Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 147, Issue 1, pp 15–44 | Cite as

Identifying Social Indicators for Sustainability Assessment of CCU Technologies: A Modified Multi-criteria Decision Making

  • Parisa RafiaaniEmail author
  • Zoumpolia Dikopoulou
  • Miet Van Dael
  • Tom Kuppens
  • Hossein Azadi
  • Philippe Lebailly
  • Steven Van Passel
Original Research

Abstract

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies capture CO2 waste emissions and utilize them to generate new products (such as fuels, chemicals, and materials) with various environmental, economic, and social opportunities. As most of these CCU technologies are in the R&D stage, their technical and economic viability are examined with less attention to the social aspect which is an important pillar for a holistic sustainability assessment. The lack of systematic social impact research is mainly due to the difficulty of identifying and quantifying social aspects through the entire life cycle of products. We will fill this gap for CCU technologies and identify the main social indicators. A multi-criteria decision making tool: technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) was applied to empirically determine which indicators are more relevant for assessing the social impact of a company operating CCU activities within a European context. First, seeing that social impact categories are linked to key stakeholder groups, we considered workers, consumers, and local communities as relevant stakeholders. Second, the main social impact categories and their potential performance indicators associated to each group of stakeholders were listed using the United Nations Environment Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) guidelines. In the third step, an online questionnaire was distributed to identify the main social categories and indicators for CCU, to which 33 European CCU experts responded. Finally, a modified TOPSIS was applied to rank the indicators based on their relevance. We found that the indicators related to “end of life responsibility” and “transparency” within a CCU company achieved the highest rank affecting the consumers group, whereas “fair salary” and “equal opportunities/discriminations” were determined as the most relevant impact categories for the workers. For the local community group, “secure living conditions” and “local employment” received the highest priority from the experts’ point of view. Furthermore, “health and safety” considerations were identified as one of the most important criteria affecting all three groups of stakeholders. The ranking list of the main social indicators identified in our study provides the basis for the next steps in the social sustainability assessment of CCU technologies; that is, data collection and impact assessment. Our outcomes can also be used to inform the producers regarding the most and least relevant social aspects of CCU so that the potential social impacts caused by their production activities can be improved or prevented.

Keywords

Sustainability assessment CO2 emissions Social indicator SLCA TOPSIS CCU 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would also like to thank James Morrison from the JamesEdits agency for proof reading and editing the article.

