220425_Manuscript VF_GB

Préparée à MINES ParisTech
Sustainability Assessment of Electric Mobility Scenarios

with a Life Cycle Perspective
Analyse de durabilité de scénarios de mobilité électrique

avec une perspective de cycle de vie
Soutenue par Composition du jury :

Ghada BOUILLASS
Bernard, YANNOU Rapporteur
Le 13 décembre 2021 Prof, CentraleSupélec – Université Paris-Saclay
Marzia, TRAVERSO
Prof, INAB AACHEN University Rapporteure
Ecole doctorale n° 621 Matthias, FINKBEINER

ISMME (Ingénierie des Prof, Technical University of Berlin Examinateur
Systèmes, Matériaux, Alessandra, ZAMAGNI

DR, Ecoinnovazionne Examinatrice
Mécanique, Energétique)
Dominique, MILLET
Prof, Université de Toulon Examinateur/Président
Spécialité
Paula, PEREZ-LOPEZ
« Energétique et Procédés » Dr, MINES ParisTech Maître de thèse
Isabelle, BLANC
DR, MINES ParisTech Directrice de thèse
Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University
3
Remerciements
Remerciements
L’expérience de cette thèse est pour moi comparable à un long voyage en mer. D’abord, par toutes les
émotions traversées de peur et de colère comme un voilier aux jours de tempête, mais aussi par les émotions de
joie, de fierté et de soulagement graduels jusqu’à l’arrivée à destination. Au long de cette aventure, des
personnes formidables m’ont accompagné pour rendre ce projet le plus riche intellectuellement et le plus
agréable qu’il le puisse être personnellement et professionnellement. Ainsi, je ne saurais être comblée sans les
remerciements et la reconnaissance que je leur doive.
Je commence par exprimer la plus grande gratitude à mes encadrantes. Je remercie Prof. Isabelle
Blanc, ma directrice de thèse, qui a su apporter et transmettre tout son recul scientifique et son expertise de
chercheure et coach pour que cette thèse soit mon expérience la plus enrichissante et constructive. Je remercie
Dr. Paula Pérez-Lopez, mon maître de thèse, pour l’engagement et l’investissement qu’elle a porté durant ces
trois ans à ce projet. Merci à toutes les deux de m’avoir donné la place pour grandir autant que je le veuille.
J’adresse mes sincères remerciements aux membres du jury, rapporteurs et examinateurs. Merci pour
le temps consacré à l’examen de ce manuscrit de thèse et l’intérêt exprimé pour les travaux réalisés. J’ai été
honorée des retours constructifs et admirables des rapporteurs Prof. Bernard Yannou et Prof. Marzia
Traverso, mais aussi de la qualité scientifique de la discussion lors de la soutenance où Prof. Matthias
Finkbeiner, Dr. Alessandra Zamagni et Prof. Dominique Millet ont également pris part.
Je tiens aussi à remercier Laurent Gagnepain de l'ADEME qui a contribué à l'évaluation de
l’avancement de ces travaux de thèse durant les trois ans ainsi que toutes les personnes de l’ADEME, pour
leurs retours et échanges au cours de la thèse, Maxime Pasquier notamment. Je remercie également Philippe
Blanc pour l’intérêt continu qu’il a porté à ces travaux et le suivi par l’évaluation et la relecture des rapports
annuels et du manuscrit.
Le Centre O.I.E, où j’ai fait ma thèse, regroupe des merveilleuses personnes avec beaucoup de
bienveillance, d’humour, de conseil et de soutien, chacun m’ayant marqué de sa manière, je voudrais toutes les
remercier : Thierry, Lionel, Philippe, Isabelle, Paula, Yves-Marie, Sandra, Benoît G, Raphaël, Romain, Joris,
Benoît T, Fuqiang, Mélodie, Manel, Hadrien, Mélanie, Jérémie, Rodrigo, Sara, Xuamei, Alejandra, Mahefa.
Philippe et Lionel, merci pour votre écoute et les discussions en or qui ont accompagné nos cafés.
Philippe, merci pour les opportunités d'enseignement qui étaient toutes exceptionnelles ! Thierry, merci pour
ta bienveillance continue. Sandra, merci pour tout. Les meilleurs informaticiens Raphaël et Benoît G., merci
pour votre aide, vraiment beaucoup ! Manel, merci d’avoir pris soin de moi aux moments les plus faibles de la
rédaction. Mélanie, merci pour tes très bons conseils. Dr. Besseau, le grand frère de mon aventure, merci de
m’avoir accompagné lors de mes premiers pas (sur python) et aux moments les plus hauts et les plus bas,
littéralement, en montagne avec les plus belles vues de l’Esterel ou du Mercantour et en mer avec parfois des
poissons mordeurs. Benoît T., merci pour ton écoute continue, les balades au bord de mer et les mauvais
raccourcis de randos qui nous ont permis de passer de très bons moments. Je remercie aussi les futurs docteurs
Joris, Fuqiang et Jérémie pour tous les moments que nous avons partagé et la qualité des échanges que nous
avons eue.
4
Remerciements
Mes parents à qui je dédies cette thèse car elle n’aurait pu s’accomplir sans vous, votre confiance et
votre soutien inconditionnel et permanent. Merci pour tout, Je suis très fière de vous avoir près de moi. Un
grand merci à mes deux petits frères Marouane et Adam et toute ma famille qui m’ont sans cesse encouragé,
je vous aime beaucoup ! Merci Hélène pour votre énergie continue, pour les meilleurs smoothies que j'ai jamais
goûtés et pour les petites balades qui rafraîchissent les idées.
A tous mes chers ami-e-s, Najima, Audrey, Gaëtan, Sara, Afou, Scarlett, Anas, Hatim, Mehdi, un
grand merci. Enfin, cher Hamza, de très près, tu as vécu cette expérience de thèse avec moi. Et, jour après
jour, tu as connu les contraintes les plus simples et les plus ardues que j’avais à résoudre. Merci alors, pour
tous ces moments d’incertitudes où tu as su me donner la force, et pour ces moments de joie où tu étais parmi
les premiers à les célébrer avec moi. Au-delà du soutien moral, merci pour les relectures infinies que tu aies fait
jusqu’à connaître par cœur mon sujet de thèse (ou presque).
5
6
Résumé étendu Français

