Uncovering the Hidden Costs: Monetizing Environmental and Social Impacts in Fiberboard Production

Sustainability assessments are vital during the research and development (R&D) of innovative and bio-based products to identify potential sustainability hotspots before industrialization, but the environmental, social and economic impact of a product can be hard to understand for nonexperts. Until now most of the focus has been on assessing and communicating environmental sustainability impacts such as global warming potential (GWP), whereas social and economic sustainability have been largely neglected. For a holistic and comprehensive sustainability assessment, it is necessary to also assess a products social and economic sustainability. For this reason, this study monetizes the environmental and social impacts of a fiberboard with biobased adhesive to create an integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). Monetizing the environmental and social impacts occurring in a cradle-to-gate system boundary of the fiberboard value chain can help in communicating the results to a broader audience. The products sustainability impacts are connected using the endpoint indicator “Damage to human health” and monetizing the environmental and social midpoint impacts associated with this indicator. The environmental impact of the fiberboard is calculated using EF 3.1 and the external costs are determined using the environmental prices defined by the European Commission. Environmental prices are also used for indicating the importance of the assessed impact categories. Social costs are context-dependent, making their measurement and assessment complex. The social impact will likely be monetized using methods such as the willingness to pay (WTP) for more sustainable products or estimated costs for social damage; the potential social risks are determined using the social hotspots database (SHDB) tool for social risk mapping.

The results are expected to show that the hotspots are associated with adhesive production, particularly with the conversion of fructose into hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and the use of polylysine during adhesive production as a substitute for the fossil-based urea formaldehyde. Initial calculations have shown that polylysine is responsible for up to 97% of the environmental impact. The weighting of impact categories using the environmental prices revealed that Global Warming Potential (GWP), Particulate Matter Formation (PM) and Land Use (LU) are responsible for the largest share of environmental impact. The highest midpoint social risks are associated with health and safety issues, in particular issues with toxic and hazardous substances.