References

  1. Afsordegan, A., Sánchez, M., Agell, N., Zahedi, S., & Cremades, L. V. (2016). Decision making under uncertainty using a qualitative TOPSIS method for selecting sustainable energy alternatives. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,13, 1419–1432.Google Scholar
  2. Amine, M. E., Pailhes, J., & Perry, N. (2014) Comparison of different multiple-criteria decision analysis methods in the context of conceptual design: Application to the development of a solar collector structure. In Proceedings of joint conference on mechanical, design engineering advanced manufacturing, Toulouse, France June 2014, France (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  3. Aparcana, S., & Salhofer, S. (2013). Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(5), 1106–1115.Google Scholar
  4. Arning, K., van Heek, J., & Ziefle, M. (2017). Risk perception and acceptance of CDU consumer products in Germany. Energy Procedia,114, 7186–7196.Google Scholar
  5. Baumann, H., Arvidsson, R., Tong, H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Does the Production of an Airbag Injure more People than the Airbag Saves in Traffic? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(4), 517–527.Google Scholar
  6. Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications,39, 13051–13069.Google Scholar
  7. Benoît, C., & Mazijn, B. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. UNEP/SETAC. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2019.
  8. Bocin-Dumitriu, A., Perez Fortes, M.-M., Tzinas, E., & Sveen, T. (2013). Carbon capture and utilisation workshop background and proceedings. Scientific and technical report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.  https://doi.org/10.2790/11560.
  9. Bruhn, T., Naims, H., & Olfe-Kräutlein, B. (2016). Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage. Environmental Science & Policy,60, 38–43.Google Scholar
  10. Buchholz, T., Volk, T. A., & Luzadis, V. A. (2009). Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy,37(2), 484–495.Google Scholar
  11. Cartelle Barros, J. J., Coira, M. L., de la Cruz López, M. P., & Caño Gochi, A. D., (2015). Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems. Energy, 89, 473–489.Google Scholar
  12. Colodel, C. M., Kupfer, T., Barthel, L. P., & Albrecht, S. (2009). R&D decision support by parallel assessment of economic, ecological and social impact: Adipic acid from renewable resources versus adipic acid from crude oil. Ecological Economics,68(6), 1599–1604.Google Scholar
  13. Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement,60(6), 821–836.Google Scholar
  15. Cuéllar-Franca, R. M., & Azapagic, A. (2015). Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts. Journal of CO2 Utilization,9, 82–102.Google Scholar
  16. Dikopoulou, Z., Nápoles, G., Papageorgiou, E. I., & Vanhoof, K. (2015). Ranking and aggregation of factors affecting companies’ attractiveness. In 5th International symposium on knowledge acquisition and modelling, Atlantis Press, London.Google Scholar
  17. Doukas, H., Karakosta, C., & Psarras, J. (2010). Computing with words to assess the sustainability of renewable energy options. Expert Systems with Applications,37, 5491–5497.Google Scholar
  18. Dreyer, L. C., Hauschild, M. Z., & Schierbeck, J. (2010). Characterization of social impacts in LCA. Part 1: Development of indicators for labour rights. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,15(3), 247–259.Google Scholar
  19. Ekener-Petersen, E., & Finnveden, G. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: A case study of a laptop computer. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(8), 127–143.Google Scholar
  20. EU. (2017). Carbon capture and utilization. Smart Specialisation Platform. http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/carbon-capture-and-utilization. Accessed March 29, 2017.
  21. Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2013). Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(1), 155–171.Google Scholar
  22. Gnansounou, E. (2011). Assessing the sustainability of biofuels: A logic-based model. Energy,36(4), 2089–2096.Google Scholar
  23. Hardisty, P. E., Sivapalan, M., & Brooks, P. (2011). The Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Carbon Capture and Storage. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(5), 1460–1477.Google Scholar
  24. Harms, D., Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2013). Strategies in sustainable supply chain management: An empirical investigation of large German companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,20(4), 205–218.Google Scholar
  25. Hasan, K. N., Saha, T. K., & Eghbal, M. (2014). Investigating the priority of market participants for low emission generation entry into the Australian grid. Energy,71, 445–455.Google Scholar
  26. Hassini, E., Surti, C., & Searcy, C. (2012). A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics. International Journal of Production Economics,140(1), 69–82.Google Scholar
  27. Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Dong, H. Y., Lom, I. M. C., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2017). Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1373-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hsieh, L. F., Chin, J. B., & Wu, M. C. (2006). Performance evaluation for university electronic libraries in Taiwan. The Electronic Library,24(2), 212–224.Google Scholar
  29. Huang, I. B., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment,409(19), 3578–3594.Google Scholar
  30. Huguenin, J.-M. (2015). Data envelopment analysis and non-discretionary inputs: How to select the most suitable model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Expert Systems with Applications,42, 2570–2581.Google Scholar