Le transport fut depuis jadis un pont entre les civilisations et leur développement. Il a été le rouage du
progrès industriel et le moteur du développement économique. La place du transport dans notre société
moderne continue à être primordiale pour assurer la mobilité géographique de la main d’œuvre et de la
marchandise. Devant des besoins croissants de mobilité et des villes de plus en plus urbanisées, les
systèmes de transport vont jusqu’à façonner les modes de vie des individus et les modes de production
et de consommation.
Le transport est devenu ainsi un pilier majeur pour le développement socio-économique. Cela se
manifeste notamment à travers la création d’emplois et le développement des infrastructures et routes.
En outre, le développement de nombreux autres secteurs repose sur sa capacité à acheminer les matières
premières et les produits finis. Or, le transport est aussi une source majeure d’impacts qui menacent
l'environnement et la société dans son ensemble. Les systèmes de transport actuels, ayant recours aux
ressources fossiles comme principale source d’énergie, ont conduit à l’accentuation des problèmes
environnementaux. Ceux-ci se traduisent par la détérioration de la qualité des écosystèmes, de la
biodiversité et de la qualité de l’air local, mais aussi par l’épuisement des ressources naturelles et le
changement climatique. Ce dernier nécessite aujourd’hui la mise en place d’un ensemble d’actions
d’atténuation et d’adaptation face à des scénarios climatiques prospectifs de plus en plus pessimistes.
Afin de relever ces défis, les acteurs de la société (industriels, publics, et ceux de la société civile) se
mobilisent vers une transition énergétique qui touche tous les secteurs, et celui du transport en
particulier. Une telle transition requiert, non seulement, de renoncer aux systèmes actuels de transport
basés sur les énergies fossiles, mais aussi de se tourner vers des modèles de mobilité plus durables. En
effet, afin d’assurer « la durabilité » des systèmes de transport, il est nécessaire de tenir compte des trois
dimensions inhérentes au développement durable en évaluant les impacts (positifs et négatifs)
environnementaux, sociaux et économiques. A cet égard, la mobilité électrique s’annonce comme une
solution technologique prometteuse qui pourrait relayer les technologies conventionnelles de transport
à plus ou moins grande échelle.
En effet, les véhicules électriques offrent la possibilité de réduire l’empreinte carbone du transport à
condition d’utiliser un mix électrique bas carbone. Cependant, la durabilité ne pouvant pas être réduite
à un seul indicateur environnemental, elle demeure méconnue et nécessite davantage d’être investiguée.
Une première question identifiée par ces travaux de recherche dans cette thèse est donc :
Dans quelle mesure la mobilité électrique peut-elle contribuer à des modèles de mobilité plus
durable tout en répondant aux besoins quotidiens des utilisateurs ?
7
Depuis quelques années, les ventes de véhicules électriques ont explosé au niveau du marché français.
Promues par le gouvernement, d’un côté, à travers des primes de conversion et de bonus écologiques,
et de l’autre avec la taxation du carburant. Ainsi les technologies électriques se sont de plus en plus
démocratisées. Ces actions favorisent un déploiement massif de ces alternatives focalisé principalement
sur un usage individuel du transport. Il est à noter que depuis l’avènement de l’ère pétrolière, le recours
aux voitures particulières s’est ancré dans les habitudes de déplacements en ville. Un lien direct s’est
ainsi créé entre la possession du véhicule et le sentiment d’autonomie et de liberté. En conséquence, le
transport individuel des personnes, ne cessant d’augmenter, constitue aujourd’hui 80% du nombre total
des kilomètres parcourus en 2020 en France, et est responsable de plus de 51% des émissions totales de
CO2 associées au transport1. En contraste, les transports collectifs sont de plus en plus délaissés et les
infrastructures, notamment ferroviaires, sont stagnantes voire décroissantes.
En France, la mutation vers la mobilité électrique est soutenue par un cadre réglementaire précis,
instauré dans l’objectif de réduire les émissions de Gaz à Effet de Serre (GES) et d’atteindre la neutralité
carbone en 20502. Depuis la loi de la transition énergétique, annoncée en 2014, la Stratégie Nationale
Bas Carbone (SNBC) a suivi en 2015, puis la « Loi Orientation de Mobilité » (LOM) en 20183. Ces
mesures réglementaires ont également été accompagnées par le développement de scénarios prospectifs.
Ils soulignent l’importance de considérer le report modal comme étant un des facteurs clés pour adopter
un modèle de mobilité plus durable. Les modes de déplacement de personnes se ramifient de plus en
plus entre des possibilités de covoiturage ou de partage d’usage. Ces solutions de mobilité partagée sont
davantage facilitées par la transition numérique en cours. Celles-ci passent par des plateformes
numériques pour proposer aux utilisateurs finaux une combinaison de différentes configurations de
mobilité (e.g., technologies et services) afin de répondre à leurs besoins et attentes individuels.
L’émergence de ces nouvelles formes de mobilité suit un rythme accéléré dépassant parfois nos
connaissances sur les impacts environnementaux, sociaux et économiques qui leurs sont associés. Ce
caractère, équivoque en termes de durabilité, que peuvent porter ces options innovantes du transport
pourrait ralentir voire bloquer leur développement.
1
CGDD. (2021). Chiffres clés du transport—Edition 2021 (p. 92). Commissariat Général au Développement
Durable, Ministère de la transition écologique.
2
MTES. (2020). La transition écologique et solidaire vers la neutralité carbone (p. 192). Ministère de la
Transition écologique et solidaire.
3
LOI n° 2019-1428 du 24 décembre 2019 d’orientation des mobilités (1), 2019-1428 (2019).
8
Il est à cet égard primordial d’éclairer les décisions publiques et privées afin de gérer au mieux cette
période de transition. Cela passe par l’évaluation des technologies de transport électriques et des services
de mobilité, ainsi que leurs synergies. Les différentes parties prenantes impliquées dans les schémas
décisionnels de la mobilité durable, ainsi que les liens entre elles, doivent être définis et examinés. Pour
ces raisons, des méthodes d'évaluation robustes sont nécessaires pour l’identification, la caractérisation
et l’analyse des impacts des systèmes de transport. Les méthodes d’Analyse de Cycle de Vie (ACV)
sont largement reconnues pour leur capacité à évaluer les impacts environnementaux potentiels des
produits et services tout au long du cycle de vie, i.e., allant de l’extraction de matières premières jusqu’à
la fin de vie. L’intérêt porté à ces méthodes et la nécessité d’évaluer les trois dimensions du
développement durable ont ainsi créé un terrain propice pour la naissance de l’Analyse de Durabilité de
Cycle de Vie (ADCV). Bien qu’elle soit à un stade précoce de développement méthodologique, l’ADCV
attire de plus en plus l’attention des industriels et autorités publiques, grâce à sa vision étendue sur les
trois dimensions de durabilité et sa perspective de cycle de vie.
L’ADCV repose sur trois approches : l’Analyse de Cycle de Vie environnementale (ACV), l’Analyse
Sociale de Cycle de Vie (ASCV) et l’Analyse de Coûts de Cycle de Vie (ACCV). Ces approches se sont
développées dans des contextes temporels différents et se caractérisent donc par des niveaux de maturité
différents. Ainsi, leur appréhension dans un cadre méthodologique global est freinée par un manque de
cohérence au niveau des approches d’évaluation. En effet, l’ACV environnementale a gagné beaucoup
en maturité et aujourd’hui s’appuie sur un cadre méthodologique normalisé par l’ISO 14040-44. En
revanche, un manque de consensus marque l’avancement méthodologique de l’ASCV qui aujourd’hui
doit relever plusieurs défis quant à son implémentation pour évaluer les impacts sociaux et socio-
économiques des produits et services. L’ACCV s’intéressant aux coûts des produits et systèmes, fait
appel à d’autres référentiels quant à sa conceptualisation dans un cadre méthodologique global pour
l’ADCV.
Les travaux de recherche de cette thèse portent l'ambition de développer un cadre méthodologique
cohérent et systémique pour l'évaluation de la durabilité reposant sur l’ADCV. De plus, ces travaux de
thèse explorent comment les résultats de l'ADCV peuvent soutenir et contribuer à la prise de décision
des acteurs publics et privés en intégrant les perceptions des utilisateurs. Ainsi, ces travaux de travaux
de thèse étudient comment aider les décideurs à mieux adapter leurs offres de mobilité aux besoins et
attentes des usagers lors du développement d'alternatives de mobilité durable. Pour atteindre cet objectif,
deux questions de recherche ont été posées :
9
Première question de recherche (QR1) :
Comment les impacts environnementaux, sociétaux et économiques peuvent-ils être intégrés dans un
cadre méthodologique global pour évaluer la durabilité dans une perspective de cycle de vie et en
particulier celle liée à la mobilité ?
Deuxième question de recherche (QR2) :
Comment les résultats des ADCV peuvent-ils soutenir le processus de prise de décision par les décideurs
dans le contexte de la mobilité électrique en tenant compte des perspectives des utilisateurs ?
Pour répondre à ces deux questions de recherche, la démarche de cette thèse consiste à proposer (1) des
lignes directrices pour mener une ADCV, compte-tenu des trois dimensions de la durabilité, et (2) un
cadre méthodologique complet pour évaluer des scénarios de mobilité électrique en incluant à la
fois les technologies et les services de transport. Afin d'apporter des connaissances pertinentes sur la
durabilité aux décideurs, l'analyse multicritère d’aide à la décision est introduite pour gérer les
compromis émergents des résultats de l’ADCV tout en tenant compte des perspectives des utilisateurs.
Cette proposition devrait faciliter la liaison entre les autorités publiques et les acteurs industriels qui
sont impliqués dans le processus de prise de décision en leur fournissant des informations scientifiques
sur les aspects de durabilité associés aux perspectives des utilisateurs. Ainsi la mobilité électrique est
évaluée à travers différents scénarios qui permettent de comparer les différentes alternatives de mobilité
y compris les modes de transport et les technologies existantes, électriques et thermiques. La première
question de recherche (QR1) vise à conceptualiser un cadre méthodologique pour l’ADCV en
intégrant les trois piliers de la durabilité. Pour atteindre cet objectif, plusieurs défis ont été identifiés.
L’appréhension des trois approches dans un cadre méthodologique structuré et cohérent a été peu
abordée car la plupart des publications tendent à se concentrer sur des cas d’études spécifiques sans pour
autant répondre aux problématiques méthodologiques. En réponse à cela, cette thèse constitue un soutien
majeur à la recherche dans ce domaine et fournit un aperçu des différentes voies à explorer pour
développer une méthodologie plus robuste. Des lignes directrices sont proposées en définissant les
éléments clés associés à chaque phase de l’ADCV, conformément aux normes ISO de l’ACV
environnementale.
Les principaux défis soulevés par la revue de littérature sont soumis à une réflexion afin d’identifier des
pistes d’amélioration. La première problématique mise en évidence consiste à assurer une
définition claire de l'objectif et du champ de l'étude (première phase de l’ADCV) afin d'atteindre la
cohérence entre les trois approches d’ACV environnementale, d’ASCV et d’ACCV. Cela comprend la
définition de l'unité fonctionnelle, des limites du système et des catégories d'impact à évaluer. Les
scénarios de mobilité évalués ont été définis selon quatre éléments, à savoir les technologies de transport,
10
les types de service de mobilité, les infrastructures de transport et l'énergie utilisée par le véhicule. Ainsi
trois scénarios ont été identifiés et analysés :
- Scénario 1 : mobilité personnelle qui repose sur l'utilisation individuelle de voitures

particulières comprenant cinq groupes motopropulseurs électriques et conventionnels
différents.
- Scénario 2 : transport partagé, consiste en un transport par autobus comprenant quatre groupes
motopropulseurs conventionnels et électriques.
- Scénario 3 : mobilité partagée, qui consiste en une utilisation de covoiturage comprenant cinq
groupes motopropulseurs électriques et conventionnels différents.
De plus, l'implication des parties prenantes est investiguée à travers une vision qui s’étend de
l’évaluation à la prise de décision. En effet, la revue de littérature a révélé une lacune importante dans
l'intégration des besoins et les attentes des usagers, ce qui s’avère essentiel pour assurer leur acceptation
des stratégies de mobilité actuelles et futures proposées par les décideurs. Ce besoin a également été
identifié dans la phase d'évaluation de l'impact, en particulier dans l’ASCV, où les sous-catégories
d'impact relatives aux utilisateurs ont été peu évaluées dans les travaux précédents. Ainsi, l'introduction
de la perception des usagers est une brique importante et nouvelle qu’ajoute la thèse à la définition des
objectifs et du champ de l’étude. Cette nouveauté consiste à identifier les acteurs qui sont concernés par
le schéma décisionnel de la mobilité : les principaux acteurs impliqués dans la prise de décision et
également ceux qui sont affectés par ces décisions. Ce raisonnement a permis d'identifier trois acteurs
clés qui sont directement impliqués dans une transition vers une mobilité plus durable :
- Les acteurs publics qui définissent les actions à mener pour répondre aux exigences de la loi
sur la transition énergétique dans le secteur des transports (par exemple, les autorités locales) et
qui guident les autorités locales dans la mise en œuvre des plans d'action et des réglementations
en matière de durabilité.
- Les acteurs privés qui mettent sur le marché les technologies nécessaires à la fourniture du
service de transport et qui développent l'infrastructure nécessaire (infrastructure, carburant et
distribution d'électricité).
- Les usagers qui choisissent parmi les technologies et les services de mobilité ceux qui
répondent à leurs besoins spécifiques de déplacement. Ils ne sont pas des décideurs mais sont
directement affectés par les schémas de décision en matière de mobilité.
Cette définition permet d’orienter le développement du cadre méthodologique de l’ADCV et son

application dans un but précis, à savoir – dans le cas présent– soutenir les décideurs publics et privés
vers une mobilité durable en intégrant la perception des usagers.
11
La deuxième problématique concerne la phase d'évaluation des impacts (troisième phase de

l’ADCV). Deux voies méthodologiques pour l'évaluation des impacts ont été identifiées et explorées.
La voie 1 vise à évaluer de manière combinée pour les trois dimensions de durabilité à travers la
définition des modèles de caractérisation spécifiques à chaque dimension. Bien qu’elle puisse être
favorable pour assurer la cohérence du cadre méthodologique de l’ADCV, cette voie pose des obstacles
majeurs en raison de la nécessité d’acquérir davantage de connaissances sur les dimensions sociales et
économiques. En effet, le stade de développement actuel de l’ASCV et l’ACCV ne permet pas de couvrir
un niveau de détail similaire à celui de l’ACV environnementale. Cette limitation est notamment liée à
la complexité de la modélisation par l’intermédiaire de flux quantitatifs les effets à long-terme des
changements sociaux et socio-économiques subis par les différentes parties prenantes affectées. En
outre, la pertinence de ces modèles quantitatifs est remise en question en raison des limitations qui
peuvent survenir pour traiter tous les impacts significatifs et toutes les catégories de parties prenantes.
À cet égard, une deuxième voie a été explorée et adoptée dans cette thèse pour concevoir le cadre
méthodologique de l’ADCV en faisant appel à une application individuelle des approches d'évaluation
d'impact. Cette voie permet de tenir compte de la nature hétérogène de chaque dimension de durabilité
en choisissant des approches d'évaluation compatibles entre les impacts environnementaux, sociaux et
économiques. Par ailleurs, la mise en œuvre séparée des approches d’évaluation – d’ACV
environnementale, d’ASCV et d’ACCV – a permis de répondre à certaines problématiques de manière
ciblée et ainsi de contribuer aux avancées méthodologiques pour chacune d’entre elles. Ainsi, les trois
scénarios retenus – mobilité personnelle, collective et partagée – sont évalués et comparés à l’échelle de
chaque dimension de durabilité.
Pour l’implémentation de ce nouveau cadre méthodologique, l'évaluation a été menée dans un contexte
français permettant ainsi de centrer la collecte des données sur le territoire national, y compris donc pour
le mix électrique, les infrastructures, les coûts d’achat de véhicules, etc. Ces données nationales ont été
complétées par une collecte de données plus ciblée sur le territoire de la Communauté d’Agglomération
de Sophia Antipolis (CASA), siège du terrain d’études sélectionné en vue de son potentiel à
expérimenter de nouvelles formes de mobilité durable et les problématiques de déplacement individuel
qu’il pose. En effet, l’évaluation des impacts sociaux et socio-économiques requiert l’utilisation de
données spécifiques aux politiques locales permettant ainsi d’obtenir des résultats plus représentatifs.
Cette approche est applicable aussi à l’évaluation des coûts économiques associés aux services de
mobilité dont le coût supporté par l’utilisateur dépend avant tout de la politique locale. Elle permet, par
exemple, de tenir compte des mesures mises en œuvre pour la promotion de modes de déplacement
alternatifs tels que la mobilité partagée ou de transport collectif.
12
La dimension environnementale : méthode d’évaluation par ACV paramétrée et résultats

