................................... 18 Figure 5 Proposed framework for S-LCA of FCH systems for reporting to citizens .................................. 20 Figure 6 Selected impact subcategories and indicators, based on Iribarren et al. (2021) ...................... 22 Figure 7 Example of two different social indicators for visualisation purposes .......................................... 24 6 Abbreviations CSR Corporate Social Responsibility CSRD Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive ESG Environmental, Social and Governance ESRS European Sustainability Reporting Standards EU European Union FCH Fuel Cells and Hydrogen FU Functional Unit GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG GreenHouse Gases GRI Global Reporting Initiative HYPOP Hydrogen Public Opinion and accePtance IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards IIRC International Integrated Reporting Council IP S-LCIA Impact Pathway Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCC Life Cycle Costing LCSA Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis moh Medium opportunity hours mrh Medium risk hours MSCI Morgan Stanley Capital Investment NFRD Non-Financial Reporting Directive PSILCA Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment RS S-LCIA Reference Scale Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment SASB Sustainable Accounting Standard Boards SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry SHA Social Hotspot Analysis SHDB Social Hotspots Database S-LCA Social Life Cycle Assessment UNEP United Nations Environment Programme USD United States Dollar WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development 7 Executive Summary HYPOP was launched with the aim of providing clear guidance on hydrogen technologies, facilitating effective communication, leveraging consortium expertise, tailoring approaches for stakeholder involvement, contributing to social indicators, and addressing barriers faced by ongoing projects. These aspects collectively contribute to the project's mission of fostering public awareness and trust in hydrogen technologies. This HYPOP Deliverable 4.1 helps to define frameworks for social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) for decision/policy-makers and citizens, while their application in two case studies (one on renewable hydrogen production in refuelling station and another on urban mobility) is addressed in HYPOP Deliverable 3.1. These frameworks are expected to serve as a valuable support for practitioners, decision-makers and other stakeholders when it comes to making informed and socially-oriented decisions concerning hydrogen-related systems. This Deliverable 4.1 provides the frameworks subsequently applied in the case studies presented in HYPOP Deliverable 3.1 (M22, March 2025). 8 1 Introduction In the landscape of sustainability assessments, integrating social and socio-economic criteria into life cycle assessment (LCA) traces back more than 30 years. In 1993, the SETAC Report "Conceptual Framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment" (Fava et al., 1993) laid the foundation by proposing a social welfare impact category, and the term social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) itself was coined in 1996 (O’Brien et al.,1996). Recognising the necessity for addressing social criteria in LCA, it has evolved as a crucial methodology, particularly emphasising the "people pillar" within organisations, products, and services (Benoît Norris et al., 2020). The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative established a task force by the end of 2003, actively exploring approaches for S-LCA. The initial Guidelines for SLCA were subsequently published in 2009 by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Over the years, experiences, case studies, and publications in S-LCA have significantly expanded, contributing to a wealth of reference documents on the subject (Benoît Norris et al., 2020). S-LCA complements environmental LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) to provide holistic sustainability assessment. Although S-LCA follows the four interrelated phases reported in the ISO 14040 and 14044 frameworks (goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation), some aspects differ, are more common or are amplified at each phase of the study (Andrews et al., 2009). Benoît Norris et al. (2013) introduced the methodological sheets for S-LCA. These sheets present a practical methodology for evaluating various impact subcategories. They include precise definitions, analysis of political contexts, identification of generic and specific indicators, and suggestions for reliable database sources to collect these indicators. In 2016, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development expanded its evaluation of social impacts, particularly in the chemical industry, by publishing "The Social Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products" (WBCSD, 2016). It is worth mentioning that the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), consisting of 17 goals and 169 targets, have gained significant recognition worldwide as a crucial benchmark for sustainable development initiatives. Among these goals, fourteen are closely linked to social impacts, which highly align with the S-LCA framework (Benoît