Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This study conducts a social-life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of the fertilizer industries (FI) in emerging economies, analyzing the social impacts on each stakeholder category. It further examines the potential shifts in these impacts under circular economy (CE) scenarios.</p> Methods <p>The study adopts a S-LCA framework inspired by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP/SETAC 2020) methodology for S-LCA. Social impacts were assessed using stakeholder impressions collected through a Likert scale approach rather than reference-based evaluations by analyzing four FI. Separate questionnaires were developed for each stakeholder group to capture perceptions across relevant social impact categories. The study compares social impact scores (SICs) between the business as usual (BaU) scenario and CE scenarios, supplemented by insights from interviews with industry professionals to explore anticipated changes under CE.</p> Results <p>In the BaU scenario, value chain actors receive the highest social impact score of (11.53), indicating strong performance in social impact categories, while the local community (− 0.0075) and consumer stakeholders’ group (2.41) show lower social well-being followed by workers (3.56 and society (5.90). Under the CE scenario, the study finds that workers (57.88) experience the most significant social improvement, whereas local communities (38.93) see the most minor benefit, followed by consumers (50.68), society (50.89), and value chain actors (52.36). The results provide quantitative change measures across specific social impact categories due to CE adoption, resulting in the highest potential increase of scores in the stakeholder’s category of workers (54.32%) followed by consumers (48.26), society (44.98), value chain actors (40.83), and community stakeholders (38.94), highlighting key improvements and trade-offs such as workers safety versus minimizing production cost and expanding production capacity negatively affect community stakeholders due to increase emission and resource depletion.</p> Conclusion <p>This research explains the social implications of adopting CE practices within FI. By quantifying stakeholder-specific impacts and societal trade-offs, the findings support policymakers and industry leaders in designing strategies to improve social well-being across diverse stakeholder groups within the sector. This work contributes to sustainability efforts by emphasizing the social benefits of CE in FI.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does circular economy curtail the social impacts of fertilizer industry—evidence and insights from emerging economies

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月25日

查看全文
  • Abhinav Katiyar,
  • Vidyadhar V. Gedam

摘要

Purpose

This study conducts a social-life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of the fertilizer industries (FI) in emerging economies, analyzing the social impacts on each stakeholder category. It further examines the potential shifts in these impacts under circular economy (CE) scenarios.

Methods

The study adopts a S-LCA framework inspired by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP/SETAC 2020) methodology for S-LCA. Social impacts were assessed using stakeholder impressions collected through a Likert scale approach rather than reference-based evaluations by analyzing four FI. Separate questionnaires were developed for each stakeholder group to capture perceptions across relevant social impact categories. The study compares social impact scores (SICs) between the business as usual (BaU) scenario and CE scenarios, supplemented by insights from interviews with industry professionals to explore anticipated changes under CE.

Results

In the BaU scenario, value chain actors receive the highest social impact score of (11.53), indicating strong performance in social impact categories, while the local community (− 0.0075) and consumer stakeholders’ group (2.41) show lower social well-being followed by workers (3.56 and society (5.90). Under the CE scenario, the study finds that workers (57.88) experience the most significant social improvement, whereas local communities (38.93) see the most minor benefit, followed by consumers (50.68), society (50.89), and value chain actors (52.36). The results provide quantitative change measures across specific social impact categories due to CE adoption, resulting in the highest potential increase of scores in the stakeholder’s category of workers (54.32%) followed by consumers (48.26), society (44.98), value chain actors (40.83), and community stakeholders (38.94), highlighting key improvements and trade-offs such as workers safety versus minimizing production cost and expanding production capacity negatively affect community stakeholders due to increase emission and resource depletion.

Conclusion

This research explains the social implications of adopting CE practices within FI. By quantifying stakeholder-specific impacts and societal trade-offs, the findings support policymakers and industry leaders in designing strategies to improve social well-being across diverse stakeholder groups within the sector. This work contributes to sustainability efforts by emphasizing the social benefits of CE in FI.

Graphical Abstract