Application challenges for the social LCA of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment

Julia Martínez-Blanco*, Annekatrin Lehmann , Pere Muñoz, Assumpció Antón, Marzia Traverso, Joan

Rieradevall and Matthias Finkbeiner

*Corresponding author:

Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Department of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität

Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany. tel: +49 (0)30 314-23509; fax: +49 (0)30 314-21720; e-mail:

julia.martinezblanco@tu-berlin.de

Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193

Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. tel: (+34)935813760; fax: (+34)935868008; e-mail: julia.martinez@uab.cat

Electronic Supplementary Materials Index

SM1 – Summary of stakeholders and subcategories assessed at each geographical scale

SM2 – Details for the inventory data of foreground sector scale

SM3 – Aggregated inventory for background sector scale

SM4 – Example of Life Cycle Attribute Assessment – Aggregation of social risks for natural

gas importations to Spain

SM5 –Details for the inventory data of foreground company scale

SM6 – Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard

SM7 – References

SM1 – Summary of stakeholders and subcategories assessed at each geographical scale

Table SM-A. Summary of the stakeholders and subcategories assessed at each geographical scale in the S-LCA.

Backgroundprocesses

Foregroundprocesses

STAKEHOLDER > Subcategories (and site-specific additional indicators)

Sect

or

Cou

ntry

Sect

or

Com

pany

WORKER

Freedom of association and collective bargaining X X X X

Child labor X X X

Fair salary X X X

Working hours X X X X

Forced labor X X X X

Equal opportunities/Discrimination X X X

Health and safety X X X X

LOCAL COMMUNITY

Access to material resources X X

Safe & healthy living conditions X X X

Local employment X X

Community engagement (X)

SOCIETY

Public commitments to sustainability issues (X) X

Prevention and Mitigation of Armed Conflicts X

Contribution to economic development X

Corruption X (X)

CONSUMER

Health & safety X

Feedback mechanism X X X

Transparency X

Product applicationa X X

CITIZENS COLLECTING OFMSWa

Education and responsibilitya (X)

Comfort and collecting effort for the citizens a (X)

Acceptance and willingness of citizens to collect organic waste a X

X The subcategory is assessed; (X) Indicators are proposed for the subcategory.a Stakeholder or subcategory proposed by the authors for the specific case study (see sections 2.4.1. and 2.4.2 of the paper). It could also be considered as a subgroup of the Local community.

SM2 – Details for the inventory data of foreground sector scale

Table SM-B shows details on the data sources and information used in Table 3 of the manuscript.

Table SM-B. Foreground sector scale - Comparison of social aspects of three fertilizing alternatives involved in the production chain of fertilizers. Information used for the assessment in Table 3 of the paper.

STAKEHOLDER > Subcategory (shaded)

Fertilizing alternative Compost HNO3

production KNO3

production Foreground processes OFMSW collection

Compost production

Working time (seconds per ton of fertilized tomato) 5,300 23,416 394 n.d.Social indicator Data Spain Spain Spain Israel

WORKER Freedom of association and collective bargaining

Potential of sector not passing labor lawsa T L L L HPotential of sector not adopting labor conventions a S L L L LOthers: Risk of not having the right to strike; Risk of not having collective bargaining rights; Risk of not having freedom of association rights.

Child labor Risk of child labor in the sector a L L L L LWorking hours Average working hours per week T 39.1b 39.1b 40.6b 43.6c

Others: Work-life balance situation.Forced labor Risk of forced labor a L H H H H Equal opportunities/ Discrimination

Overall fragility of gender equity (% women/total workers) a T H (12.4) b H (12.4) b M (27.1) b L (38.0)d Others: Ratio of basic salary of men to women by employee category; Ratio of immigrant employees (%); Ratio of basic salary of immigrants to the rest by employee category.

Health and safety Gaseous emissions exposure effects T/L e f  g g

Biological agents exposure effects L h i n.e. n.e.Occurrence of lethal accidents per year (per 100,000 people) T 12.3 b 12.3 b 7.1 b n.d. Occurrence of non-lethal accidents per year (per 100,000 people)

T 10876.8 b 10876.8 b 2952.3 b n.d.

Others: Biological agents protection and prevention measures; Workers comfort level; Level of noise; Presence of a formal policy concerning health and safety in the sector.

LOCAL COMMUNITYSafe & healthy living conditions

Odor and gaseous emissions effects T/L n.d. j n.e.g n.e.g

Biological agents exposure effects T/L n.d. k n.e. n.e.Other hazards and nuisances L Noise and traffic  l l

Others: Biological agents protection and prevention measures; Level of noise; Emissions and noise records are recommended or mandatory for the company. 

Local employment  Promotion of local employment in the consumption area S yes yes yes noOthers: Trainning courses for the employees; % Employees with Higher education; % Employees with Basic education; % spending on locally-based suppliers

 Community engagement

Others: rate of willingness to have the sector close to home; participation of neighbors in decisions and incomes. 