Norris et al., 2020). In summary, the evolution of S-LCA reflects a rich history of dialogue and development within the LCA community, aligning with global initiatives for sustainable development. This contextual background lays the groundwork for exploring and understanding the intricate interplay between social impacts and life cycle perspectives in the forthcoming discussion, as the report seeks to outline HYPOP's approach to the S-LCA methodology for evaluating fuel cells and hydrogen (FCH) products. This report provides a detailed overview of the assessment procedure and presents a comprehensive list of social and socio-economic areas and indicators considered in the analysis of FCH products. The primary goal is to establish a robust framework for conducting S-LCA, emphasising the social and socio-economic dimensions. The report aims to integrate these criteria into the life cycle assessment of FCH products and format some structures regarding decision-makers point of view and reporting point of view, contributing to a more holistic understanding of the performance of FCH products as a complement to other social methodologies and tools (e.g. hazard analysis). 9 2 State of the art in Social Life Cycle Assessment The S-LCA is a methodology that aids in assessing the potential social impacts of products and services at every stage of products life cycle. This covers every aspect, from acquiring supplies to contemplating about what will happen at end of life. Even though the general S-LCA framework (Figure 1) is based on that proposed in the international standards ISO 14040 and 14044 for LCA, each phase has some divergent elements (Benoît Norris et al., 2020). It provides a framework for evaluation that incorporates data from both qualitative and quantitative sources. This framework provides information on social and socio-economic elements that support decision-making processes in an effort to eventually improve stakeholders' well-being. In particular, Iribarren et al. (2024) provided the latest guidelines on S-LCA of FCH systems. Figure 1 Interrelated stages of the general S-LCA framework 2.1 Goal and scope The goal of the study and the methodological framework are established during the first step of the S-LCA methodology, known as goal and scope. Assessing and evaluating a product's impact on society is essential for enhancing its social responsibility. It can be used to inform stakeholders about the potential impacts of a product, checking if it enhances the general social development of those connected to its supply chain. Determining the desired outcome type, identifying the stakeholders whom the results must satisfy, and the particulars of the challenges that need to be addressed will all play a crucial role in guiding decision-makers (Benoît Norris et al., 2012). 16 contribution can be expressed either in terms of percentage contribution or qualitative ranking (Benoît Norris et al., 2020). Materiality assessments for FCH systems present a number of challenges that must be carefully considered (Martín-Gamboa et al., 2024). One major challenge is data availability and unpredictability, since acquiring precise and trustworthy information for many components of the system becomes difficult. Furthermore, given the developing nature of FCH technologies and the requirement for standardised/well-established methodologies, technical and methodological variances offer obstacles. Sustainability benchmarking complicates the assessment even more since defining comparisons for a technology with distinct features necessitates a deep knowledge. Adopting a life cycle viewpoint involves complications in capturing the complete impact of an FCH system across its life stages. Long-term strategy and materiality implications add another degree of difficulty, necessitating foresight and adaptation to account for the changing hydrogen landscape. To ensure the efficacy and dependability of materiality evaluations in the context of FCH systems, navigating these hurdles requires a deliberate and adaptable strategy. Benefits of materiality assessment (Baum et al., 2023) • It helps establish priorities. • It assists with setting goals and targets. • It builds a strong corporate value proposition. • It informs a dynamic business strategy. • It enhances stakeholder engagement and alignment. • It leverages opportunity to create new revenue streams. Challenges in conducting materiality assessment for FCH systems • Data availability and uncertainty. • Technical and methodological variations. • Sustainability benchmarking. • Comprehensive life cycle perspective. • Long-term strategies and materiality impacts. 3.2 Social life cycle inventory (S-LCI) The inventory data collection procedure typically hinges on gathering information about the worker hours per functional unit, with this working time functioning as the activity variable (Iribarren et al., 2024). The activity variable's data is derived from both site-specific statistics and databases, such as SHDB and PSILCA. Concurrently, data collecting extends to the assessment of social hotspots. This comprehensive strategy seeks to identify possible impacts and opportunities, so assisting in the meeting of corporate social responsibility (CSR) obligations. 