Social organizational life cycle assessment of wire arc additive manufacturing: a case study of a Belgian company

Abstract Purpose Additive manufacturing (AM) is gaining attention in industry due to its benefits like the ability to fabricate complex geometries, reduced material wastage, minimal tooling, and shorter lead times. From a sustainability perspective, the environmental and economic dimensions of AM have been studied in the literature, but its social dimensions remain relatively unexplored. This study presents a social organizational life cycle assessment (SO-LCA) of a wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) technology-based company that offers production and fabrication services in Belgium. Method The scope of this investigation includes phases like production of primary material, i.e., steelmaking, production of feedstock wires from steel, WAAM production, and post-processing to fabricate/repair components. The relevant social indicators, social impact subcategories, and stakeholders are identified based on the S-LCA guidelines and methodological sheets provided by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC). The social inventory data are collected from interviews with top management, company reports, as well as national and international databases. Based on the data obtained, social indicators are evaluated using the reference scale method on a scale of 1–5 (with 1 = highly negative social impact and 5 = highly positive social impact). An aggregation model was also developed to average individual social indicator scores at both the stakeholder level and across the entire life cycle. Results Overall, a positive impact on the stakeholder groups such as workers, society, and suppliers while the impact on customers is neutral. However, a negative impact is seen on the stakeholder group local community due to unhealthy air quality caused by higher concentrations of fine dust (particulate matter 2.5) and nitrous oxide (NO x ) emissions, especially from the steel-making phase. Conclusions The issues of social concern are identified for each stakeholder and suggestions for improvement of their social performance are discussed. Limitations of the study include the sensitivity of results to geographical and legislative context, exclusion of mining activities in steel production, and lack of site-specific data for certain indicators. Hence, future research should focus on the integration of mining activities, obtaining more site-specific data, and studying the influence of different geographical and legislative contexts on the company’s social performance.