SOCIETYPublic commitments to sustainability issues

Others: Existence of (legal) obligation on public sustainability reporting; Engagement of the sector regarding sustainability.

Prevention and Mitigation of Armed Conflicts

The organization is doing business in a region with ongoing conflictsm

S3 3 8

Contribution to economic development

Economic situation of the country (GDP per capita, $)n T 35,210 35,210 27,650Relevance of the considered sector for the national economy. Employees in relation to size of working population (%)

T 0.4b 0.8b 1.5d

Corruption Others: Risk of corruption in the sector.CONSUMER (FARMER)Feedback mechanism Fertilizer production scale with regard of consumer S Local Regional Internation. Health and safety Product application dangers L o p

Existence of health and safety measures for application of the product

L yesq yesr yesr

Others: Degree of compliance with H&S measures by the farmer.Product applications Extra working time for consumer to apply the product S Necessary Not necessary

Average prices in Catalonia (€ per kg ton of fertilized tomato)t T 4.8-17 24.2 29.1Others: Level of complexity for dosages calculation; Main consumer concerns about the product. 

CITIZENS COLLECTING OFMSWs

Education and responsibilitys

Others: Existence of obligation of waste collection for citizens; Existence of educational campaigns for citizens’ engagement.   

Comfort and collecting effort for the citizenss

Others: Frequency of organic bin emptying; % public space used; % private space used. 

Acceptance and willingness of citizens to collect organic wastes

Amount of organic waste collected (%)u T Cat. 22.5% n.a. n.a.% of improper materials in the organic wasteu T Cat. 7% n.a. n.a.

Best option; intermediate option; worst option; similar values Type of data: T Quantitative, S Semi-quantitative, L Qualitative.n.d. no sector data, n.e. no evidence, n.a. not applicable.a Sector level risk according to SHDB. L Low, M Medium, H High, VH Very high.b MTI (2013); c ILO (2011); d CBE (2013); e It is likely that waste collectors are exposed to doses of VOC exceeding the occupational emissions limits for very short periods (Poulsen et al. 1995). Workers exposure to VOCs during waste collection was only modest for Kiviranta et al. (1999), and the pattern of VOCs suggested that most of the VOCs originated from the exhaust fumes of the vehicle rather than from the wastes. f VOC concentrations, even ‘worst case’, were well below Directive 2000/39/CE permissible workplace levels for toxicity effects, but they are detectable and can be annoying. Ammonia concentrations in working environments may be close or above regulation limits but health effects are unlikely to be severe. The other gaseous species and dosages are not dangerous for health (Eitzer 1995; Lavoie and Alie 1997; Smet et al. 1999; European Council 2000; Staley et al. 2006; Tsai et al. 2008; Persoons 2010; Colón et al. 2012; Health Protection Agency 2012).g Few data was found about gaseous emission exposure for workers. Cholinesterase activity is a measure of an occupational exposure of neighbors and workers exposed directly or indirectly to the different gaseous emissions and waste products of fertilizer plants. Significant differences were found in workers of a fertilizer plant but not for neighbors (Shad et al. 2009).h Gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms were founded to be higher for waste collection workers than for the control group in some studies but they were not in others (Swan et al. 2003; Porta et al. 2009). i Higher incidence of eyes, airways and skin symptoms were found for workers exposed to organic dust than for the control groups (Swan et al. 2003; Domingo and Nadal 2008; Porta et al. 2009; Persoons 2010).j Higher odour and VOC levels up to an area between 500-1200 m from the composting plant are demonstrated (lower areas for enclosed composting plants than for open plants), although health effects were not related (Domingo and Nadal 2008; Fischer et al. 2008).k In most cases, until distances above 600–800m from the plant the concentration of microorganisms did not reach the reference levels (Fischer et al. 2008). However, airway irritation problems were detected within the community residents up to 150–200 m from the bio-aerosol source (Porta et al. 2009).l The toxic hazard of a potential large release of liquid ammonia (i.e. from a storage tank), although with a low incidence, may be the most serious one for the local population (EFMA 2000).m The HIIK (2013) reported 8 ongoing conflicts in 2010-2012 between Israel and several other countries or organizations of intensity between 1-4. The whole country was considered because two regions were involved in the mineral fertilizer production (Haifa and Dead Sea). The same source reported 2 ongoing conflicts in 2010-2012 between Spain and other countries and one specific conflict in Catalonia. All of intensity level 1. Only Catalonia region was considered because the production took place only there.n UNDP (2011).o Only if during composting areas of anaerobic decomposition appear and, thus, lower temperatures are achieved, sanitation problems are likely to appear (Solans et al. 2008). Relevant ammonia emissions during applications but health effects are unlikely to be severe (Health Protection Agency 2012; Cocco et al. 1996).p Ammonia health effects are unlikely to be severe (Cocco et al. 1996; Health Protection Agency 2012).q Health and safety measures for product application are not directly available in the packaging of the product. They are described in the Catalan Technical Stadard for Gardening 05C.2006 and the related regulations RD 1468/19988 and UNE-CR 13456:2003.r Health and safety measures for product application are specified in the packaging of the product, as well as how to fine further information.s Stakeholder or subcategory proposed by the authors for the specific case study (see sections 2.4.1. and 2.4.2 of the paper).t Average prices for Catalonia (Spain) are used. Several sources.u ARC (2011).