17 3.3 Social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA) Certain social issues of interest to stakeholders and decision-makers are covered at the S-LCIA stage (Benoît Norris et al., 2020). In the decision-making process of S-LCA, various stakeholder categories are considered to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of potential social impacts. The stakeholder categories typically include both internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are those who work directly for the company or are part of the organisation, while external stakeholders are individuals or groups that are in the value chain of the company, such as suppliers, customers, and local communities. Additionally, investors, shareholders, and governments are also important stakeholders in the context of FCH systems, as they can significantly influence the decision-making process and the realisation of projects. The goal of considering the stakeholder categories is to identify and assess the social impacts associated with the life cycle of the technology and to ensure that the assessment covers all relevant social aspects. This approach aligns with the best practices in S-LCA, which emphasise the importance of materiality assessment engaging a wide range of stakeholders to understand and prioritize specific ESG issues. Regarding the evaluation procedure for the quantification of potential social impacts, the S-LCIA procedure followed in the eGHOST project for FCH products is explained herein (Iribarren et al., 2021). Thus, social indicators are estimated using the following parameters: i. The worker hours (WH) at each plant p within the supply chain, per functional unit. ii. The risk factor for each social indicator i and plant p (Ri, p, expressed in medium risk hours [mrh] or medium opportunity hours [moh] per worker hour). Each social indicator (Si) is therefore assessed (in mrh per functional unit) according to the following equation: Si = ∑(𝑊𝐻) 𝑛 𝑝=1 p * Ri, p where n is number of plants included in the product system. In this calculation procedure, (Wh)p is the activity variable. Worker hours are quantified directly or indirectly. If the plant-specific information is known, direct quantification is possible; otherwise, the indirect approach is used to quantify activity variable using the following equation: (WH)p = Ep * (𝑊𝐻)𝑝 ′ where Ep is the economic value (in USD) linked to each plant, per functional unit, and (𝑊𝐻)𝑝 ′ is the number of worker hours per USD for each plant p (e.g. found for the country and sector associated with the plant in the PSILCA database). 3.3.1 Social life cycle indicators Stakeholder categories (SHC in Figure 4) represent group types that can be affected by processes and activities involved in the products life cycle. There can be several impact subcategories (ICk in Figure 18 4) within each stakeholder category related to a specific social or socio-economic aspect (forced labour). For each ICk, various social indicators (Si in Figure 4) can be proposed. Figure 4 Illustrative structure of a stakeholder category For instance, in PSILCA v. 3.1, four stakeholder categories (workers, value chain actors, society, and local community) are available, as presented in Table 2. The database includes 20 social and socioeconomic impact subcategories and 70 qualitative and quantitative social indicators (Loubert et al., 2023). Table 2 Stakeholder category and impact subcategories from PSILCA v.3.1 database, based on Loubert et al. (2023) Stakeholder category Impact subcategory Workers Child labour, forced labour, working time, discrimination, fair salary, health and safety, social benefits and legal issues, freedom of association and collective bargaining Local community Access to material resources, respect of indigenous rights, safe and healthy living conditions, local employment, migration, GHG footprints, environmental footprints, Society Contribution to economic development, health and safety Value chain actors Fair competition, corruption, promoting social responsibility The choice of social indicators to be considered highly depends on the goal and scope of the study, considering which social groups are affected along the product life cycle (stakeholder categories), which areas are relevant to the product (impact subcategories), and on which basis they are measured (social indicators). 3.4 Interpretation In the interpretation phase, decision-makers are empowered to address specific social objectives by identifying critical social issues. When an input/output-based S-LCA is conducted, understanding the 19 structure of the analysed system and identifying the value chains that contribute most to the results can be achieved through a social hotspot analysis (SHA) (Benoît Norris et al., 2020). SHA quantifies the impact of an organisation's activities on society and helps manage hotspots within the supply chain of foreground and background processes. This analysis serves to communicate social impact to stakeholders, and meet CSR obligations. Hotspots are elementary processes or phases of a product's life cycle associated with significant potential social impacts, often linked to specific geographic locations. Key benefits of conducting social hotspot analysis in decision-making include: 1. Supply chain risk assessment: it provides solutions for companies assessing and managing the social risks in their supply chain. 