  31. Hwang, A., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., & Cook, S. (1962). Research methods in social relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  33. Jones, C. R., Kaklamanou, D., Stuttard, W. M., Radford, R. L., & Burley, J. (2015a). Investigating public perceptions of carbon dioxide utilisation (CDU) technology: A mixed methods study. Faraday Discussions,183, 327–347.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5FD00063G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, C. R., Olfe-Kräutlein, B., Naims, H., & Armstrong, K. (2017). The social acceptance of carbon dioxide utilisation: A review and research agenda. Front: Energy Res.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones, Ch. R., Radford, R. L., Armstrong, K., & Styring, P. (2014). What a waste! Assessing public perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation technology. Journal of CO 2Utilization, 7, 51–54.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, S., Snowden-Swan, L., Meyer, P., Zacher, A., Olarte, M., & Drennan, C. (2015b). Fast pyrolysis and hydrotreating: 2014 State of Technology R&D and projections to 2017. Richland, WA: PNNL-24176, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  37. Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications,38, 6577–6585.Google Scholar
  38. Klankermayer, J., & Leitner, W. (2015). Love at second sight for CO2 and H2 in organic synthesis. Science,350, 629–630.Google Scholar
  39. Kowalewski, S., Arning, K., Minwegen, A., Ziefle, M., & Ascheid, G. (2012). Extending the engineering trade-off analysis by integrating user preferences in conjoint analysis. Expert Systems with Applications.  https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., et al. (2002). The impact of ‘no opinion’ response options on data quality. Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly,66, 371–403.Google Scholar
  41. Kuhnen, M., & Hahn, R. (2017). Indicators in social life cycle assessment, a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience. Journal of Industrial Ecology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuramochi, T., Ramírez, A., Turkenburg, W., & Faaij, A. (2011). Techno-economic assessment and comparison of CO capture technologies for industrial processes: Preliminary results for the iron and steel sector. Energy Procedia,4, 1981–1988.Google Scholar
  43. Manik, Y., Leahy, J., & Halog, A. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: A case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(7), 1386–1392.Google Scholar
  44. Mankins, J. C. (2009). Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective. Acta Astronautica,65, 1216–1223.Google Scholar
  45. Maroun, M. R., & La Rovere, E. L. (2014). Ethanol and food production by family smallholdings in rural Brazil: Economic and socio-environmental analysis of micro distilleries in the State of Rio Grande do Sul. Biomass and Bioenergy,63, 140–155.Google Scholar
  46. Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., Heavey, C., & McGrath, P. (2015). Environmental and social supply chain management sustainability practices: Construct development and measurement. Production Planning & Control,26(8), 673–690.Google Scholar
  47. Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., et al. (2014). Application challenges for the social LCA of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production,69, 34–48.Google Scholar
  48. Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2003). Qualitative multi-criteria approaches to assessing indicators of sustainable forest resource management. Forest Ecology and Management,174(1–3), 329–343.Google Scholar
  49. Monroe, M. C., & Adams, D. C. (2012). Increasing response rates to web-based surveys. Journal of Extension,50(6), 6–7.Google Scholar
  50. Naims, H. (2016). Economics of carbon dioxide capture and utilization—A supply and demand perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,23(22), 22226–22241.Google Scholar
  51. Niero, M., & Kalbar, P. (2019). Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: A proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,140, 305–312.Google Scholar
  52. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management,42(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
  53. Onat, N. C., Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2016a). Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies. Sustainable Production and Consumption,6, 12–25.Google Scholar
  54. Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., & Zheng, Q. P. (2016b). Combined application of multi-criteria optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment for optimal distribution of alternative passenger cars in US. Journal of Cleaner Production,112, 291–307.Google Scholar
  55. Papong, S., Itsubo, N., Malakul, P., & Shukuya, M. (2015). Development of the social inventory database in Thailand using input–output analysis. Sustainability,7(6), 7684–7713.Google Scholar
  56. Payne, S. (1951). The art of asking questions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Perdan, S., Jones, C. R., & Azapagic, A. (2017). Public awareness and acceptance of carbon capture and utilisation in the UK. Sustainable Production and Consumption,10, 74–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pérez-Fortes, M., & Tzimas, E. (2016). Techno-economic and environmental evaluation of carbon dioxide utilisation for fuel production. Synthesis of methanol and formic acid; EUR 27629 EN.  https://doi.org/10.2790/981669.
  59. Pieri, T., Nikitas, A., Castillo-Castillo, A., & Angelis-Dimakis, A. (2018). Holistic assessment of carbon capture and utilization value chains. Environments,5, 108.  https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5100108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poe, G. S., Seeman, I., McLaughlin, J., Mehl, E., & Dietz, M. (1988). Don’t know boxes in factual questions in a mail questionnaire. Public Opinion Quarterly,52, 212–222.Google Scholar
  61. Quadrelli, E., Centi, G., Duplan, J.-L., & Perathoner, S. (2011). Carbon dioxide recycling: emerging large-scale technologies with industrial potential. Chemsuschem,4, 194–1215.Google Scholar