SM3 – Aggregated inventory for background sector scale

Table SM-C shows the aggregation of Table 4 of the paper. The methodology applied is similar to the one explained in section 2.4.3 of the paper and in SM4, but using working time instead of energy mixes.

Table SM-C. Background sector scale ‒ Aggregated social risks and occupational accidents for the background processes.

Fertilizing alternative Compost HNO3 KNO3

Total working time background (s per ton of fertilized tomato) 12,582 1,384 1,549STAKEHOLDER > Subcategory (shaded) > Indicator (white)WORKERFreedom of association and collective bargaining      Potential of country not passing labor laws M L MPotential of country not adopting labor conventions M M MRisk of not having freedom of association rights H H HRisk of not having collective bargaining rights H H HRisk of not having the right to strike H VH VHChild laborRisk of child labor M M LNumber of children out of school M H LFair salaryPotential of minimum wages not being updated L L LWorking hoursRisk of population working > 48hours/week M L MForced laborRisk of forced labor H H HEqual opportunities/DiscriminationOverall fragility of gender equity VH VH VHHealth and safety (cases per h of work)Occurrence of occupational lethal accidents 1.6E-08 2.4E-08 2.4E-08Occurrence of occupational non-lethal accidents 2.7E-05 4.0E-05 4.1E-05Table caption: L Low M Medium H High VH Very highThe disaggregated data of Table SM-C per type of transportation, energy source and other inputs, in Israel and Spain is shown in the Table 4 of the paper. In section 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 the methodology for the several steps of aggregation behind this table are explained.

SM4 – Example of Life Cycle Attribute Assessment – Aggregation of social risks for natural gas importations of Spain

This section provides an example on how the data behind Table 4 in the paper (e.g. for natural gas importations) was aggregated, using working time (see section 2.4.3).

Table SM-D. Social risks for countries involved in natural gas importations to Spain according to data from SHDB (2011). The contribution to the Spanish total natural gas consumption is specified.

Country exporting to Spain Norway Algeria Qatar Egypt NigeriaTrinidad-Tobagob

Contribution total natural gas consumption (%)a 7.7 34.4 12.6 11.4 18.8 10.3STAKEHOLDER > Subcategory (shaded) > Social indicator (white)WORKERFreedom of association & collective bargainingPotential of country not passing labor laws low low high low low n.d.Potential of country not adopting labor conventions low medium medium medium medium n.d.Risk of not having freedom of association rights low high very high high high n.d.Risk of not having collective bargaining rights medium medium very high high high n.d.Risk of not having the right to strike medium high very high very high very high n.d.Child laborRisk of child labor n.e. medium medium medium very high n.d.Number of children out of school medium medium high medium very high n.d.Fair salaryPotential of minimum wages not being updated n.a. low n.a. n.a. medium n.d.Working hoursRisk of population working > 48hours/week low low medium low medium n.d.Forced laborRisk of forced labor high high high high high n.d.Equal opportunities/DiscriminationOverall fragility of gender equity medium very high very high very high very high n.d.Sector data; country data.n.a. not applicable, n.d. no data, n.e. no evidence.a Average importations for the period 2007–2009. Data from INE (2011).b Trinidad-Tobago is not included in the SHDB (2011). It is not taken into account in the aggregation.

Table SM-E. Social risks for countries involved in natural gas importations to Spain according to data from SHDB (2011). The contribution to the Spanish total natural gas consumption is specified.

Ranges of risk translated to scoresa Aggregated social risks

Country exporting to Spain Norway Algeria Qatar Egypt NigeriaTrinidad-Tobago Scoreb Risk