2. Integrated business decisions: it enables responsible and integrated business decisions considering social impacts. 3. Critical hotspot management: it identifies and manages critical hotspots within a global supply chain. 4. Upstream impact assessment: it assesses an organisation's upstream impact on society through refined indicators (it uses a range of indicators to provide a refined understanding of an organisation's upstream impact on society). 5. Corporate social responsibility: it fulfils CSR obligations by addressing social concerns (companies CSR policies influence conduct of suppliers). Subsequently, within this interpretation phase, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) would be employed to prioritise and evaluate the identified social issues. It enhances the capacity to manage decisions involving a large amount of information, combine different indicators into aggregated results, and assign weights. This phase also enables the consideration of multiple stakeholders and interests, different types of information, and forms of data. Additionally, it fosters an analytical and deliberative process to generate options and management alternatives, as well as the evaluation of alternatives based on different criteria (Martín-Gamboa et al., 2024). 4 FCH S-LCA framework for reporting to citizens In line with the trend towards sustainability reporting by companies (Klein et al., 2023), in the European Union (EU) there is a noticeable surge in citizens engagement towards sustainability, especially in seeking social-level information. This heightened awareness aligns with regulatory developments such as the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), which has applied to approximately 11,000 large companies. The recent introduction of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) significantly expands the scope to encompass up to 50,000 companies, including about 10,000 non-EU businesses, mandated to disclose sustainability information by 2026. Notably, around 18,700 companies are voluntarily disclosing through initiatives like the Carbon Disclosure Project, demonstrating their readiness to provide critical information outlined in European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). This includes topics such as governance, strategy, risks, 20 opportunities, metrics and targets. The majority of these companies conduct at least some type of materiality assessment, indicating their position at advanced or mature levels. The reporting procedures followed by companies to reach citizens have been increasing. This trend underscores the growing and influential citizen-driven movement towards sustainability, pushing companies to embrace comprehensive reporting practices. The role of large companies, particularly those publicly listed or financing themselves on financial markets and subject to ESG ratings like MSCI and Robeco, is crucial in the non-financial reporting landscape. Market demand and regulatory frameworks mandate high transparency standards across all company activities and data. Recognising this evolving landscape, Figure 5 presents the framework proposed in HYPOP for S-LCA of FCH systems with citizens as the target audience. Further details are given in the subsections below. Figure 5 Proposed framework for S-LCA of FCH systems for reporting to citizens 4.1 Goal and scope The motivation behind the implementation of this second HYPOP S-LCA framework is to evaluate an FCH product system for the identification of the corresponding social hotspots while assisting in reporting social results to citizens for awareness and social engagement. In this regard, the expected use of the results is to provide insights into the potential social impacts of the product system, which 21 can be used to inform citizens through reporting, improve social performance, and enhance transparency and accountability. The choice of the most suitable modelling approach depends on aspects such as the technology readiness level and the manufacturing readiness level (Iribarren et al., 2024). Both positive and negative impacts along the life cycle should be considered, making use of site-specific and generic data that can be quantitative, semi-quantitative, or qualitative. In this S-LCA framework, in contrast to that for decision-makers (Section 3), materiality assessment is optional. In this regard, direct use of the lessons learned in the eGHOST project for FCH product system definition and selected social metrics (stakeholder categories, impact categories, and social indicators) is suggested (Iribarren et al. 2021). 4.2 Social life cycle inventory (S-LCI) The proposed inventory data collection procedure hinges on gathering information about the worker hours per functional unit, with this working time functioning as the activity variable (Iribarren et al., 2024). The activity variable's data is derived from both site-specific statistics and databases (e.g. PSILCA database). At each tier, the worker hours per functional unit are directly or indirectly quantified for each block. When worker hours are not directly available for an entity, they can be estimated based on economic values by using country and sector-specific information from the selected S-LCA database (cf. Section 3.3). The use of the protocol available in Martín-Gamboa et al. (2020) for the identification of the sectors and countries involved in the supply chain is recommended (Iribarren et al., 2021). 