Advertisement

Social life cycle assessment framework for evaluation of potential job creation with an application in the French carbon fiber aeronautical recycling sector

  • Baptiste PillainEmail author
  • Luciano Rodrigues Viana
  • Anaële Lefeuvre
  • Leslie Jacquemin
  • Guido Sonnemann
SOCIETAL LCA

Abstract

Purpose

Due to the increased consumption of carbon fibers, it is expected that an important amount of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP)-based products will enter in the coming years, at the end of their life cycle. Considering the challenges ahead in the establishment of a new recycling sector, it is appropriate to investigate the sustainable creation of a CFRP end-of-life management sector. The following work is part of a national funded project called SEARRCH, whose goal was to provide sustainability assessment indicators and methodology to stakeholders, for the implementation of a carbon fiber recycling sector. This article will focus on detailing the methodology aiming at characterizing the social dimension through the evaluation of potential job creation.

Methods

This publication describes the development of a method for the evaluation of potential job creation built on an adaptation of the Hunkeler societal life cycle assessment (societal LCA). This methodology based on life cycle inventory (LCI) has been adapted using input-output tables from the French national institute of statistics and economic studies (INSEE) or the Social Hotspot Database (SHDB) and a material flow analysis (MFA). A practical application in the CFRP recycling sector is then described. This research was conducted as part of a national project funded by the French Government France; therefore, this study respects data corresponding to the French national borders and assumes the use of a pyrolysis recycling process in calculating the amount of CFRP production and waste available at the end-of-life stage from the aeronautical sector.

Results and discussion

The amount of direct and indirect employment was obtained for different periods of time. Using technical coefficients extracted from the SHDB, it was determined that for the CFRP coming from the aeronautical sector, 85 direct and indirect induced jobs would be created for the period between 2046 and 2050. Using technical coefficients calculated from the input-output tables provided by the INSEE, the estimated number of jobs was 108 for the same period.

Conclusions

This publication demonstrated that the quantity of CFRP at the end-of-life stage could represent a potential benefit for direct and indirect job creation if the implementation of the end-of-life CFRP sector is anchored in a sustainable way, by establishing a new recycling sector for this material. Moreover, this method can provide calculations for other periods of time, sectors, and geographic scales, separately or in combination.

Keywords

Carbon fiber-reinforced plastic CFRP Job creation Life cycle inventory Pyrolysis recycling Social LCA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the French National Research Agency (ANR), which funded the SEARRCH project (Sustainability Engineering Assessment Research for Recycled Composites with High value) in which this research was conducted (project ID: ANR-13-ECOT-0005).