  62. Rafiaani, P., Kuppens, T., Van Dael, M., Azadi, H., Lebailly, Ph, & Van Passel, S. (2018). Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: Towards a systemic approach. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,82(2), 1839–1853.Google Scholar
  63. Ragland, C. J., Feldpausch-Parker, A., Peterson, T. R., Stephens, J., & Wilson, E. (2011). Socio-political dimensions of CCS deployment through the lens of social network analysis. Energy Procedia,4, 6210–6217.Google Scholar
  64. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  65. Rubin, E. S., Mantripragad, H., Marks, A., Versteeg, P., & Kitchin, J. (2012). The outlook for improved carbon capture technology. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science xxx,2012, 1–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Santoyo-Castelazo, E., & Azapagic, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80, 119–138.Google Scholar
  67. Scott, J. A., Ho, W., & Dey, P. K. (2012). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy system. Energy,42(1), 146–156.Google Scholar
  68. Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253.Google Scholar
  69. Stamford, L., & Azapagic, A. (2011). Sustainability indicators for the assessment of nuclear power. Energy, 36(10), 6037–6057.Google Scholar
  70. Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Krisciukaitiene, I., & Balezentis, A. (2012). Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,16, 3302–3311.Google Scholar
  71. Sultana, A., & Kumar, A. (2012). Ranking of biomass pellets by integration of economic, environmental and technical factors. Biomass and Bioenergy,2(39), 344–355.Google Scholar
  72. Thomassen, G., Van Dael, M., & Van Passel, S. (2018). The potential of microalgae biorefineries in Belgium and India: An environmental techno-economic assessment. Bioresource Technology,267, 271–280.Google Scholar
  73. Traverso, M., Asdrubali, F., Francia, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2012). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,17(8), 1068–1079.Google Scholar
  74. Turcksin, L., Macharis, C., Lebeau, K., Boureima, F., Mierlo, J. V., Bram, S., et al. (2011). A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium. Energy Policy,39(1), 200–214.Google Scholar
  75. Tyagi, M., Kumar, P., & Kumar, D. (2015). Analyzing CSR issues for supply chain performance system using preference rating approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,26(6), 830–852.Google Scholar
  76. Vaillancourt, P. M. (1973). Stability of children’s survey responses. Public Opinion Quarterly,37, 373–387.Google Scholar
  77. van Heek, J., Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2017). Reduce, reuse, recycle: Acceptance of CO-utilization for plastic products. Energy Policy,105, 53–66.Google Scholar
  78. Van Schoubroeck, S., Springael, J., Van Dael, M., Malina, R., & Van Passel, S. (2019). Sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals: A Delphi study using multi-criteria decision analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,144, 198–208.Google Scholar
  79. Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operations Research,10(2), 56–66.Google Scholar
  80. Vinyes, E., Oliver-Solà, J., Ugaya, C., Rieradevall, J., & Gasol, C. M. (2013). Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(2), 445–455.Google Scholar
  81. Vreys, K., Lizin, S., Van Dael, M., Tharakan, J., & Malina, R. (2019). Exploring the future of carbon capture and utilisation by combining an international Delphi study with local scenario development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 494–501.Google Scholar
  82. Wang, E. (2015). Benchmarking whole-building energy performance with multi-criteria technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution using a selective objective-weighting approach. Applied Energy,146, 92–103.Google Scholar
  83. Wang, S.-W., Hsu, C.-W., & Hu, A. H. (2016). An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—Part 1: Methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,21, 1514–1528.Google Scholar
  84. Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., & Zhao, J.-H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,13(9), 2263–2278.Google Scholar
  85. Wassermann, S., Schulz, M., & Scheer, D. (2011). Linking public acceptance with expert knowledge on CO storage. Outcomes of a Delphi approach. Energy Procedia,4, 6353–6359.Google Scholar
  86. Wilson, G., Travaly, Y., Brun, T., Knippels, H., Armstrong, K., Styring, P., et al. (2015). A vision for smart CO 2transformation in Europe: Using CO 2as a resource. SCOT Project. http://www.scotproject.org/images/SCOT%20Vision.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2019.
  87. Xu, Q., Zhang, Y.-B., Zhang, J., & Lv, X.-G. (2015). Improved TOPSIS model and its application in the evaluation of NCAA basketball coaches. Modern Applied Science,9(2), 259.Google Scholar
  88. Zaunbrecher, B. S., & Ziefle, M. (2016). Integrating acceptance-relevant factors into wind power planning: A discussion. Sustainable Cities and Society.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhang, Z. (2016). Missing data imputation: Focusing on single imputation. Annals of Translational Medicine,4(1), 9.  https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.12.38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zimmermann, A. W., & Schomacker, R. (2017). Assessing early-stage CO2 utilization technologies—Comparing apples and oranges? Energy Technology,5, 850–860.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201600805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UHasselt - Hasselt University, Centre for Environmental SciencesDiepenbeekBelgium
  2. 2.Economics and Rural Development, Gembloux Agro-Bio TechUniversity of LiègeGemblouxBelgium
  3. 3.UHasselt - Hasselt University, Business InformaticsDiepenbeekBelgium
  4. 4.Unit Separation and Conversion TechnologiesVITOMolBelgium
  5. 5.Department of GeographyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Engineering ManagementUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations