Assessing the social risk of high-protein food alternatives using the social life cycle assessment

• Social risk varies with functional unit; similar for 1kg product, but differs with daily protein intake basis. • Based on daily recommended protein intake, fish products pose higher risks; plant-based items show lowest across all stakeholders. • The findings underscore the need to include social risks in food policies and consumer decision-making. The rapidly increasing global population presents important challenges in ensuring adequate and nutritious food, especially when accounting for the associated social and environmental impacts. This paper investigates the social risks associated with different protein sources, focusing on animal-based and plant-based options. Specifically, it assesses the risk of four main protein products in the Spanish market: meat, dairy, fish, and agricultural products. Social risks are evaluated using the Social Life Cycle Assessment methodology. In this study, social risks are assessed for four social stakeholder categories: workers, local community, value chain, and society using the Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment database. The functional unit is based on the daily recommended protein intake for human consuption, considering the protein content of each product, with products classified into four main categories: meat, dairy products, agricultural products (plant-based), and fish and other fishing products (seafoods). To make a final comparison the results were compared to the results of the social risks assessment of 1 kg of the same products. Based on daily requirements intake of functional unit, the highest social risks are observed in the workers and local community stakeholder category. For workers, the most significant risks are seen in fair salary, non-fatal accidents, and trade unionism indicators, with fishing and other fishing products having the highest impacts. For the local community, biomass consumption indicator has the highest risk, while fishing products show the highest risk among all protein sources. Using different functional units can significantly change the results. When assessing social risks based on 1 kg of protein product produced by the sector, all four protein groups exhibit similar social risk values. The lowest social risk is observed in meat production on society (21 %), fish and other fishing products on the value chain (21 %), and agricultural products on workers (21 %). In contrast, the highest social risk is associated with the manufacturing of dairy products, affecting the local community (29 %). However, when assessing social risks based on daily recommended protein intake, the risks vary significantly. The lowest risk is observed for agricultural products on workers (14 %), while the highest risk is associated with fish and other fishing products on society (42 %). The findings reveal that different functional units can significantly alter the interpretation of social risks, underscoring the need for careful consideration in comparative assessments. This study highlights the critical role of social risk assessments in supporting sustainable food systems and informing policy and consumer decisions beyond nutritional and environmental aspects.