References

  1. Andrews E, Lesage P, Benoît C, Parent J, Norris G, Revéret J-P (2009) Life cycle attribute assessment. J Ind Ecol 13:565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benoît-Norris C, Aulisio D, G.A.N (2013) The Social Hotspots Database [WWW Document]. URL https://www.socialhotspot.org/ (accessed 8.30.18)
  3. Bouvier G (2000) Les comptes d’emploi, d’heures travaillées et de productivité’. INSEE BaseGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang Y, Ries RJ, Wang Y (2011) The quantification of the embodied impacts of construction projects on energy, environment, and society based on I–O LCA. Energy Policy 39:6321–6330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciroth A, Eisfeldt F (2016) PSILCA—a product social impact life cycle assessment databaseGoogle Scholar
  6. Deboutières A, Georgeault L (2015) Quel potentiel d’emplois pour une économie circulaire ? In: Institut de l’économie circulaireGoogle Scholar
  7. Dwyer L, Forsyth P, Spurr R (2004) Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: new and old approaches. Tour Manag 25:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emmerich R, Kuppinger J (2014) Recovering carbon fibers. Kunststoffe Int 2014:62–65Google Scholar
  9. European Investment Bank (2013) The Economic Appraisal of Investment Projects at the EIB - Projects Directorate 2013Google Scholar
  10. EUROSTAT S (2013) European Commission (Eurostat). Retrieved February 27, 2019, from https://www.ec.europa.eu/eurostat/fr/data/database
  11. Feschet P (2014) Analyse de Cycle de Vie Sociale. Pour un nouveau cadre conceptuel et théoriqueGoogle Scholar
  12. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrabé M (2016) Evaluation économique généraleGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffing E, Overcash M (2010) Carbon fiber HS from PAN [UIDCarbFibHS]Google Scholar
  15. Helbig C, Gemechu ED, Pillain B, Young SB, Thorenz A, Tuma A, Sonnemann G (2016) Extending the geopolitical supply risk indicator: application of life cycle sustainability assessment to the petrochemical supply chain of polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fibers. J Clean Prod 137:1170–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. INSEE (2017) Le tableau des entrées-sorties (TES) [WWW Document]. URL https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2383687#documentation (accessed 3.29.17)
  18. ISO 14044 (2006) ISO 14044: Environmental Management, Life Cycle Assessment, Requirements and Guidelines, International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  19. Jolliet O, Saadé M, Crettaz P (2010) Analyse du cycle de vie: comprendre et réaliser un écobilan (Vol. 23). PPUR Presses polytechniquesGoogle Scholar
  20. Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2008) An industry perspective of the completeness and relevance of a social assessment framework for project and technology management in the manufacturing sector. J Clean Prod 16:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee CK, Taylor T (2005) Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tour Manag 26:595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lefeuvre A, Garnier S, Jacquemin L, Pillain B, Sonnemann G (2017) Anticipating in-use stocks of carbon fiber reinforced polymers and related waste flows generated by the commercial aeronautical sector until 2050. Resour Conserv Recycl 125:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K (2013) Building Eora : a global multi- region input—output database at high country and sector resolution building Eora : a global multi-region input—output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ Syst Res 25:20–49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2013.769938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leontief W (1986) Input-output economics. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Macombe C, Lagarde V, Falque A, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Gillet C, Loeillet D (2013) Social LCAs. Socioeconomic effects in value chains, 1srt Editi. ed. FruiTrop, CIRADGoogle Scholar
  26. Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1386–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murray J (2015) The sustainability practitioner’s guide to social analysis and assessment. Common Ground Publishing, 264 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. NEA (2006) Selected recent statistics on road freight transport in Europe. Organisation mondiale du transport routier (IRU). Rijswijk. Retrieved from https://www.iru.org/sites/default/files/2016-01/en-statisticsgoods_0.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2019
  29. Norris G.A, Benoit-Norris C (2015) The Social Hotspots Database Context of the SHDB. In: Murray J, Mcbain D, Wiedmann T (Eds) The Sustainability Practitioner’s Guide to Social Analysis and Assessment; ; Common Ground Publishing: Champaign, IL, USA, pp. 52–73Google Scholar
  30. Norris C, Norris G, Aulisio D (2014) Efficient assessment of social hotspots in the supply chains of 100 product categories using the social hotspots database. Sustainability 6:6973–6984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nunes AO, Viana LR, Guineheuc PM, da Silva Moris VA, de Paiva JMF, Barna R, Soudais Y (2017) Life cycle assessment of a steam thermolysis process to recover carbon fibers from carbon fiber-reinforced polymer waste. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1825–1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papong S, Itsubo N, Malakul P, Shukuya M (2015) Development of the social inventory database in Thailand using input-output analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland) 7:7684–7713.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paragahawewa U, Blankett P, Small B (2009) Social life cycle analysis (S-LCA): some methodological issues and potential application to cheese production in New Zealand 42Google Scholar
  34. Pickering SJ (2006) Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials—current status. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 37:1206–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pillain B, Gemechu E, Sonnemann G (2017) Identification of key sustainability performance indicators and related assessment methods for the carbon fiber recycling sector. Ecol Indic 72:833–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pimenta S, Pinho ST (2011) Recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers for structural applications: technology review and market outlook. Waste Manag 31:378–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt WP, Suh S, Weidema BP, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30:701–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roux M, Dransfeld C, Giger L (2013) Recycling of high performance thermoplastic composites with high voltage fragmentation, in: The 19th International Conference on Composite Materials. pp 1–8Google Scholar
  39. Roux M, Eguémann N, Dransfeld C, Thiébaud F, Perreux D (2017) Thermoplastic carbon fibre-reinforced polymer recycling with electrodynamical fragmentation. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 30:381–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Short W, Packey DJ, Holt T (1995) A manual for the economic evaluation of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. National Renewable Energy Laboratory:96Google Scholar
  41. United Nations Environment Programme (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  42. Valerian F, du Fou de Kerdaniel F (2013) L’industrie du recyclage en France : changer de dimension pour créer des emploisGoogle Scholar
  43. Weisbrod G, Weisbrod B (1997) Measuring economic impact of projects apd programs. Transp Res Circ #477:1–34Google Scholar
  44. Witik RA, Teuscher R, Michaud V, Ludwig C, Månson J-AE (2013) Carbon fibre reinforced composite waste: an environmental assessment of recycling, energy recovery and landfilling. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 49:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Witten E, Jahn B, Karl D (2015) Composites market report 2015. Mark Dev Trends, Challenges Oppor, pp 2–28Google Scholar
  46. Zamani B, Sandin G, Svanström M, Peters GM (2018) Hotspot identification in the clothing industry using social life cycle assessment—opportunities and challenges of input-output modelling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:536–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Altran Technologies, Research DepartmentBlagnacFrance
  2. 2.CNRS, ISM, UMR 5255TalenceFrance
  3. 3.ISM, UMR 5255Université de BordeauxTalenceFrance

Personalised recommendations