d’application aux scénarios de mobilité
D’après la revue de littérature, les catégories d'impacts environnementaux, le plus souvent analysées
dans les études d’ACV, ont été identifiées, à savoir le changement climatique, la qualité de l’air,
l’épuisement des ressources. D’autres catégories d’impacts ont également été relevées comme
importantes, notamment les nuisances sonores malgré un manque de développement de modèles de
caractérisation permettant leur intégration systématique dans l’ACV. De plus, une analyse par étape de
cycle de vie des systèmes de transport (e.g., fabrication, usage et fin de vie) a permis de définir les
principaux flux et paramètres qui sont à investiguer. Cette revue de littérature a été complétée par une
analyse des inventaires de cycle de vie existants sur la base de données ecoinvent. Celle-ci a permis
d’identifier les paramètres clés pouvant exercer une influence directe sur les résultats de l’évaluation.
Ils ont été retenus pour la modélisation du cycle de vie des trois scénarios de mobilité. Ces paramètres
sont notamment la masse totale des véhicules, la masse de la batterie, le nombre de kilomètres parcourus,
les cycles de conduites, l’énergie consommée et le flux de carburant ou encore d’électricité utilisés pour
l’alimentation du véhicule, etc.
Une démarche méthodologique a donc été formalisée pour générer des modèles paramétrés
d’ACV. Elle a permis de réaliser l'évaluation environnementale des trois scénarios de mobilité en
menant une analyse systématique des impacts selon les paramètres influents identifiés. Cette approche
couvre les étapes nécessaires à l'intégration de modèles d’inventaires de cycle de vie paramétrés à
l’évaluation des impacts. La représentativité des données utilisées peut ainsi être améliorée en incluant
les multiples spécificités et avancées technologiques qui peuvent survenir au fil du temps. Ces modèles
paramétrés ont été utilisés en ajustant les valeurs de paramètres d'entrée clés identifiés spécifiques aux
scénarios de mobilité et au champ de l’étude définis dans cette thèse. L'interprétation des résultats pour
les catégories d'impacts environnementaux n'a pas permis de distinguer une technologie de véhicule
quant à la performance environnementale. En effet, les différentes motorisations ont démontré une
grande variabilité des résultats :
- Les véhicules 100% électriques ont présenté la plus faible contribution au changement
climatique en comparaison avec les véhicules électriques hybrides et les véhicules
conventionnels. Ceci s’explique principalement avec l’utilisation du mix électrique français bas-
carbone, dominé par l'utilisation de l’énergie nucléaire.
- En revanche, des impacts environnementaux plus élevés ont été enregistrés par les
véhicules 100% électriques par rapport à leurs homologues conventionnels pour l'épuisement
des ressources (e.g., l'utilisation des ressources en eau et en métaux) et la qualité des
écosystèmes (e.g., les rayonnements ionisants, l'écotoxicité en eau douce et l'eutrophisation
13
marine). Ces impacts dérivent en grande partie de la production des batteries électriques, qui
entraîne des incidences plus significatives dans le cas des véhicules 100% électriques que dans
celui des véhicules électriques hybrides rechargeables.
- Les transports publics ont montré une meilleure performance environnementale que la
mobilité personnelle et partagée ; notamment les technologies hybrides électriques qui peuvent
être un levier pour réduire l'empreinte environnementale des transports et améliorer la qualité
de l'air local dans les zones urbaines denses.
La dimension sociale : un nouveau cadre méthodologique d’analyse des impacts sociaux par
ASCV et les résultats de son application aux scénarios de mobilité
La présente thèse contribue aux avancées méthodologiques de l'ASCV en se concentrant sur

l'amélioration de chacune des phases de la méthode. À cette fin, une revue de littérature a permis
d’identifier les limites actuelles des études d’ASCV pour la mobilité et les principales contraintes
méthodologiques à résoudre. Celles-ci se manifestent notamment dans :
- La définition des sous-catégories d'impact à analyser dans les études d’ASCV, souvent floue,
et nécessitant indirectement à une étape de sélection. La plupart des études précédentes utilisent
la revue de littérature comme unique moyen pour effectuer cette sélection et manquent souvent
de transparence. En revanche, les approches participatives impliquant les différentes parties
prenantes ont rarement été introduites, malgré leur potentiel à légitimer un tel processus.
- L'évaluation des impacts sociaux et socio-économiques, rarement menée pour les parties
prenantes « utilisateurs ». Ceci s’explique d’un côté par le manque de données et de leur
accessibilité, et de l’autre par la complexité qui peut survenir lors de la modélisation des
systèmes évalués et la réalisation d'une analyse d'impact spécifique.
En réponse à ces deux difficultés, un cadre méthodologique spécifique à la conduite de l’Analyse de

Cycle de Vie Sociale (ASCV) est proposé dans cette thèse, en accord avec les normes ISO 14040. Ce
nouveau cadre méthodologique intègre deux nouvelles étapes visant à pallier les limites rencontrées
dans la sélection des sous-catégories d’impact et à contribuer aux avancées méthodologiques de
l’ASCV. Ainsi, des lignes directrices et recommandations sont proposées pour chacune des phases
itératives de l'ASCV tout en expliquant comment intégrer les deux nouvelles briques proposées -(1) une
approche participative pour l’identification et la priorisation des sous-catégories d’impacts et (2) une
analyse spécifique en tenant compte des impacts sur les usagers des systèmes de transport- et comment
les adapter à d'autres systèmes de produits et secteurs.
14
(1) Une approche participative pour la sélection des sous-catégories d'impact pertinentes au sein de
S-LCA (Bouillass et al. 2021)4.
L'approche participative proposée comporte deux étapes : (1) l'étape d'identification, permettant de
définir des sous-catégories d'impacts en analysant les risques sociaux sur le secteur investigué et pour
chaque groupe de parties prenantes tout au long du cycle de vie du produit, et (2) un processus de
consultation multi-acteur conçu pour permettre de hiérarchiser les sous-catégories d'impact identifiées
et de sélectionner ainsi les plus pertinentes du point de vue de toutes les parties prenantes concernées.
Les sous-catégories d'impact social sélectionnées sont ensuite évaluées lors de la phase III d’évaluation
d’impacts sociaux permettant ainsi, de contribuer à une analyse complète dans la phase d'interprétation.
Ce travail est publié dans un revue scientifique internationale « International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment ».
L’étape 1 de l’approche participative a permis de définir cinq nouvelles sous-catégories d’impacts qui
ne sont pas incluses dans les lignes directrices de l’ASCV5. Celles-ci décrivent pour les usagers des
systèmes de transport quels seraient les impacts sociaux et socio-économiques potentiels associés à la
sécurité (accidentalité routière et agressions), la performance du système de communication (qualité
des systèmes d’information des usagers, la transparence sur la performance environnementale et sociale,
la protection des données personnelles), la disponibilité et interopérabilité des infrastructures, la
santé et le confort, l’accessibilité économique. Ces sous-catégories d’impacts ont donc été ajoutées à
la liste proposée par les lignes directrices de l’ASCV et soumises à l’étape 2 afin de les hiérarchiser.
Une enquête a été menée auprès de différents acteurs de la société (acteurs publics, académiques,
industriels, syndicats de travailleurs, usagers de transport) en accord avec le processus de consultation
qui a été conçu. Ce dernier a permis ainsi d’interroger ces acteurs identifiés de leur perception vis-à-vis
de l’importance de considérer certaines sous-catégories d’impacts pouvant affecter cinq grandes parties
prenantes (les travailleurs, les utilisateurs, les acteurs de la chaîne de valeur, la société et les
communautés locales). Un échantillon de 67 acteurs a été constitué des différentes catégories d’acteurs.
Ces derniers étaient consultés à travers trois questionnaires en ligne différents, adaptés en fonction du
type d’acteur consulté, et complétés par des entretiens individuels permettant de comprendre la réflexion
et les motivations derrières leurs choix. Les résultats de cette enquête ont alimenté une analyse
comparant l’importance perçue pour les catégories d’impacts en termes des : (i) différences entre le
4
Bouillass, G., Blanc, I. & Perez-Lopez, P. Step-by-step social life cycle assessment framework: a participatory
approach for the identification and prioritization of impact subcategories applied to mobility scenarios. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 26, 2408–2435 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01988-w
5
UNEP (2020), Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations (C. Benoît Norris, M.
Traverso, S. Neugebauer, E. Ekener, T. Schaubroeck, S. Russo Garrido, M. Berger, S. Valdivia, A.
Lehmann, M. Finkbeiner, & G. Arcesse, Eds.). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
15
point de vue des acteurs, (ii) types de technologies ; électriques ou conventionnelles, (iii) types de
services de mobilité ; partagée, collective et personnelle, et (iv) de la localisation géographique (hors
Europe et en France).
Malgré la convergence des perceptions des acteurs sur l’importance de certaines sous-catégories
d’impacts (e.g., travail d’enfants pour les travailleurs hors Europe), les résultats démontrent une grande
variabilité de perception des acteurs consultés sur d’autres sous-catégories d’impacts. Par exemple,
l’importance des sous-catégories d’impacts associées aux utilisateurs diffère en fonction de l’acteur
consulté (e.g., industriels vs publics vs usagers), des types de mobilité et de technologies considérées.
Les usagers de transport attribuent un niveau d’importance plus élevé à la sécurité, la santé et la
transparence dans le cas de la mobilité personnelle, tandis que la sécurité, la disponibilité et
l’interopérabilité des infrastructures et leur accessibilité économique sont perçues comme plus
importantes dans le cas du transport public. Ceci peut s’expliquer par les intérêts divergents de chacun
des acteurs consultés et l’influence du contexte socio-culturel et politique dans la détermination de cette
perception. Cette divergence démontre la nature subjective que peuvent porter certaines études se
limitant sur l’introduction d’une seule perspective, notamment celles des acteurs privés et industriels. Il
est à cet égard nécessaire de justifier dans les études d’ASCV le choix des sous-catégories d’impacts
qui sont retenues à l’évaluation. L’utilisation d’une approche participative proposée dans cette thèse
peut démocratiser ce processus en impliquant les différents acteurs de la société mais également
améliorer la représentativité des résultats obtenus. En revanche, l’application de cette approche peut être
complexe en raison de la durée de l’étude, de la taille de l’échantillon nécessaire pour s’assurer de sa
représentativité et de la complexité de mener à bien cette consultation auprès de certains acteurs. Il est
donc recommandé aux études futures d’explorer davantage ces aspects.
(2) Une analyse spécifique des sous-catégories d'impact liées à l'utilisateur.
La deuxième brique introduite au cadre méthodologique de l’ASCV proposé vise à approfondir la phase
d'évaluation. Celle-ci étant habituellement menée par le biais d'une évaluation générique, s’avère être
limitée pour analyser tous les impacts sociaux et socio-économiques de manière systématique. A cela
s’ajoute le manque de couverture de certaines catégories de parties prenantes notamment les utilisateurs
dont la modélisation des systèmes peut être complexe. A cet effet, une analyse spécifique est proposée
en complément à l’évaluation des impacts réalisée à travers la base de données pour l’ASCV
« PSILCA » 6.
6
Maister, K., Di Noi, C., Ciroth, A., & Srocka, M. (2020). Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment
(PSILCA) Database v.3 Documentation (Databse Documentation version 1.0; Numéro version 1.0, p.
124).
16
L’analyse spécifique introduite dans cette thèse repose sur une approche d’évaluation centrée sur les
usagers des services de mobilité. Les nouvelles sous-catégories d’impacts sociales définies les usagers
sont ainsi évaluées afin de comparer les trois services de mobilité. Pour ce faire, un système d’évaluation
est établi couvrant les indicateurs de performance pour chaque sous-catégorie d’impacts, les niveaux de
performance et les points de référence de performance nécessaires à l’évaluation. Les données collectées
pour la communauté d’agglomération de Sophia Antipolis (CASA) sont utilisées lors de cette étape. Le
scénario du transport public a pu démontrer la meilleure performance sociale comparée à la mobilité
personnelle notamment sur les aspects liés à l’accidentalité routière, l’accessibilité économique et la
transparence environnementale et sociale tandis que pour la mobilité personnelle, le taux élevé des
accidents routières dans la région comparé à l’échelle nationale ou le manque d’accessibilité
économique des véhicules particuliers sont les principaux facteurs derrières cette performance. Sur le
plan technologique, d’après l’évaluation réalisée à travers PSILCA, aucune distinction claire n’a été
possible entre la performance sociale des technologies conventionnelles et électriques. A cet égard, pour
chacune des sous-catégories d’impacts analysées, une analyse de contribution a été réalisée afin
d’identifier les flux des activités responsables des impacts associés à la production des véhicules et le
mix énergétique utilisé à l’alimentation du véhicule. Celle-ci a pu montrer que pour les véhicules
électriques, la production de la batterie au Japon et l’extraction de matières premières localisée
principalement en Chine sont les principales sources d’impacts sociaux. Cela est le cas pour les
indicateurs tels que le travail d’enfants ou le travail forcé où les véhicules électriques peuvent présenter
un risque social plus important que leurs homologues conventionnels. En revanche, d’autres indicateurs
analysés pour la santé et sécurité des travailleurs ont présenté un risque social plus important pour les
technologies conventionnelles. Cette observation suit la tendance hausse des indicateurs d’accidents de
travail dans le secteur automobile à l’échelle de l’Europe. De manière générale, les résultats de
l’évaluation relèvent – comme pour le cas de l’évaluation environnementale – de compromis quant à
l’analyse des différents indicateurs sociaux et socio-économiques.
Outre ces deux ajouts méthodologiques, différentes boîtes à outils sont proposées pour aider les
praticiens de l'ASCV à généraliser le cadre méthodologique proposé à d'autres filières. Celles-ci
permettent de formaliser certaines exigences clés pour la conception du processus de consultation multi-
acteur et la réalisation de l'analyse spécifique. Il est cependant important de souligner la difficulté de
couvrir la phase d'évaluation de S-LCA avec un niveau de détail similaire à celui de la dimension
environnementale, en raison de données manquantes et de la complexité de la modélisation des
différents groupes de motorisations. Les recherches futures devraient se focaliser davantage sur le
développement des modèles de caractérisation mais aussi des variables activités permettant de modéliser
le cycle de vie des systèmes de produit en tenant compte différents groupes de parties. Les impacts
sociaux associés aux utilisateurs devraient être davantage couverts par les études d’ASCV en se
17
concentrant sur de nouvelles approches de modélisation d’impacts. Le cadre méthodologique proposé