levelc

Contribution total natural gas consumption (%) 7.7 34.4 12.6 11.4 18.8 10.3STAKEHOLDER > Subcategory (shaded) > Social indicator (white)WORKERFreedom of association & collective bargainingPotential of country not passing labor laws 1 1 3 1 1 n.d. 1.30 lowPotential of country not adopting labor conventions 1 2 2 2 2 n.d. 1.91 mediumRisk of not having freedom of association rights 1 3 4 3 3 n.d. 2.97 highRisk of not having collective bargaining rights 2 2 4 3 3 n.d. 2.65 highRisk of not having the right to strike 2 3 4 4 4 n.d. 3.41 very highChild laborRisk of child labor 0 2 2 2 4 n.d. 2.26 mediumNumber of children out of school 2 2 3 2 4 n.d. 2.59 highFair salaryPotential of minimum wages not being updated n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. 2 n.d. n.a n.aWorking hoursRisk of population working > 48hours/week 1 1 2 1 2 n.d. 1.37 lowForced laborRisk of forced labor 3 3 3 3 3 n.d. 3.00 highEqual opportunities/DiscriminationOverall fragility of gender equity 2 4 4 4 4 n.d. 3.82 very highn.a. not applicable, n.d. no data.a The four ranges of risk or opportunity from SHDB are translated to numbers: low (1), medium (2), high (3) and very high (4), additionally no evidence (0)b The weighted average is calculated using the country mixes. The ranges of risk of each country are multiplied by the share of each country to the Spanish national mix and summed. A score between 1 and 4 is obtained.c Scores below 1.5 are labeled ‘low’, scores between 1.5 and 2.5 are ‘medium’, between 2.5 and 3.5 are ‘high’ and higher than 3.5 are ‘very high’. Moreover, when half or more of the countries had range 3, we rose the score of the average by one level if it was lower than ‘high’; similarly, when one third or more of the countries had range 4, we raised the score by one level.

SM5 – Details for the inventory data of foreground company scale

Table SM-F. Foreground company scale ‒ First indications about the social aspects (and potential social impacts) of individual companies. Information used for the assessment in Table 5 of the paper.Fertilizing alternatives Compost producera HNO3 producer KNO3 producerRegion (country) Barcelona (Spain) – More than one

plantTarragona (Spain) – More than one plant

Haifa (Israel) - More than one plant

STAKEHOLDER > Subcategories and social indicators (shaded)WORKERFreedom of association and collective bargainingb

It exists It exists It exists

Working conditions (includes Fair salary, Working hours, and Forced labor)

No data In 2009, due to economical reasons, a relevant amount of workers were fire permanently or temporarilyc

In 2011, a united struggle and a six months strike of workers asking for ‘contract labor’, better labor facilities conditions and decent wages are reportedd,e

Health and safety No data Higher incidence of related illnesses was proved for workers in one of the plants, which in the past released high amounts of mercury among other toxic substancesb,c.The incidence of occupational accidents in the company was more than 80% lower than national average for the sector (in 2010)f

The cancer rates among workers are very highg

LOCAL COMMUNITYAccess to material resources Measures for pollution prevention are

taken: Several devices to reduce and control the emissions from the organic matter decomposition are provided. The emissions are controlled and

Several toxic substances releases to a river and to the atmosphere are reported for the several plantsc,i

Unsufficient measures for pollution prevention are taken. Several court cases for dumping toxic sludge in a close Bay (90s-00s) and in 2011 the government voided the company’s

above the limitsi permitsg,j

Safe and healthy living conditions

A lot of complaints from neighborhood do to nuisances (as odor and noise) has recently caused the plant closurei

Higher incidence of related illnesses was not proved for local residentsb

The cancer rates among locals are higher than usual (mainly fisherman and diving commandos)g

Local employment Local employment is promoted in the consumption area

Local employment is promoted in the consumption area

Local employment is not promoted in the consumption area

SOCIETYPublic commitments to sustainability issues:

Quality, safety and environmental standardsf

ISO 9001 ISO 14001; ISO 9001; OHSAS 1800; Responsible Care; EMAS

ISO 14001; ISO 9001; TA LUFT 2002; OHSAS 1800

Global compact commitmentj,k

No Yes (since 2002) – Several related social responsibility programs

No

CONSUMERFeedback mechanism The producer is in the adjacency area

of the consumer (66 km)The producer is in the adjacency area of the consumer (3020 km)

The producer is not in the adjacency area of the consumer (152 km)

Transparencyf Hardly any information regarding social and environmental performance is available at company website

Plenty information regarding social and environmental performance is available at company

Some information for environmental issues; no information for social performance is available at company website

Product applicationl: Additional effort needed in

applicationh Extra working time needed: 457 s per ton of fertilized tomato

No extra time needed No extra time needed

Application information at the company websitef

No data for product application is available

No data for product application is available

Detailed data for product application is available

Table caption: Best option Intermediate option Worst optiona The OFMSW collectors involve more than one company. In Catalonia it is usual that each municipality contracts each own collecting waste company.b According to the several sources consulted; c www.elpais.com, d www.haaretz.com; e www.globes.co.il; f company websites; g Greenpeace (2002); h Martínez-Blanco et al. (2013); iwww.elperiodico.com; jMEP (2012); k GCC (2012).l Subcategory proposed by the authors for the specific case study (see sections 2.4.1. and 2.4.2 in the paper).