4.3 Social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA) The evaluation procedure corresponds to that detailed in Section 3.3. Concerning the identification of stakeholder categories, impact subcategories and social indicators, it is driven by the defined goal and scope of the study. In this S-LCA framework, literature findings from previous studies (CamposCarriedo et al., 2024), particularly the eGHOST report on social metrics for FCH systems (Iribarren et al., 2021), inform the selection of default stakeholder categories, impact subcategories, and social indicators. However, other categories, subcategories and indicators might be added. This is consistent with general S-LCA guidelines (Benoît Norris et al., 2020), which suggest an iterative refinement for their selection, comparing goal and scope and impact assessment phases when results have been obtained. Based on the lessons learned in the eGHOST project regarding social metrics for S-LCA of FCH products (Iribarren et al. 2021), "workers" and "society" are selected as default stakeholder categories. Furthermore, Figure 6 shows the default impact subcategories and social indicators considered for the selected stakeholder categories, also depicting their connection to the SDGs. It should be noted that other stakeholder categories such as "local community" and "value chain actors", as well as other impact subcategories and social indicators, might be incorporated as the study advances, based on the supply chain definition and related social risks. Double counting issues concerning impact subcategories and social indicators must be avoided (Benoît Norris et al., 2020). 22 Figure 6 Selected impact subcategories and indicators, based on Iribarren et al. (2021) 4.3.1 Stakeholder category "workers" Based on the lessons learned in the eGHOST project regarding social metrics for S-LCA of FCH products (Iribarren et al. 2021), the impact subcategories "child labour", "forced labour", "discrimination" and "fair salary" are selected by default for the stakeholder category "workers". These are usually of particularly high relevance when dealing with multiregional supply chains. Regarding social indicators, "children in employment (total)" and "gender wage gap" are chosen based on the available S-LCA literature on hydrogen systems (Campos-Carriedo et al., 2024). "Frequency of forced labour" is selected as indicator since it involves a broad spectrum also accounting for human trafficking, debt bondage, forced or servile marriage, and the sale or exploitation of children. This definition is consistent with the SDG target 8.7, which calls to “take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking”. Regarding fair salary, "minimum wage" is selected as indicator since the established risk scale reflects the risk of having workers with a remuneration that is not sufficient to achieve minimum decent living conditions (Iribarren et al. 2021). 4.3.2 Stakeholder category "society" Based on the lessons learned in the eGHOST project regarding social metrics for S-LCA of FCH products (Iribarren et al. 2021), the impact subcategories "contribution to economic development" and "health and safety" are selected by default for this stakeholder category. "Contribution to economic development" is selected in order to assess the potential economic growth the involved countries could experience with the diffusion of FCH technologies. Thus, "contribution of the sector to economic development" is selected as a social indicator. 23 "Health and safety" is selected based on specific literature (Campos-Carriedo et al., 2024). This social area complements the aforementioned aspects and leads to address another SDG. In particular, "health expenditure" is selected as a social indicator, which considers public and private investment on health relative to the gross domestic product (GDP). Overall, the social indicators proposed as starting point within the two default stakeholder categories are closely linked to central pillars of sustainable development such as human rights and economic development. 4.4 Interpretation In this phase, the interpretation of social risks linked to the FCH product system is reported, incorporating methods such as SHA and MCDA, as outlined in Section 3.4. In this S-LCA framework, this is geared towards communicating the prioritised ESG issues that are of particular interest to external stakeholders such as customers, investors, and –especially– citizens. In particular, in order to enhance the accessibility of this assessment for interested parties, visualisation techniques are implemented. This focuses on key social issues and indicators that are particularly relevant to consumers and communities. These visual representations, such as infographics or summary reports, aim to simplify complex information and present it in a manner that is transparent and easily comprehensible to practitioners (which helps in detecting inconsistencies and relations) and broader audience (customers, investors, and citizens). While certain tools have been developed and discussed in articles from a sustainability perspective, their application to social risks has not been extensively explored. Examples of these tools include the life cycle sustainability dashboard (Traverso et al., 2012), sustainability crowns (Corona and San Miguel, 2019), and the life cycle sustainability triangle (Martín-Gamboa et al., 2024). Despite their existing utility, these tools have inherent limitations. However, with suitable modifications, they can potentially be adapted to visualise and communicate social risks effectively. 