peut être utilisé, adapté et/ou ajusté pour analyser d'autres produits et secteurs en ajoutant de nouvelles
sous-catégories d'impacts et de nouveaux groupes de parties prenantes, notamment ceux proposés dans
la version la plus récente des lignes directrices l’ASCV (2020).
La dimension économique, une évaluation des coûts des scénarios de mobilité par ACCV
Dans le cadre de l'évaluation économique des scénarios de mobilité électrique, une revue de littérature
a été menée afin d’identifier et d’analyser les études d’ACCV appliquées à la mobilité. Cette revue de
littérature a pu souligner le large éventail d’études qui ont ciblé l’analyse des coûts de transports, y
compris les technologies et les infrastructures, etc. Différentes catégories de coûts ont été distinguées.
D’abord, les coûts internes ou directs qui sont supportés par l’organisation pour la production de
technologies et la construction des infrastructures (e.g., routes, réseau de transports, etc.), ou des coûts
supportés par les utilisateurs tout au long de l’opération du véhicule (e.g., acquisition, alimentation du
véhicule par l’électricité ou le carburant, la taxation, les assurances, etc.). Une deuxième catégorie de
coûts, dite des coûts externes, représente des coûts supportés par la société dans son ensemble suite aux
dommages résultants des systèmes de transport (i.e., coûts associés à la santé publique à cause de la
dégradation de la qualité de l’air). Les études ayant été analysées, ont utilisé différentes techniques pour
l’analyse des coûts (e.g., analyse des coûts-bénéfices, coût total de possession, etc.). Celles-ci, en
fonction de l’objectif de l’étude, adressent certaines phases de cycle de vie, des catégories de coûts
particulières et reflètent une perspective d’acteur (organisation, société et usagers). Malgré la richesse
des approches dont se confère l’ACCV, plusieurs limitations ont été relevées :
- Bien que l’ACCV ait été standardisée pour un domaine spécifique dans le secteur
tertiaire (évaluation des coûts associés au bâtiment), il n’existe pas encore un cadre
méthodologique normalisé pour l’ACCV qui serait générique à tout système de produit et
secteurs d’activités. Ainsi, les études existantes ne se superposent pas systématiquement aux
normes ISO, sauf si elles sont menées simultanément à une ACV environnementale.
- L’évaluation d’impact économique échappe à la majorité des études se concentrant
souvent sur le calcul des coûts associés aux systèmes évalués. En effet, un impact économique
– comme pour l’impact environnemental ou social – nécessite une modélisation sur une chaîne
causale qui permet d’analyser les effets à long terme des changements économiques générés par
le système analysé. Cela est d’autant plus critique lorsqu’il s’agit d’une évaluation combinée
des impacts environnementaux, sociaux et économiques dans l’ADCV (voie 1), car elle fait
appel à des modèles de caractérisation sur les trois dimensions de la durabilité.
- L'application de l’ACCV aux scénarios de mobilité : la plupart des études dans la
littérature ont ciblé un niveau technologique, mais aucune étude antérieure n'a utilisé l’ACCV
18
pour l'analyse des services de mobilité. En outre, la perspective du cycle de vie n'est pas
entièrement couverte, la plupart des études ne prenant pas en compte les étapes de fabrication
et de fin de vie.
Compte tenu des défis identifiés, les travaux menés dans la thèse fournissent deux résultats principaux :
➔ Proposition des phases d’une étude d’ACCV, en accordance avec les normes ISO, en
couvrant les éléments clés à définir dans chaque phase. Ces directives proposées aideraient les
praticiens d’ACCV à mieux caractériser leurs besoins spécifiques selon l’objectif de leurs
études pour permettre ainsi, la sélection de l'approche ACCV appropriée.
➔ Introduction d'une approche centrée sur l'utilisateur pour permettre l'évaluation des
coûts des trois scénarios de mobilité définis. Cette approche implique l'évaluation des
technologies de transport par le biais d'un modèle de coût total de possession (TCO), et des
services de mobilité en calculant le rapport coût-efficacité des trois scénarios considérés.
Le TCO a été utilisé dans l’objectif de calculer les coûts supportés directement par les usagers. Cela
vient en accord avec l’objectif de cette thèse d’adopter des approches centrées sur les usagers. Les coûts
externes sont exclus de l’évaluation afin d’éviter un double comptage des impacts environnementaux et
sociaux qui sont déjà évalués dans le cadre de l’ADCV. Les impacts économiques ne sont pas évalués
car la présente étude se focalise sur un calcul direct des coûts, aux vues du manque de modèle de
caractérisation des impacts économiques et leur complexité.
Le TCO est calculé – comme dans les études précédentes - pour les technologies de véhicules. Dans la
présente thèse, cinq technologies de véhicules électriques, hybrides et conventionnelles sont analysées.
L’ensemble des étapes de cycle de vie depuis l’acquisition du véhicule jusqu’à sa fin de vie sont prises
en compte en couvrant trois grandes catégories de coûts : les coûts d’acquisition (achat et système
d’acquisition de la batterie pour les véhicules électriques), les coûts d’opération énergétiques (carburant
et/ou électricité) et d’autres coûts d’opération (maintenance, assurance, taxation, etc.).
Le TCO le plus élevé est obtenu pour l'utilisation des véhicules hybrides rechargeables, principalement
en raison du coût d'acquisition élevé et des subventions de plus en plus réduites par rapport à celles des
technologies 100% électriques à batterie. Les technologies 100% électriques thermiques à moteur diesel
présentent le TCO le plus bas parmi les différentes motorisations évaluées. En fait, pour les véhicules
100% électriques, bien que le retour sur investissement soit généralement attendu après 12 ans, les
résultats démontrent que dans les 5 ans de possession, le coût est égal à celui de l'utilisation des véhicules
thermiques à moteur diesel. Pour les véhicules 100% électriques, le nombre de subventions attribuées
en cas d'acquisition ou de conversion est un facteur déterminant et explique les tendances actuelles
d’adoption de son adoption. Enfin, et compte tenu des évolutions attendues dans la mobilité urbaine,
19
notamment en ce qui concerne, d'une part, les péages ou la taxation des pénalités sur les véhicules
polluants et, d'autre part, les facilités de stationnement et autres mesures de promotion des véhicules
électriques, il semble que l'avenir des véhicules compacts soit prometteur pour développer davantage la
mobilité électrique. Néanmoins, au vu de la tendance actuelle à augmenter la taille de la batterie pour
étendre l'autonomie, les véhicules 100% électriques pourraient être fortement concurrencés par les autres
véhicules hybrides. Cela est notamment le cas des hybrides rechargeables, qui peuvent être bien plus
intéressantes à la fois pour répondre aux besoins des utilisateurs en termes d’autonomie mais aussi sur
le plan environnemental, comme démontré dans le cadre des travaux de cette thèse.
Afin d’analyser les services de mobilité, des méthodes de calcul ont été définies permettant ainsi de
déterminer le coût par km associé à un service donné pour une durée définie. Ces méthodes de calcul
tiennent compte du coût direct associé à un service par un utilisateur sur un an divisé par le kilométrage
annuel parcourus sur un trajet spécifique. Pour calculer ces coûts, des données ont été collectées pour la
communauté d’agglomération de Sophia Antipolis qui est choisie comme le terrain de l’application. Le
scénario de mobilité collective a démontré la meilleure performance économique du point de vue
utilisateur, tandis que la mobilité personnelle présente les coûts les plus élevés pour les utilisateurs,
suivie de près par la mobilité partagée. Cela peut s’expliquer dans le terrain d’études choisi par les
politiques locales adoptées visant à promouvoir l’usage de transport public et cela notamment en rendant
plus abordable leur accessibilité. Il est cependant important de signaler que le coût supporté par les
utilisateurs reflète une perspective d’un acteur parmi d’autres. Par conséquent, adopter une perspective
d’autorités publiques ou encore d’acteurs privés pourrait orienter les méthodes de calcul définies et donc
conduire à des résultats différents. Par exemple, si l'on considère le point de vue des autorités publiques,
l’ACCV peut être très utile pour soutenir les décisions d'investissement et la définition des stratégies de
mobilité. Cela peut donc contribuer à mieux informer les décideurs sur les coûts potentiels d'un
développement massif de la mobilité électrique et à analyser la projection des coûts du marché
automobile pour prévoir les futurs coûts directs et indirects pour la société. Il est important de définir la
perspective adoptée dans l’analyse dès la première phase de l’étude d’ACCV afin de s’assurer de la
cohérence des méthodes utilisées et les résultats obtenus avec l’objectif initial.
L’interprétation des résultats issus de l’évaluation de durabilité de cycle de vie
Les résultats issus des trois approches d’évaluation d’ACV environnementale, ASCV et ACCV des
scénarios de mobilité alimentent la phase d'interprétation d’ADCV. Cependant, une interprétation
directe des résultats s'avère être insuffisante pour aider les décideurs dans le cadre du développement
des alternatives de mobilité durable. Cela est dû à la nature multidimensionnelle de la durabilité couvrant
les impacts environnementaux de l'ACV, les impacts sociaux et socio-économiques de l'ASCV et les
indicateurs de coûts du l’ACCV. Cette nature hétérogène des indicateurs induit un problème multicritère
20
dans lequel les scénarios de mobilité analysés présentent des performances variables et parfois
contradictoires entre les dimensions de la durabilité, mais aussi au sein de chaque dimension. Ces
questions ont été abordées dans cette thèse de doctorat à travers l’introduction et l’exploration des
approches d’analyse multicritère. Ces méthodes sont reconnues pour leur capacité à gérer les compromis
émergeant des processus de prise de décision, dans le cas échéant, les résultats de l’analyse de durabilité
par l’ADCV, dans le cas échéant. Cette contribution méthodologique est directement liée à la deuxième
question de recherche (RQ2) :
Comment les résultats des ADCV peuvent-ils soutenir le processus de prise de décision dans le
contexte de la mobilité électrique en tenant compte des perspectives des acteurs, y compris des
utilisateurs ?
Ce travail de thèse cherche, à travers cette deuxième question, à soutenir les acteurs privés et publics
de la mobilité dans le choix d’alternatives de mobilité les plus durables tout en intégrant les besoins
et les attentes des usagers. A cette fin, un nouveau cadre méthodologique est proposé couvrant
quatre étapes à mener pour intégrer les approches MCDA à la phase d’interprétation de l’ADCV:
1) Définition du « scénario de décision » : alternatives à comparer, acteurs, caractéristiques