SM6 – Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard

SM6.1. Methodology: presentation of LCSA results

Interpreting the results from E-LCA, LCC and S-LCA in a combined fashion and presenting clear LCSA results to compare similar products to support decision-making processes is a key challenge (UNEP/SETAC 2011).

Few methodologies have been proposed for presenting LCSA results and even fewer have been applied to real case studies. Traverso (2012a) reported the Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD), a particular adaptation of the Dashboard of Sustainability to present product´s performance. Dashboard of Sustainability was developed by Joint Research Centre of Ispra (Italy) to assess sustainability performance of communities and is now scientifically supported by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD 2012). Other examples for a combined presentation of results from E-LCA, LCC and S-LCA are the Life Cycle Sustainability Triangle (Finkbeiner et al. 2010) and the adaptation of the Sustainability Index for LCSA by Vinyes et al. (2013).

Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD), which had already been applied for presenting LCSA results in a real case study (Traverso and Finkbeiner 2009; Traverso et al. 2012a; 2012b), was here selected for the sustainability assessment as well.

As explained in Traverso et al. (2012a) and Finkbeiner et al. (2010), the Dashboard ranks all values for each indicator and gives 1000 points to the product with the best result and 0 points to the product with the worst result. All other values of the same indicator are linearly interpolated. Although weighting factors to the indicators can be handled by the software, no weighting differences are considered in our results. The evaluation results for each topic are given by a weighted average of all included indicators values; the overall evaluation is the arithmetical average of the topic evaluations. As for the indicator values the resulting evaluations are obtained by scores (between 0 and 1000) and according colours, ranging from best option (green) to worst option (red).

SM6.2. Calculation of the social indicators used in the LCSD for the case study

Due to the amount of social indicators and the different geographical scales used for data collection in this S-LCA study, not all indicators assessed could be considered. For the time being, only the stakeholder group Worker and sector data were taken into account: the indicators for E-LCA and LCC were reflecting processes from all the chain whereas in our S-LCA this was true only for some indicators, all of them addressing the stakeholder group Worker. To reflect the whole life cycle (and thus be consistent with E-LCA and LCC) we gave priority to this stakeholder group and those indicators were chosen, that were common for background and foreground sector.

Based on the selected indicators for the stakeholder group Worker, an aggregated result, including the scores for foreground and background sectors according to the shares of working time, was calculated for the fertilizing alternatives and presented in the LCSD. Future assessments should include the whole life cycle along with all the stakeholders proposed in S-LCA Guidelines.

Although working time information was not fully provided for potassium nitrate, as working time for foreground sectors had not been found, we gave priority to the representation of the

three fertilizing alternatives in the LCSD. Full data was available for the E-LCA and LCC of the three fertilizing alternatives. Therefore, the next assumption was considered for the use of S-LCA results at the LCSA: the foreground working time stated for nitric acid was used also for potassium nitrate aggregation of its own social results.

Therefore, the seven social indicators describe social aspects related to the stakeholder group Worker. They are the aggregation of the results for foreground (Table 3 of the paper) and background sectors (Table SM-C) involved in fertilizers production according to the shares of working time (Table 1 of the paper). The aggregation, according to the scores and the working time shares, is presented in SM-G (data used) and SM-H (results).

Table SM-G. Social risk scale and translated scores for background and foreground processes of the three fertilizing alternatives.

Background processes (Table SM-C) Foreground processes (Table 3 of the paper)Scores level Risk levela Scores level Risk levela

Fertilizing alternativeCompos

t HNO3 KNO3 Compost HNO3 KNO3 Compost HNO3 KNO3 Compost HNO3 KNO3

Compost (s per ton of fertilized tomato) 12,582 0.0 0.0 12,582 0.0 0.0 28,716   28,716HNO3 (s per ton of fertilized tomato) 0.0 1,384 0.0 0.0 1,384 0.0   394   394KNO3 (s per ton of fertilized tomato) 0.0 0.0 1,549 0.0 0.0 1,549   394b 394b

SOCIAL INDICATORS

S01Potential of country/sector not passing labor laws 2.4 1.4 1.9 medium low medium 1.0 1.0 3.0 low low high

S02Potential of country/sector not adopting labor conventions 1.6 2.0 1.8 medium medium medium 1.0 1.0 1.0 low low low

S03 Risk of child labor 1.6 2.0 1.2 medium medium low 1.0 1.0 1.0 low low lowS04 Risk of forced labor 3.0 3.0 3.0 high high high 3.0 3.0 3.0 high high highS05 Overall fragility of gender equity 3.6 4.0 3.6 very high very high very high 3.0 2.0 1.0 high medium low

S06

Occurrence of occupational lethal accidents (cases per h of work)

1.6E-08 2.4E-08 2.4E-08 1.6E-08 2.4E-08 2.4E-08 6.6E-08 3.6E-08 3.6E-08 6.6E-08 3.6E-08 3.6E-08

S07Occurrence of occupational non-lethal accidents (cases per h of work) 2.7E-05 4.0E-05 4.1E-05 2.7E-05 4.0E-05 4.1E-05 5.8E-05 1.5E-05 1.5E-05 5.8E-05 1.5E-05 1.5E-05

a See section 2.4.3 of the paper for the conversion from score level to risk level.b The foreground working time stated for nitric acid – i.e. 394 s per ton of fertilized tomato – is used also for potassium nitrate aggregation of its own social results. Occurrence of occupational lethal and non-lethal accidents for nitric acid are also used for potassium nitrate.

