000161060 001__ 161060
000161060 005__ 20251017144605.0
000161060 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1007/s10668-025-06317-x
000161060 0248_ $$2sideral$$a144308
000161060 037__ $$aART-2025-144308
000161060 041__ $$aeng
000161060 100__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-2629-9114$$aZarauz, Irene$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000161060 245__ $$aSocial life cycle assessment in the context of bioeconomy: a comparative study of fertilizer value chains
000161060 260__ $$c2025
000161060 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000161060 5203_ $$aBioeconomy as a model for sustainable development is gaining momentum; however, its environmental aspects are commonly weighted more heavily than its social ones. As a potentially more sustainable alternative, the bioeconomy is increasingly gaining prominence within evaluation models that adopt a life cycle approach, such as Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). In this sense, we present a comparative case study of bio-based and mineral fertilizers carried out in an agri-food region of Spain, where the bioeconomy is perceived as an opportunity. Nowadays, S-LCA is presented as a powerful tool to measure the social impacts throughout product life cycles; nevertheless, the most common tools in this area have several limitations at the data level, thus organization-specific data need to be collected to broaden results. In order to address these limitations, we employ a dual impact assessment methodology, combining a generic analysis with one of the most used databases (Social Hotspot Database -SHDB-) and with a specific analysis through an organizational approach developed from the UNEP Guidelines (2020), employing the Performance Reference Points method. Data were gathered through participant observation and direct collaboration with the organizations involved in the study. The results show that both methods can provide holistic information relevant for organizations’ decision making and confirm that biofertilizer is more socially sustainable when compared to conventional fertilizer, in addition the former boasts greater scope for social improvement. However, inadequate social performance in areas such as gender equality, quality employment, and customer complaints suggests that the biofertilizer is not fostering social sustainability. Finally, achieving social sustainability requires organizations to proactively address social dimensions in their practices.
000161060 536__ $$9info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/DGA/S33-20R
000161060 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby$$uhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
000161060 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000161060 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-3284-6065$$aSanz-Hernández, Alexia$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000161060 700__ $$aRivera-Lirio, Juana M.
000161060 7102_ $$14009$$2775$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Psicología y Sociología$$cÁrea Sociología
000161060 773__ $$g(2025), [29 pp.]$$tEnvironment, development and sustainability$$x1387-585X
000161060 8564_ $$s1554903$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/161060/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000161060 8564_ $$s1629265$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/161060/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000161060 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:161060$$particulos$$pdriver
000161060 951__ $$a2025-10-17-14:15:03
000161060 980__ $$aARTICLE