géographiques de la zone d’étude
2) Définition des critères de prise de décision. Ces derniers représentent dans cette thèse des
critères de durabilité qui sont liés à ceux analysés par l’ADCV. La perception des usagers de
transport est introduite dans cette étape afin de permettre leur implication directe dans le cadre
méthodologique défini.
3) Application de l’approche MCDA sélectionnée pour le cas d’études,
4) Détermination des facteurs de pondération aux résultats de l’ADCV et interprétation des
résultats quant à une prise de décision relative à l’alternative étudiée.
Ce cadre proposé peut être adapté et modelé en fonction du système analysé et des objectifs à atteindre.
Afin de sélectionner l’approche MCDA adéquate, trois grands groupes d’approches de MCDA ont été
identifiées : (i) les méthodes dites « approches basées sur les utilités » ou les approches faisant appel à
une comparaison par paires des critères de décision, (ii) les méthodes dites basées sur le classement
faisant appel à la hiérarchisation de préférences en passant par les valeurs des attributs plutôt que les
attributs eux-mêmes, et (iii) les méthodes d’utilité décisionnelle qui sont orientées vers des approches
statistiques d’exploitation de données en modélisant tous les scénarios et les possibilités de performance
associées aux attributs aidant ainsi à sélectionner ceux qui répondent à un maximum de critères.
L’analyse conjointe a été sélectionnée parmi les différentes techniques MCDA identifiées pour son
aptitude à intégrer les préférences des utilisateurs. Ce modèle de préférences permet aux acteurs publics
21
et privés de mieux adapter leurs offres de mobilité aux besoins et attentes des usagers de transport lors
du développement d'alternatives de mobilité durable. L’utilisation de l’analyse conjointe permet d'éviter
le recours à une comparaison par paires qui nécessite généralement une connaissance élevée de la part
des acteurs impliqués. Cela peut être très complexe notamment quand il s’agit de manipuler ou
d’exploiter des résultats de durabilité. En effet, l'analyse des préférences se concentre sur la performance
relative des différents attributs sélectionnés plutôt que leur hiérarchisation directe. Le recours à ces
échelles de performance est important car les usagers peuvent être incapables de comprendre des valeurs
brutes des résultats obtenus lors de l’évaluation. Ainsi, une échelle de référence qualitative peut faciliter
l’application de l’analyse conjointe. Ceci permet de définir un ensemble de profils d'alternatives plus
représentatifs des scénarios décisionnels réels. Cette technique peut ainsi améliorer la fiabilité des
scénarios de décision étudiés.
Cependant, pour permettre l'application effective de l’analyse conjointe, seul un nombre limité de
critères de décision peut être retenu afin de réduire le nombre de combinaisons possibles. Cela peut
soulever des questions, notamment dans le cadre de l'analyse de durabilité, qui nécessite l'analyse d'un
nombre important de catégories d'impacts. Pour explorer ces questions, une étude de cas a été menée
dans laquelle l’analyse conjointe a été implémentée. L'objectif de cette étude de cas était de démontrer
l'applicabilité de la méthodologie de la MCDA proposée pour améliorer la phase d'interprétation de
l’ADCV. A cet effet, un trajet quotidien de domicile-travail entre Antibes et Sophia Antipolis a été
choisi pour cadrer cette application comme dans le cas de l’évaluation économique par ACCV réalisée
sur le territoire de la CASA.
Les éléments clés des scénarios de décision, y compris les acteurs de la mobilité dans la zone d’étude,
les alternatives de mobilité qui y sont présentes et les caractéristiques des déplacements, sont
caractérisés. Il est important de rappeler que dans cette thèse, les utilisateurs sont considérés comme des
acteurs clés de la mobilité mais pas comme des décideurs. Ainsi, l’étude a cherché à comprendre leurs
besoins et à les intégrer au même niveau que les résultats d’évaluation de durabilité pour soutenir les
acteurs publics – Communauté d’Agglomération de Sophia Antipolis (CASA)– dans la prise de
décision.
Au vu de l’objectif des travaux de thèse pour intégrer la perception des usagers, ces derniers ont été
impliqués dans la deuxième étape du cadre méthodologique proposé pour identifier et sélectionner les
critères de décision les plus pertinents en matière de durabilité. Ainsi, un focus groupe a été organisé
avec les usagers de transport dans la zone CASA afin de recueillir leurs perceptions et d’identifier les
facteurs clés guidant leurs choix de mobilité en matière de durabilité. Deux étapes ont été menées lors
de ce focus groupe, la première qui permettait de générer un nombre maximum de critères à travers la
méthode de citation directe et la deuxième étape qui consistait à hiérarchiser les critères par dimension
22
afin de retenir les plus prioritaires. Cinq critères ont été donc considérés parmi les 69 qui ont été générés
dans la première phase du focus groupe :
1. Accessibilité (dimension sociale)

2. Temps de trajet (dimension sociale)
3. Contribution au changement climatique (dimension environnementale)
4. Qualité de l’ai local (dimension environnementale)
5. Coûts mensuels (dimension économique)
Pour chacun de ces critères sélectionnés, trois échelles de performance ont été définies à partir des
résultats de l’ADCV. A cet effet, une normalisation des résultats de l’ADCV a été réalisé pour définir
pour chacun des critères sélectionnés trois niveaux de performance : performance favorable, défavorable
et performance moyenne.
A partir des cinq critères sélectionnés et leurs trois échelles de performance, 125 combinaisons
différentes ont pu été établies. Celles-ci ont ensuite été utilisées dans l’analyse des préférences. Cette
dernière a été réalisée par le biais d'une analyse conjointe basée sur les choix (CBC) qui permet de
réduire le nombre de combinaisons et donc de faciliter l’implémentation de l’approche. L'application de
l'approche CBC réalisée auprès des différents usagers a permis de déterminer les facteurs de pondération
pour chacun des critères : la dimension environnementale a été perçue comme plus importante que les
autres dimensions et a été pondérée à 53% au total, dont 32% attribués au changement climatique et
21% à la qualité de l'air. La dimension économique a pris la deuxième place et a été pondérée à 31%.
Enfin, la dimension sociale a pris la troisième place et a été pondérée à 16% avec 8% également attribués
à l'accessibilité et au temps de trajet. L'interprétation des résultats a mis en évidence la conscience
écologique des usagers vis à vis des aspects environnementaux, sociaux et économiques liés à leurs
choix quotidiens. Ces résultats soulignent l'importance de prendre en compte la perspective des usagers
dans la conception d'alternatives de mobilité durable. L’analyse conjointe a été pour cela très pertinente
et a permis d'introduire les préférences des usagers de manière efficace en laissant les usagers de
transport s’exprimer sur les performances environnementales, sociales et économiques attendues des
différentes alternatives de mobilité.
Les études précédentes ayant tenté d’introduire des approches MCDA à l’ADCV se contentaient d’une
application directe des facteurs de pondération aux résultats de l’analyse de durabilité ce qui n’a pas été
retenu dans ces travaux de thèse. En effet, il est aussi important, avant de passer à l’application,
d’analyser en amont la pertinence de ces facteurs de pondération et leur représentativité. En effet, un
large éventail d'approches MCDA peut être utilisé, celles-ci peuvent parfois faire appel à des choix de
valeurs qui ne sont pas suffisamment justifiés et transparents. Les facteurs de pondération, résultat direct
23
de l’implémentation d’approches MCDA, peuvent varier selon l’approche utilisée, et les méthodes
d’enquête employées. La fiabilité, représentativité et la pertinence de ces facteurs de pondération
devraient être minutieusement examinées pour s’assurer de leur validité avant leur utilisation dans
l’orientation des décisions.
Il est important de savoir que la CASA avait entrepris une démarche visant à tenir compte des
perceptions des utilisateurs dans le cadre de la restructuration du réseau des transports. Cette démarche
a été réalisée notamment à travers une série d’enquêtes auprès des usagers qui ont été interrogés sur les
facteurs déterminant leurs choix de mobilité quotidienne. À cet égard, le présent travail a approfondi
davantage la question de la représentativité des facteurs de pondération obtenus en analysant les résultats
obtenus dans le cadre de l’enquête établie par la CASA auprès de 3 642 usagers des transports. Les
résultats de cette enquête ont été collectées et traitées. D’abord, d’un point de vue méthodologique,
l’enquête menée par la CASA a interrogé les usagers de transport sur l’ordre d’intérêt qu’ils portent aux
trois dimensions de durabilité. Les répondants ont été amenés à hiérarchiser la dimension
environnementale, sociale et économique sans qu’il y ait une hiérarchisation des critères et/ou impacts
relatifs à chacune de ces dimensions. De plus, l’enquête utilisée n’a pas permis d’examiner les choix et
les préférences des usagers face à des scénarios réels dans le cas de l’analyse de préférences. Cette
approche différente a conduit à une divergence significative des résultats par rapport à ceux obtenus par
l’analyse conjointe. La dimension sociale a obtenu le score le plus élevé parmi les différents facteurs de
choix des usagers avec 40%. Les usagers ont classé la dimension environnementale en deuxième
position avec 30% et enfin la dimension économique a pris la dernière position du classement avec 9%.
Ces résultats révèlent une limite majeure liée à l’influence du choix méthodologique sur l’orientation
des résultats et leur fiabilité pour soutenir le processus décisionnel. En fait, l'intégration de telles
approches peut conduire à une interprétation simpliste des résultats de la durabilité et à une mauvaise
utilisation des résultats dans la prise de décision. Cela peut s'expliquer par les raisons suivantes :
- Le nombre de critères de décision sélectionnés doit être limité, de manière à faciliter la