Table SM-H. Aggregated social risk scale and translated scores for the three fertilizing alternatives.

Aggregated social risks for the whole life cycle (Table SM-I)Scores level1 Risk level2

Fertilizing alternative Compost HNO3 KNO3 Compost HNO3 KNO3

Compost (s per ton of fertilized tomato) 41,298 41,298HNO3 (s per ton of fertilized tomato) 1,778 1,778KNO3 (s per ton of fertilized tomato) 1,943 1,943SOCIAL INDICATORS

S01 Potential of country not passing labor laws 1.4 1.3 2.6 low low mediumS02 Potential of country not adopting labor conventions 1.2 1.8 2.1 low medium mediumS03 Risk of child labor 1.2 1.8 1.4 low medium lowS04 Risk of forced labor 3.0 3.0 3.7 high high highS05 Overall fragility of gender equity 3.2 3.5 3.9 high very high very high

S06Occurrence of occupational lethal accidents (cases per h of work) 5.1E-08 2.6E-08 2.6E-08 5.1E-08 2.7E-08 2.6E-08

S07Occurrence of occupational non-lethal accidents (cases per h of work) 4.8E-05 3.5E-05 3.5E-05 4.8E-05 3.5E-05 3.5E-05

1 The weighted average is calculated using the working time. The scores of upstream and mainstream columns are multiplied by their contribution to total working time and summed for each fertilizing alternative. A score between 1 and 4 is obtained.2 Scores below 1.5 are labeled ‘low’, scores between 1.5-2.5 are ‘medium’, between 2.5-3.5 are ‘high’ and higher than 3.5 are ‘very high’. Moreover, when half or more of the countries have range 3, we rise one level the score of the average if it is lower than ‘high’; while when one third or more of the countries have range 4, we rise one level the averaged score.

SM6.3. Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard – Results of the case study

The results of E-LCA, LCC and S-LCA (Table SM-I) were presented in the Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (Figure SM-A) – an adaptation of the Sustainability Dashboard (IISD 2012). For the application to LCSA simply the indicator sets used for E-LCA (11 indicators) and LCC (3 indicators) could be used and implemented. For S-LCA – due to the reduced amount of indicators and the different geographical scales during data collection – not all indicators assessed could be considered (see section SM6.2). According to the interpretation in section 3.2 of the paper, a brief summary of E-LCA and LCC results, as well as S-LCA results, are presented hereunder.

As stated by Martínez-Blanco et al. (2010; 2011a; 2011b; 2013), for the environmental dimension, compost was the worst option, regardless the impact category, whereas results for nitric acid and potassium nitrate were in the same order of magnitude. Nitric acid had lower impacts for most of the categories.

Regarding the LCC evaluation (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2013), even though the price of compost was lower than the price of nitric acid, the other two cost indicators, related with transportation and application, were higher for compost. Potassium nitrate had higher price than nitric acid for fertilizer price while transportation and application costs were nearly equal for both mineral alternatives.

Finally, higher variability among fertilizing alternatives and the assessed social indicators – i.e. those related with Worker stakeholder and assessed thorough the life cycle of their production –was detected for S-LCA. Compost had a better result for the indicators related with labor rights, whereas higher occupational accidents were located for compost than for the two mineral alternatives. Nitric acid seemed to be a worse alternative regarding potential of country not adopting labor conventions and risk of child labor and the best option for most of the other social indicators. Regarding the other mineral fertilizer, potassium nitrate was the worst alternative for four of the indicators assessed, mainly those related to worker rights.

Regarding the aggregation of the results in the LCSA representation (Figure SM-A), compost was truly the worst option for E-LCA and also for LCC, while it showed – together with nitric acid and under the assumptions made – the best performance for the social dimension. According to this evaluation, nitric acid could be considered as a better fertilizing alternative for the three dimensions.

We like to be emphasize, that these conclusions were drawn based only on the indicators assessed and the system boundaries defined in the study. As an example, only stakeholder group Worker was taken into account for the social dimension of this LCSA. Moreover LCSA presented only one method within sustainability assessment and did not intend to cover the whole complex topic of sustainability. From an overall sustainability perspective further aspects have to be considered as well, for example a potential reduced water consumption, when applying compost instead of mineral fertilizers, or nitrogen run-off related to fertilizer use and its effect on local water resources. Furthermore, as indicators results can be misused, a reflexive approach on the object under study is necessary for a complete interpretation (Paredeise 2012), especially with regard to decision support.