4.4.1 Visualisation of social risks In Figure 7, two different social indicators are presented as examples. One dashboard indicates the "Children in employment (Total)" social indicator, while another dashboard indicates "Minimum wage" as a social indicator. This type of dashboard visualisation makes it easy to locate the social hotspots for the respective processes involved in the system. In Figure 7, for the "Children in employment (total)" indicator, "Process 1" contributes 50%, arising as the main social hotspot for this indicator. Conversely, for the "Minimum wage" indicator, "Process 3" contributes 38%, arising as the main social hotspot for this indicator. These social hotspots are visually highlighted with red arrows, directing attention to areas that require further focus. 24 Figure 7 Example of two different social indicators for visualisation purposes 5 Conclusions Two frameworks for S-LCA of FCH products have been thoroughly presented in this report: one for decision-makers and the other for citizen reporting. On the one hand, the HYPOP S-LCA framework for decision-makers emphasises crucial features such as materiality assessment, social hotspot analysis, and multicriteria decision-making. On the other hand, the HYPOP S-LCA framework for reporting (particularly to citizens) specifies default stakeholder categories, impact subcategories and social indicators, and it integrates visualisation techniques to provide individuals with a better grasp of the social factors involved. Each framework is individually designed to meet the requirements and viewpoints of its intended audience. The proposed frameworks are recommended to be robustly integrated with LCA and LCC approaches in order to increase the depth and breadth of evaluations. Moreover, benchmarking with relevant case studies is advised for contextual clarity, with an emphasis on the use of visualisation tools for result interpretation. Overall, S-LCA is becoming an important approach for the assessment of FCH supply chains, but still with a strong potential for improvements requiring further interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary effort to robustly support decision-makers, citizens and other stakeholders such as policy-makers. 6 References Andrews E.S., Barthel L.P., Benoît C. et al., 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/2009%20-%20Guidelines%20for%20sLCA%20-%20EN.pdf Baum K., Bardoneschi A., 2023. Materiality Assessment: Identify the ESG Issues Most Critical to Your Company. BDO USA. https://www.bdo.com/getmedia/9d53eabb-c81d-484e-a33d-cc266a5ea27f/ESGMateriality-Assessment-Insight.pdf?ext=.pdf 25 Benoît Norris C., 2012. Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Technique Providing a New Wealth of Information to Inform Sustainability-Related Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118528372.ch20 Benoît Norris C., Traverso M., Valdivia S. et al.., 2013. The methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). UNEP/SETAC. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf Benoît Norris C., Traverso M., Neugebauer S. et al., 2020. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020. UNEP/SETAC. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products-andOrganizations-2020-22.1.21sml.pdf Campos-Carriedo F., Dufour J., Iribarren D., 2024. Towards suitable practices for the integration of social life cycle assessment into the ecodesign framework of hydrogen-related products. Sustainable Production and Consumption 46, 29-39. 10.1016/j.spc.2024.02.015 Corona B.., San Miguel G., 2019. Life cycle sustainability analysis applied to an innovative configuration of concentrated solar power. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24, 1444-1460. 10.1007/s11367-018-1568-z Dyson B., 2024. Integration of Life Cycle and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessments into Decision Analytic Approaches for Sustainable Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90386-8.00057-7 Fava J., Consoli F., Denison R. et al.,1993. A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.setac.org/resource/resmgr/books/lca_archive/impact_assessment.pdf Fechner W., 2019. The State of the Art on Materiality Assessment Methods and Tools. 10.13140/RG.2.2.29024.64009 Hutchins M.J., Gierke J.S., Sutherland J.W., 2009. Decision making for social sustainability: A life-cycle assessment approach. 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society. 10.1109/ISTAS.2009.5155902 Iribarren D., Puig-Samper G., Bargiacchi E., Dufour J., 2021. Metrics in social impacts. eGHOST project. https://eghost.eu/ Iribarren D., Campos-Carriedo F., Dufour J., et al., 2024. Definition of FCH-SLCA guidelines. SH2E project. https://sh2e.eu/ Klein F., Nelson W., Grundmann G., Clever M., 2023. Materiality assessments are central to regulators sustainability agenda. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/environmental-socialgovernance/unlock-the-full-strategic-potential-of-materiality-assessments.html