l’application de l'approche MCDA choisie. Par conséquent, cela empêche de prendre en compte
toutes les catégories d'impact analysées au sein de l’ADCV pour soutenir la prise de décision.
- Les approches de pondération demandent l'introduction de choix de valeurs qui
induisent systématiquement une représentation partielle de la part de l'acteur impliqué dans la
compréhension des catégories d'impact significatives. En effet, le focus groupe, malgré sa
capacité à transmettre des informations qualitatives essentielles pour la compréhension et
l’analyse des résultats, peut, en raison de son caractère ouvert et non-directionnel, limiter la
concordance des critères de prise de décision et ceux analysés par l’ADCV. Ainsi, certaines
24
catégories d’impacts et de parties prenantes évaluées dans le cadre de l’ADCV peuvent se

retrouver non couverts dans le processus de prise de décision.
- La représentativité de l'échantillon utilisé peut influencer de manière significative les
résultats finaux obtenus. En fonction de l’approche utilisée, qualitative comme le focus groupe
ou quantitative comme les questionnaires en ligne, la taille de l’échantillon peut
significativement varier.
Toutes les limitations mentionnées ci-dessus, identifiées par ces travaux de thèse, ouvrent des
perspectives nouvelles à l’expérimentation des approches MCDA et leur potentiel à gérer les compromis
induits par les résultats d’analyse de durabilité. A cet égard, cette thèse propose un ensemble de
recommandations quant à l’application des approches MCDA à l’interprétation des résultats de l’ADCV
assurant ainsi des processus décisionnels plus représentatifs et fiables :
- La cohérence des résultats obtenus doit être soigneusement analysée. Les recherches
futures peuvent se concentrer sur l'expérimentation de différentes techniques MCDA et la
comparaison des résultats pour examiner la variabilité et les incertitudes associées aux résultats.
- La méthodologie proposée dans le cadre de ces travaux de thèse suggère un
approfondissement des sources de connaissances entreprises dans le contexte décisionnel
associé à la mobilité électrique. Cela notamment en allant au-delà d’une simple hiérarchisation
des dimensions de durabilité et en intégrant les résultats de l’évaluation de durabilité par des
approches d’ACV.
- Les études futures doivent s’assurer que la perspective du cycle de vie est respectée, et
que les critères de décision définis couvrent les impacts pour les différentes catégories de parties
prenantes.
- La compensation entre les différents impacts positifs et négatifs, qui peut conduire à une
mauvaise interprétation des résultats, doit être traitée avec soin. Par conséquent, les futures
études de recherche devraient examiner comment éviter une telle compensation des impacts au
sein d'une dimension de durabilité ou parmi les trois dimensions lorsqu'elles sont considérées
conjointement.
Généralisation du cadre méthodologique proposé à d'autres scénarios de mobilité et à d'autres
perceptions d’acteurs
Cette thèse portait l’ambition de contribuer aux avancées méthodologiques de l’ADCV ainsi que son
implémentation à d’autres produits et filières. Le cadre méthodologique proposé intègre les trois
dimensions de la durabilité et s’étend sur une perspective de cycle de vie. Ces deux caractéristiques sont
désormais fondamentales pour baser les processus décisionnels futurs sur des connaissances
approfondies des impacts générés sur l’environnement et sur les différentes parties prenantes. Les
travaux de cette thèse ont porté une attention particulière à l'implication des acteurs et, plus
25
spécifiquement, à une meilleure prise en compte des attentes et aux besoins des utilisateurs en termes
de mobilité afin de soutenir la prise de décision vers une mobilité plus durable. L’implication des parties
prenantes concernées et affectées a démontré son rôle majeur pour assurer une compréhension plus
profonde des systèmes en question et son intérêt pour anticiper les résistances sociétales susceptibles de
survenir. Plusieurs recommandations sont faites dans les points suivants pour faciliter l’adoption de la
méthodologie proposée et étendre son application à d’autres produits et systèmes, mais aussi pour
intégrer les perspectives d’autres parties prenantes :
a) L'étude doit accorder une attention particulière à l'objectif et au champ d'application de l'étude, afin
de définir clairement les limites du système et d'éviter que d'importantes parties prenantes clés ne
soient exclues. Dans l'ASCV, les groupes de parties prenantes des utilisateurs ou des consommateurs
ne doivent pas être laissés de côté et des efforts doivent être déployés pour mieux prendre en compte
leurs impacts sociaux et socio-économiques relatifs. L'implication des utilisateurs dans la phase de
conception peut améliorer de manière significative la précision de la prise de décision en étudiant
la résistance sociétale potentielle future du développement des alternatives.
b) L'implication des parties prenantes dans la définition des catégories d'impact s'est avérée très
pertinente. Ainsi, l’évaluation des sous-catégories d’impacts notamment dans le cadre de l’ASCV
peut se focaliser sur celles qui sont significatives au système analysé et celles perçues comme
importantes au point de vue des différentes parties prenantes concernées. Si possible, l'étude devrait
inclure une approche participative permettant de couvrir un large panel de perceptions des parties
prenantes pour la définition des sous-catégories d'impact pertinentes. Les approches participatives
peuvent être une alternative intéressante afin de légitimer davantage cette phase de sélection.
c) Les études futures peuvent utiliser les étapes proposées pour explorer d'autres techniques d’analyse
multicritères (Multicriteria Decision Analysis en Anglais ou MCDA) et de les appliquer à d’autres
scénarios de décision et tenir compte des points de vue d'autres parties prenantes dans le processus
décisionnel. Ces études devraient sélectionner avec soin la technique MCDA la plus appropriée de
manière à servir leur objectif et leur champ d'application spécifiques. Dans la présente thèse,
l’analyse conjointe a permis de tenir compte de la perspective des utilisateurs. Néanmoins, il
convient de noter que cette approche peut également être adaptée à d'autres parties prenantes. Les
recommandations proposées dans la thèse peuvent être utilisées pour explorer d'autres procédures
de collecte de données par la conception de différents processus de consultation pour impliquer les
différentes parties prenantes.
Les travaux menés ont pour ambition de favoriser le développement des ADCV, qui peuvent fournir
une vision approfondie des trois dimensions de la durabilité dans une perspective de cycle de vie. Une
telle vision est plus que jamais nécessaire pour informer la transition en cours vers des modes de
production et de consommation durables.
26
Table of content
Table of content
Remerciements ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Résumé étendu Français .......................................................................................................................... 7
Table of content ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter I: Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 35
1. Transportation and sustainable development .......................................................................... 35
2. Sustainability assessment methods: the key features and main methodological challenges ..... 41
3. Objective and research questions .............................................................................................. 42
4. Thesis outline and structure ....................................................................................................... 43
5. References ................................................................................................................................. 47
Chapter II: The defined methodological framework: An integrated vision from LCSA to the
decision-making process ..................................................................................................................... 52
Summary (II) ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Table of content (II) .............................................................................................................................. 53
1. Methodological background of sustainability assessment and life cycle-based methods ......... 54
2. Sustainability assessment of electric mobility integrated to the Life Cycle Thinking .............. 63
3. Designing a comprehensive LCSA methodological framework ............................................... 71
4. Tackling trade-off management challenges in LCSA through MCDA approaches .................. 77
5. Conclusions of the chapter ........................................................................................................ 86
6. References ................................................................................................................................. 88
Chapter III: Environmental evaluation of electric mobility scenarios through LCA ................... 98
Summary (III) ........................................................................................................................................ 98
Table of content (III) ............................................................................................................................. 99
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 100
2. Environmental evaluation of electric mobility: State of the art............................................... 100
3. Key assumptions and input parameters for LCA of electric mobility scenarios ..................... 112
27
Table of content
4. Systematic approach for the environmental impacts analysis: integrating parametrized LCA
models and its application to electric mobility scenarios .................................................................... 114
5. Conclusions of the chapter ...................................................................................................... 127
6. References ............................................................................................................................... 128
Appendix 1. ......................................................................................................................................... 136
Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 138
Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 140
Chapter IV: Social evaluation of electric mobility scenarios through Social Life Cycle Assessment 143
Summary (IV) ..................................................................................................................................... 143
1. S-LCA for mobility scenarios: State of the art and the main limitations ................................ 146
2. Key social topics for mobility scenarios: A first screening of the literature ........................... 148
3. Development of S-LCA methodological framework with two novel features ........................ 156
4. Application of the developed S-LCA methodological framework to electric mobility scenarios.