Table SM-I. Life Cycle Sustainability results for the LCSD for the three fertilizing alternatives (units per ton of fertilized tomato)Indicator Unit Compost Nitric acid Potassium nitrate

E-LCA ADP Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 3,13E+00 2,61E-01 3,08E-01AP Acidification kg SO2 eq 4,25E+00 6,63E-01 5,37E-01EP Eutrophication kg PO4

--- eq 3,20E+00 1,55E-01 1,75E-01GWP Global warming (GWP100) kg CO2 eq 6,72E+02 1,39E+02 9,17E+01OLDP Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq 7,02E-05 4,86E-06 5,04E-06HT Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 3,44E+02 2,78E+01 3,43E+01FWAE Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq 4,06E+03 6,31E+00 8,78E+00MAE Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1,46E+06 1,76E+04 2,11E+04TE Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 6,55E+00 3,48E-01 2,33E-01POP Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 1,22E+00 5,24E-03 5,86E-03CED Cumulative Energy Demand MJ eq 7,64E+03 5,74E+02 6,76E+02

LCC Fertilizer Fertilizer market price € 14,31 24,01 27,94Transportation Price of transportation € 1,95 0,1410 0,1354Application Extra application costs € 21,35 0,00 0,00

S-LCA S01 Potential of country not passing labor laws Score 1.40 1.28 2.62S02 Potential of country not adopting labor conventions Score 1.18 1.76 2.07S03 Risk of child labor Score 1.18 1.76 1.40S04 Risk of forced labor Score 3.00 3.00 3.75S05 Overall fragility of gender equity Score 3.18 3.54 3.89S06 Occurrence of occupational lethal accidents cases per h of work 5.10E-08 2.65E-08 3.28ES07 Occurrence of occupational non-lethal accidents cases per h of work 4.87E-05 3.48E-05 4.44E

S01 to S07 are the shorten name for the S-LCA indicators.

Figure SM-A. Presentation of the results for E-LCA, LCC and S-LCA and LCSA for fertilizing alternatives: compost, potassium nitrate (KNO3) and nitric acid (HNO3).

ADP, Abiotic depletion; AP, Acidification; EP, Eutrophication; GWP, Global warming; OLDP, Ozone layer depletion; HT, Human toxicity; FWAE, Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity; MAE, Marine aquatic ecotoxicity; TE, Terrestrial ecotoxicity; POP, Photochemical oxidation; CED, Cumulative Energy Demand;S01, Potential of country not passing labor laws; S02, Potential of country not adopting labor conventions; SO3, Risk of child labor; SO4, Risk of forced labor; SO5, Overall fragility of gender equity; SO6, Occurrence of occupational lethal accidents; SO7, Occurrence of occupational non-lethal accidents; Fertilizer, Fertilizer market price; Transportation, Transportation costs; Application, Application costs.

SM7 – References

ARC (2011) Catalan Office of Waste home page. Available at: http://www.arc-cat.net. Accessed December 2011

CBE (2013) Central Bureuau of Statistics Home page. Available at: http://www1.cbs.gov.il. Accessed June 2013

Cocco P, Ward MH, Buiatti E (1996) Occupational Risk Factors for Gastric Cancer an Overview. Epidemiol Rev 18(2):218–234

Colón J, Cadena E, Pognani M, Barrena R, Sánchez A, Font X, Artola A (2012) Determination of the energy and environmental burdens associated with the biological treatment of source-separated Municipal Solid Wastes. Energy Environ Sci 5:5731–5741

Domingo JL, Nadal M (2008) Domestic waste composting facilities: A review of human health risks. Environ Int 35:382–389

EFMA (2000) Best Available Techniques for Pollution Prevention and Control in the European Fertilizer Industry production of ammonia.

Eitzer BD (1995) Emissions of volatile organic chemicals from municipal solid waste composting facilities. Environ Sci Techno 29:896–902

European Council (2000) Commission Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work

Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322

Fischer G, Albrechtc A, Jäckel U, Kämpfer P (2008) Analysis of airborne microorganisms, MVOC and odour in the surrounding of composting facilities and implications for future investigations. Int J Hyg Environ Health 211:132–142

GCC (2012) Global Compact Commitment Home page. Available at: www.unglobalcompact.org. Accessed January 2012.

Greenpeace (2002) Corporate crimes: the need for an international instrument on corporate accountability and liability. Available at: www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/corporate-crimes-the-need-for. Accessed June 2013.

Health Protection Agency (2012) Compendium of Chemical Hazards for Ammonia. Available at: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/ChemicalsAndPoisons/CompendiumOfChemicalHazards/Ammonia. Accessed January 2012

HIIK (2013) Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research home page. Available at: http://hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/index.html. Accessed June 2013.

IISD (2012) Dashboard of Sustainability. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.iisd.org/cgsdi/dashboard.asp. Accessed February 2012

INE (2011) Spanish National Statistics Institute Home page. Available at: http://www.ine.es. Accessed December 2011

ILO (2011) LABORSTA Internet – ILO statistics. Available at: http://laborsta.ilo.org/data_topic_E.html. Accessed December 2011

Kiviranta K, Tuomainen A, Reiman M, Laitinen S, Nevalainen A, Liesivuori J (1999) Exposure to airborne microorganisms and volatile organic compounds in different types of waste handling. Ann Agric Environ Med 6:39–44

Lavoie J, Alie R (1997) Determining the characteristics to be considered from a worker health safety standpoint in household waste sorting and composting plants. Ann Agric Environ Med 4:123–128

Martínez-Blanco J, Anton A, Rieradevall J, Castellari M, Munoz P (2011a) Comparing nutritional value and yield as functional units in the environmental assessment of horticultural production with organic or mineral fertilization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:12–26

Martínez-Blanco J, Colón J, Gabarrell X, Font X, Sánchez A, Artola A, Rieradevall J (2010) The use of life cycle assessment for the comparison of biowaste composting at home and full scale. Waste Manage 20:983–994

Martínez-Blanco J, Muñoz P, Antón A, Rieradevall R (2011b) Assessment of tomato Mediterranean production in open-field and in standard multi-tunnel greenhouse with compost or mineral fertilizers from an agricultural and environmental standpoint. J Cleaner Prod 19:985–997

Martínez-Blanco J, Rieradevall R, Antón A, Muñoz P (2013) Multifunctionality-solving approaches of compost application in crop rotations. J Cleaner Prod 64, 384-395.

MEP (2012) Ministry of Environmental Protection of Israel Home page. Available at: sviva.gov.il. Accessed January 2012.

MTI (2013) Anuario de estadísticas del Ministerio de Trabajo e Immigración 2010. Available at: http://www.empleo.gob.es/es/estadisticas/contenidos/anuario.htm. Accessed June 2013.

Paredeise C (2012) Le sens de la mesure - La gestion par les indicateurs est-elle gage d'efficacité? Proceedings of 9ème conférence de l'AFD-EUDN, March 26th, Paris (France)

Persoons (2010) Critical working tasks and determinants of exposure to bioaerosols and MVOC at composting facilities. Int J Hyg Environ Health 213:338–347

Porta D, Milani S, Lazzarino AI, Perucci CA, Forastiere F (2009) Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects associated with management of solid waste. Environ Health 8:60

Poulsen OM, Breuma NO, Ebbehoj N, Hansen AM, Ivens UI, Lelieveld D, Malmros P, et al. (1995) Collection of domestic waste. Review of occupational health problems and their possible causes. Sci. Total Environ. 170:1–19

Shad MA, Aman U, Perveen R (2009) Estimation of serum cholinesterase activity occupationally exposed workers of a fertilizer plant. Sindh Univ. Res. Jour. (Sci. Ser.) 41(1):09–12

SHDB (2011) Social hotspots Database Home page. Available at: http://socialhotspot.org. Accessed December 2011

Smet E, Van Langenhove H, De Bo I (1999) The emission of volatile compounds during the aerobic and the combined anaerobic/aerobic composting of biowaste. Atmospheric Environ 33:1295–1303

Solans X, Gadea E, Mansilla A (2008) Prevention Technicques Notes NTP 805: Residuos sólidos urbanos: riesgos laborales en plantas de compostaje (I). Instituto Español de Salud e Higiene en el Trabajo

Staley BF, Xu F, Cowie SJ, Barlaz MA, Hater GR (2006) Release of Trace Organic Compounds during the Decomposition of Municipal Solid Waste Components. Environ Sci Technol 40:5984–5991

Swan JR, Kelsey A, Crook B (2003) Occupational and environmental exposure to bioaerosols from composts and potential health effects -A critical review of published data. Health and Safety Executive Research Report 130, ISBN 0717627071

Traverso M, Finkbeiner M (2009) Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard. In Proceedings of the 4thInternational Conference on Life Cycle Management, Cape Town, South Africa, 6–9 September 2009

Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012a). Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard. J Industrial Ecology 16:680–688.

Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012b) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1068–1079

Tsai CJ, Chen ML, Ye AD, Chou MS, Shen SH, Mao IF (2008) The relationship of odor concentration and the critical components emitted from food waste composting plants. Atmospheric Environment 42:8246–8251

UNDP (2010) Human Development Report 2010. The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. United Nations Development Programme, New York

UNEP/SETAC (2011) Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making informed choices on products. UNEP-SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative, Paris, France

Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J, Gasol CM (2013) Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):445–455