167
5. Conclusions of the chapter ...................................................................................................... 198
6. References ............................................................................................................................... 201
Appendix 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 215
Chapter V: Life Cycle Costing: a systematic approach for an economic evaluation of electric
mobility scenarios .............................................................................................................................. 220
Summary (V) ....................................................................................................................................... 220
Table of content (V) ............................................................................................................................ 221
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 222
2. Life Cycle Costing for mobility scenarios: State of the art ..................................................... 223
3. Towards a coherent LCC approach for mobility scenarios: key steps to be conducted .......... 232
4. Economic assessment of electric mobility scenarios with user’s perspective ......................... 234
5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 243
6. References ............................................................................................................................... 245
Chapter VI: Implementation of Conjoint Analysis to LCSA results interpretation: A support for
the decision-making process towards sustainable mobility accounting for users’ perspective .. 249
28
Table of content
Summary (VI) ..................................................................................................................................... 249
Table of content (VI) ........................................................................................................................... 250
1. The objective of the case study ............................................................................................... 251
2. Definition of the case study: Decision-making scenario ......................................................... 252
3. Definition of sustainability decision criteria: involving users through a focus group ............. 254
4. Application of the conjoint analysis to LCSA results ............................................................. 261
5. Results Interpretation .............................................................................................................. 263
6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 267
7. References ............................................................................................................................... 270
Chapter VII: General Conclusions and Perspectives ..................................................................... 272
Glossary .............................................................................................................................................. 283
Acronyms & Signification................................................................................................................. 288
29
Table of Figures
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Sankey diagram of primary energy production and final energy consumption per sector in France in 2019,
data from CGDD (2020). 37
Figure 2 Structure and global outline of this PhD thesis chapter by chapter 46
Figure 3 Mind mapping of sustainability evaluation, management and communication methods and tools for the
different scales (product, organization, local, national, and international levels), used Mindmap online tool:
https://app.mindmup.com/ 55
Figure 4 Sustainability pillars and the corresponding LCA methods based on Barbier (1987) proposed model of
the three intersecting circles and Kloepffer (2008) first formalized framework for LCSA integrating the TBL
to LCT perspective. 56
Figure 5 LCA methodological framework adapted from ISO 14040 58
Figure 6 Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment: classification and characterization steps 59
Figure 7 Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Type I and Type II approaches, adapted from Neugebauer (2016)
and UNEP Guidelines for S-LCA of products and organizations (2020) 61
Figure 8 The different scope levels that can be adopted for LCC, adapted from Neugebauer 2016 63
Figure 9 Identified target actors within the sustainability decision-making process of within mobility 67
Figure 10: the considered mobility scenarios along the 4 elements (technologies, services, transportation
infrastructures and energy sources) defined within this thesis 70
Figure 11 Combined life cycle sustainability impacts assessment: key features and challenges 74
Figure 12 The designed LCSA framework: key features and challenges to be addressed 76
Figure 13 Illustration of trade-off management within LCSA interpretation step 78
Figure 14 The main steps for the application of an MCDA technique to LCSA global framework 81
Figure 15 Representation of conjoint analysis method in the case of sustainability trade-offs management:
environmental, social and socio-economic and costs decision criteria 84
Figure 16 Definition of the background systems: vehicle’s components manufacturing and vehicle's assembly106
Figure 17 Vehicles’ use phase and the main elements to be covered: energy consumption, driving cycles,
fuel/electricity generation, maintenance and roads infrastructures 108
Figure 18 Driving cycles velocity and time for CADC, NEDC, and WLTC. In the right is presented the WLTC 3
covering the urban profil driving characterisitics 110
Figure 19 "Cradle to Grave" perspective: accounting for the vehicle’s End of Life through a second application of
the battery 112
Figure 20 System boundaries of the current study: the integration of the Well to Wheel perspective to account for
the impacts from the fuel/electricity production and use within the vehicle’s operation 115
Figure 21 Snapshot of the defined variable parameters (in red) to calculate the vehicle's energy consumption and
those who were fixed during this study (yellow) 118
Figure 22 Environmental Impacts calculation for personal passenger midsize vehicles in France 2020 for each
powertrain technology 123
Figure 23 illustrate impacts calculation results for four powertrains of buses (13m city bus) with urban driving use
scenario in France 2020 124
30
Table of Figures
Figure 24 Environmental Impacts calculation for shared passenger midsize vehicles in France 2020 by powertrain
125
Figure 25 Stakeholder categories and their associated social and socio-economic impact subcategories following
the new updated S-LCA guidelines (in red the added stakeholder impact subcategories in UNEP
Guidelines 2020) 146
Figure 26 Step-by-step comprehensive S-LCA framework within this thesis adapted from Bouillass et al. 2021
(under review) 157
Figure 27 Materiality Assessment based on the importance for the organization’s business and according to
external stakeholders (GRI 2014). 159
Figure 28 Main steps of the defined participatory approach for the selection of impact subcategories within S-
LCA, adapted from (Bouillass et al. 2021) 160
Figure 29 Representation of S-LCIA phase through a specific analysis following the establishment of reference
scales and the collected inventory data, adapted from UNEP 2020 S-LCA guidelines with the introduction
of the participatory approach. 165
Figure 30 System boundaries of the study according to a “cradle to grave”, including mobility use scenarios, e.g.,
three mobility services, and energy production systems; conventional and electric transportation technologies
167
Figure 31 Relative importance of workers’ impact subcategories from users (b) and other consulted actors (a)
(public, industrial and academic) perspectives. 177
Figure 32 Relative importance of local community’s impact subcategories according to different consulted actors
(c) (public, industrial, and academic) and users (d) perspectives. 178
Figure 33 Relative importance of users’ impact subcategories according to different consulted actors (e) (public,
industrial and academic) and users (f) perspectives. 179
Figure 34 Comparison of the relative importance assigned by users to the different impact subcategories per each
type of mobility service 180
Figure 35 Prioritized impact subcategories for value chain actors according to the consulted actors 181
Figure 36 Prioritized impact subcategories for society according to the consulted actors 181
Figure 37 Comparison of electric and conventional vehicle technologies according to the consulted actors: impact
subcategories for users 182
subcategories for workers. 182
Figure 39 Comparison of electric and conventional vehicle technologies according to the consulted actors: Impact
subcategories for local communities 183
Figure 40 Simplified representation of the main elements of the assessment including, impact subcategory,
measured aspect, performance indicators and PRPs as well as the reference scales, e.g., safety of users. 186
Figure 41 Results of the evaluation of social inventory indicators through PSILCA database for workers for both
electric (EV) and conventional (ICEV) transportation technologies 191
Figure 42 Results of the evaluation of inventory indicators for local communities through PSILCA database for
both electric (EV) and conventional (ICEV) transportation 194
31
Table of Figures
Figure 43 Results of the evaluation of inventory indicators for value chain actors through PSILCA database for
both electric (EV) and conventional (ICEV) transportation 195
Figure 44 Contribution to the sector economic development through the analysis of inventory indicator provided
by PSILCA database 196
Figure 45 S-LCIA Results from the specific assessment of mobility services with a user-centric approach 197
Figure 46 Mapping LCC boundaries, the main parameters, cost categories, and the interested parties (adapted from
Hunkeler 2008 and Neugebauer 2016) 222
Figure 47 Total Cost of Ownership model adopted within this thesis for personal mobility use scenarios analysis
236
Figure 48 Total Cost of Ownership and costs per km for the evaluated vehicle technologies (personal mobility)
241
Figure 49 Mobility services analysis; costs calculation per km for the three mobility services in CASA region in
2020; (8 km per commuting travel and 200 days of work) 242
Figure 50 Implementation of the designed framework to a real-world case study from LCSA to the decision-
making: introduction of the Conjoint Analysis to support private and public decision makers within the design
of sustainable mobility alternatives and accounting for users’ preferences. 251
Figure 51 Share of transport modes from CASA 2021 253
Figure 52 Main stages conducted within the focus group for the definition of sustainability decision criteria 257
Figure 53 Mapping of the 69 generated mobility decision criteria by each sustainability dimension following the
stage 2 of the focus group conducted with transportation users in Sophia Antipolis 259
Figure 54 Calculated weighting factors for the five considered attributes (i.e., sustainability decision criteria) 264
Figure 55 travel types for users in CASA (sample=3642) Data from the CASA local authorities- conducted survey
in 2021 for restructuration of the ENVIBUS network (public transport provider) 265
Figure 56 : Main sustainability drivers for users’ mobility choices – Data from ENVIBUS 2021 (public transport
service provider) 266
32
Table of Tables
Table of Tables
Table 1 Summary of the selected 16 sustainability assessment studies in mobility including LCSA studies. The
scope of this review covers transportation technologies, mobility services, automotive products and
companies, transport infrastructures and related energy systems (in red). *Includes technical/quality social
indicators 65
Table 2 Decision criteria matrix and weighting factors calculation (R. W. Saaty, 1987) 80
Table 3 Key input parameters adjusted from carculator for each mobility scenario considered in this thesis 118
Table 4 Fixed input parameters and those calculated for five vehicle technologies considered within a personal
mobility use case 119
Table 5 Impact categories and their corresponding midpoint indicators from ILCD 2018 used within the conducted
analysis in this thesis from European Commission and JRC (2018) handbook on ILCD Midpoint indicators.
121
Table 6 Identified stakeholders, sub-stakeholders, their definition and the nature of their relationship with the
product system 168
Table 7 Definition of user’s impact subcategories to feed up the S-LCIA phase of mobility scenarios 173
Table 8 The designed multi-actor consultation process for the electric mobility case study and the defined actors
175
Table 9 Calculated relative importance of users’ impact subcategories per each mobility service 179
Table 10 Inventory indicators from PSILCA database aggregated by impact subcategories and stakeholders’
groups. 185
Table 11 The suggested performance indicators for each of the defined users’ impact subcategories 187
Table 12 Process activities considered from PSILCA database for the different vehicle technologies analyzed 189
Table 13 literature review of LCC studies with a focus on the technique used and the indicators calculated in the
automotive sector by covering different scopes, i.e., vehicles and infrastructure and different perspectives,
i.e., users, society and designers supported costs, NA: not available in the study. 226
Table 14 Subsidies in France including Bonus/Malus and conversion primes for BEV, HEV, PHEV and ICEV
vehicle technologies 237
Table 15 Cost categories corresponding to maintenance, insurance and taxation (according to CGDD (2017) 238
Table 16 Taxation calculation for fuel use, electricity, and petrol-based products (year 2021 and 17 000 km of
annual driven distance) 238
Table 17 Input parameters for TCO model calculation within the economic assessment of vehicle technologies,
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV), conventional vehicle powered with petrol (ICEV-p) and diesel (ICEV-d)
239
Table 18 Selected sustainability decision criteria by users (participants of the focus group) and their corresponding
impact categories 261
Table 19 Definition of the combinations and the performance scales for the preference analysis 262
33
Chapter I: Introduction
1. Transportation and sustainable development
1.1.The role of the transport sector in socio-economic development
For centuries, transportation has played a key role in socio-economic development of civilizations and
their modernization. Transportation is defined as the means by which people and freight are moved
from point A to point B. From hunter-gatherers’ migrations to the silk road long-distance camel
caravans and modern-day container ships, transport systems have been constantly evolving, shaping in
the process our ways of living. Transportation has allowed connecting people and extending their
accessibility to employment and to other essential goods and services. Thanks to national and
international exchange of raw materials and energy, industrial progress has been significantly
accelerated, driving the need for roads and infrastructure. Moreover, people’s accessibility to markets
has been eased by transportation (Rodrigue & Notteboom, 2020), which has further fostered an
economic model driven by mass production and consumption.
Along with the economic growth, the rise in transportation demand has gone hand-in-hand with an ever-
increasing demography and urbanization (Noussan et al., 2020). Cities have undergone drastic urban
sprawl and mobility needs have evolved (OECD, 2018), bringing together a diversity of technologies
and transportation modes.
Mobility7 is distinguished from transportation by embracing a social relationship to movement. It
describes people’s ability of movement and their accessibility to transportation services,
technologies, and infrastructure. Urban mobility has become increasingly complex, and its
management requires considering trade-offs resulting from the interactions of different mobility services
and technologies.
The 20th century has been marked by a substantial expansion of road vehicle technologies for both
passengers and freight transport. Thanks to its high affordability (Rodrigue, 2020a), individual mobility
has been democratized and massively adopted (OGL, 2019). The rise of personal car use occurred in
conjunction with a decline of other transportation modes. For example, in France, passengers’ transport
has been widely dominated by the use of personal vehicles. Thus, individual road transport represented
7 The definition proposed is adapted from the one in Universalis Encyclopedia. Available in French in this link.
The aim was to clearly distinguish the use of both terms; “mobility” and “transport” throughout the present manuscript.
“Mobility can be defined as the social relationship to change of place, i.e., as all actions that contribute to the movement of
people and material objects. In this very broad sense, transport is the technical system directly dedicated to this movement. It
is a relatively easy economic branch to isolate, but it is only one component of the field of mobility. Mobility also includes, on
the one hand, the technical systems that support and enable transport (production of transportation systems, their management,
and mobility services), and, on the other hand, the relationship between the practice of transport and its economic, sociological,
anthropological and political purposes. Finally, as mobility is a fundamental element in the functioning of productive societies,
it can only be thought of in terms of an approach that links it to major social dynamics.”

80.6% of total passengers transported on the total traveled distance (passengers. kilometers) in 2018
(Datalab- CGDD, 2020), while rail transport represented 11.50% and road public transport only 6.2%.
From an economic point of view, employment and total expenditures are the most common
macroeconomic indicators to assess the efficiency of transportation systems (Rodrigue & Notteboom,
2020) and thus, the economic development of countries. In France, total expenditures on transport sector
reached 425.1 billion euros in 2018 which is equivalent to 18.1% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
(Datalab- CGDD, 2020). As for employment, transport sector plays a major role, accounting, in 2018,
for about 1.4 million employees and 97,000 interims. In addition, total transport-related household
consumption amounted to 181.8 billion euros in 2018, representing thus 14.9% of total household
expenditures. Of these expenditures, 83.5% stand mainly for individual transport, including vehicles
purchase (43.8 billion euros), fuels and lubricants (41.3 billion euros) and other related services
(58.8 billion euros).
1.2.Energy consumption in the transport sector and associated environmental impacts
To turn the wheels of economic development, transportation systems have strongly relied on the energy
sector. In fact, as illustrated in Figure 1, in 2019, 32% (45.14 Mtep) of the total final energy consumption
(140 Mtep) in France was related to the transport sector. In particular, road transport accounted for 93%
of the final energy consumed by the transport sector (CGDD, 2019). Most of this energy consumption
corresponded to oil-derived products, which accounted for 91% of the French transports’ consumption
and were mainly associated to road transport (CGDD, 2019). Consumed electricity by transport systems
only represented 1.9%, mostly related to the rail mode. Other used energy sources for transportation in
France, includes 7.1% for biofuels, and 0.4% for natural gas in 2019. At the European level, the share
of renewable energy in the transport sector was still limited to 8.1% in 2018 (EEA, 2020), and mainly
dominated by biofuels (IRENA, 2018).
The intensive use of petroleum products in current road transportation systems results in major
environmental problems such as climate change, resource depletion, and other forms of air, water, and
soil pollution. Indeed, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are mainly dominated by the transport sector,
which accounted for 40% of total GHG emissions in France in 2019 (CGDD, 2019). Road transport is
the major contributor to these emissions with 95% of national emissions from transport in 2019, for
which 56% is associated to individual mobility. Another concern is air quality, which has drastically
decreased in dense urban areas worldwide causing a serious threat to public health (ADEME, 2018; EC,
2017a). The main reason is the significant exposure to particulate matter and NOX emission. In addition,
transportation sector generates other negative externalities such as road accidents, congestion, and noise
emissions that involve significant social and economic costs for the society (EEA, 2020).
36
Figure 1 Sankey diagram of primary energy production and final energy consumption per sector in France in 2019, data from CGDD (2020).

1.3. Transport regulations and future challenges to be addressed

Such urgent environmental concerns call for a shift from the current car-based transport system,
characterized by fossil-fuel dependency, to technologies with lower environmental impacts. On a global
scale, since the publication of the report “limits to growth” (Meadows et al., 1972) and then the
International Panel on Climate Change reports (IPCC, 1990), we now count 22 Conferences of the
Parties (COP) aiming to bring together member states to set targets for the reduction of GHG emissions,
primarily CO2 emissions, and to address the effects of climate change. After the Kyoto protocol (UN,
1998), ratified in 2007, the Paris climate agreement (UN, 2015) was concluded after COP21 and became
effective in 2016.
In accordance with these agreements, the European Commission published in 2011 the White Paper on
transport: "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – towards a competitive and resource-
efficient transport system" (EC, 2011). This document sets a target of at least 60% reduction of GHG
emissions for transportation sector by 2050. Multiple strategies, regulations and roadmaps have also
been established to foster an effective transition to low-emission mobility (Noussan, Hafner, et
Tagliapietra 2020a) and, thus, meet the EU’s long-term policy objectives (EC, 2016, 2017a; EUR-Lex
-On the road to automated mobility: An EU strategy for mobility of the future, 2018; ECA, 2018). The
starting point of emissions’ strict limits were set in 1990, when the "Euro 0" standards were introduced
in Europe for commercial vehicles. Since then, a series of standards have been gradually implemented,
covering air quality indicators (PM, CO and NOX emissions). The “Euro 7” is expected to develop
stricter emissions standards for diesel vehicles, as part of the European Green Deal (EC, 2019).
In this regard, car manufacturers are expected to increasingly enhance the environmental performance
of transportation technologies they provide to the market (Regulation EU, 2014). As a result, significant
reductions of environmental impacts are taking place thanks to improvements within the design phase.
This includes lightweight materials development (Field et al., 2017), alternative fuels and powertrain
efficiency increase (Dell et al., 2014a, 2014b; Harison, 2018), materials recycling, and end-of-life
recovery (Bobba et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2017; Pasquier, 2015).
On the other side, public authorities both at national and local scales, are setting up measures and
incentive actions to encourage the adoption of more sustainable mobility alternatives. To face climate
change, the French government has the ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. This objective
has been formalized through the low-carbon national strategy in 2015 (MTES, 2020). A broad set of
roadmaps and action plans have rapidly followed to promote a future national transportation scheme
committing to a profound transformation of current travel patterns. Moreover, a new mobility regulation
“Loi Orientation de Mobilité (LOM)” was adopted (2018) in accordance with the energy transition law
(2015). The LOM regulation introduced 15 key measures, among which electric mobility appears as a
key technological solution for decarbonizing transport. Moreover, several prospective scenarios lean
toward electric vehicles adoption, to cease commercializing conventional vehicles by 2040 (OPECST
2019a).
1.4. Technological development of electric vehicles

Despite the appearance of Electric Vehicles (EV) as early as in the beginning of the 19th century, Internal
Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEV) have dominated the market so far. Indeed, the first model of an
electric vehicle goes back to 1834 and its production was even more intensified after the appearance of
acid-lead batteries in 1859 (Sencier & Delasalle, 2015). Their development continued until the
beginning of the 20th century and was slowed down by the rise of the oil era, when the production of
thermal vehicle models gained the market in view of their multiple advantages in terms of weight, price,
and driving range (Guignard, 2010). The crisis of 1973 drew the attention of Western countries to their
high dependency on oil products and thus paved the way for the development of other alternatives.
Over the last years, the world has experienced the re-emergence of EVs in parallel with a widespread
ecological awareness. Hence, between 2014 and 2019, the sum of annual average increase of both
Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) market reached 60% (IEA,
2020a). The share of EV is expected to reach 80% of passengers transport market in Europe by 2050,
which will result in an increasing electricity demand (EEA, 2016). In response, a higher share of
Renewable Energy should be encouraged for power generation (IRENA, 2017) to substitute oil-derived
fuels consumption. Major environmental benefits are therefore expected, including the decrease of
exhaust emissions and noise levels thus, air quality improvement in urban areas (Niestadt et Bjornavold
2019). The underlying EV technologies have significantly gained in maturity thanks to high battery
density improvement, which demonstrated 20 to 100% higher energy density in 2020 compared to that
of 2012 (IEA, 2020a). Despite the ongoing technological advances, EVs development still faces multiple
challenges related to their high initial costs, limited charging infrastructures and complex grid capacity
management in case of a mass-market uptake (Tietge et al., 2016).
1.5. Moving from technologies-based paradigm to service-based paradigm
Although electric vehicles are likely favorable to achieve European Commission goal in terms of climate
neutrality by 2050 as long as they rely on low-carbon electricity mixes (EC, 2018; EUR-Lex -On the
road to automated mobility: An EU strategy for mobility of the future, 2018), it is legitimate to question
their contribution to sustainable mobility patterns. In fact, sustainability stands on three pillars, namely
the environmental, social and economic pillars. Hence, EV technologies should be evaluated with
respect to these three dimensions. Moreover, while efforts have mainly focused on optimizing the
existing technologies (EC, 2017b), achieving a sustainable mobility could require more profound
transformations affecting the society through its public policies, technological advances and its mobility
patterns.
In this regard, synergies between EV technologies and innovative mobility services could bring several
environmental benefits (Bortoli & Feraille, 2015; EC, 2016) in terms of emissions’ reduction, but also
in terms of the social and economic dimension (i.e., urban congestion reduction, especially for highly
dense cities). Moreover, all prospective mobility scenarios developed in line with the objectives set by
39
the Energy Transition Law and the Low-Carbon National Strategy (LCNS) in transport, encourage the
development of public and shared transport modes (Bigo, 2020). The LNCS has identified modal shift
(i.e., transition towards the use of public, shared, cycling as alternatives for individual mobility) as one
of the five major factors to achieve energy transition in the transport sector, together with the moderation
of transport demand, optimization of vehicle occupation rate, vehicle efficiency, and the carbon intensity
of the used energy. In the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (EC, 2020), the European
Commission has also highlighted the need to boost modal shift to promote sustainable alternative modes,
in particular for daily mobility.
As a response, over the recent years, and thanks to the current digitalization, transport modes have been
increasingly branching out into emergent services such as carpooling and ride-sharing, to meet final
users’ needs (CGEDD et al., 2015; EC, 2017b). The concept of “Mobility as a Service” (MaaS),
promoting mobility as a commodity for the final user, has substantially gained in importance at the
European level (Kostiainen & Tuominen, 2019). MaaS is the integration of a diverse menu of transport
options, combining various technologies (car, bike, bus) and transport services (public transport, ride-,
car- or bike-sharing, etc.) (MaaS Alliance, 2017). This combination enables to reintroduce mobility
services, technologies, policies, business models as facilitators for meeting end users’ needs and thus,
reduce the intensive use of individual mobility. Moreover, MaaS concept has introduced a user-centric
vision that enables reconciling the needs and expectations of the final users for the design of sustainable
mobility alternatives. The European Commission has also adopted this vision within The European
Green Deal (EC, 2019), affirming that “Achieving sustainable transport means putting users first and
providing them with more affordable, accessible, healthier and cleaner alternatives to their current
mobility habits”.
 Achieving sustainability in the transport sector is way beyond substituting internal

combustion engines by electric motors.
 Future efforts should focus on reintroducing mobility services and stakeholders needs jointly
with low-impact technologies within the design of future sustainable mobility.
 Mobility-end users are in the core interest of future sustainable mobility schemes at the
European level and their needs and expectations are to be carefully considered.
Given the above-mentioned aspects related to the interest of electric mobility, the overall question
developed throughout this research work aims to investigate:
How far could electric mobility contribute to sustainable mobility

patterns while meeting the daily needs of users?
To address this question, it is fundamental to further investigate sustainability of both EV technologies

and mobility services as well as their synergies to guide public authorities and industrial actors with
40
their decisions. The different stakeholders that are involved in the sustainable mobility schemes as well
as the connections between them should be defined and investigated. For these reasons, thorough
assessment methods are required for the environmental, social, and economic impacts (positive and
negative) enabling a comprehensive sustainability evaluation of electric mobility scenarios.
2. Sustainability assessment methods: the key features and main methodological

challenges
Thanks to its focus on the three dimensions of sustainable development and its life cycle perspective,
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) has significantly gained in importance in the last years.
It allows the identification and the evaluation of environmental, social, and economic impacts along the
value chain, that is, from raw materials’ extraction to the end of life of products or services.
LCSA relies on three approaches: environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Social Life Cycle
Assessment (S-LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) (Finkbeiner et al., 2010; Kloepffer, 2008).
Formulation for LCSA was proposed by Kloepffer (2008), and consists of separately conducting LCA,
S-LCA and LCC while continuously ensuring their connectedness. However, this is far from being a
simple task as the three approaches are targeting different dimensions, have different methodological
backgrounds and reflect different levels of maturity. This is reflected in the LCSA literature by several
shortcomings such as the lack of accordance with ISO standards, lack of connectedness among
sustainability dimensions, and lack of transparency (Valdivia et al., 2021).
Although environmental LCA has gained sufficient maturity to become widely adopted and standardized
(ISO14044, 2006), S-LCA and LCC still lag behind due to the complexity rising from the definition of
characterization models and impact assessment approaches. Such difficulty is also reflected for the
mobility sector. While LCA has been fairly developed to investigate potential environmental impacts of
mobility technologies and services (Cerdas et al., 2018; Cox, 2018; Del Duce et al., 2016a), a global S-
LCA framework applied to mobility scenarios is still lacking and no general standardization has been
yet established for LCC, apart from the one specific to the construction sector (ISO 15686-1, 2011). As
a result, LCSA still faces major challenges to consistently address into one core methodology the three
sustainability dimensions. Hence, the first challenge to be covered by the current research work is the
following:
Challenge 1: Design of a comprehensive methodological framework integrating the
life cycle thinking to the three sustainability dimensions.
One of the major interests for LCSA consists of supporting informed decision-making process. In fact,
incorporating life cycle perspective to sustainability pillars could provide decision makers with wider
insight towards more sustainable design of products, technologies and services (Valdivia & Lie, 2012).
To support the decision-making process, the final step of LCSA, namely results interpretation, may be
insufficient and inconsistent for several reasons including
41
- Interpretation step is often judged as subjective (De Luca et al., 2017a).

- LCSA delivers multidimensional results, including environmental, economic, and social impact
categories, that could induce trade-offs between the three sustainability dimensions (Tarne,
Lehmann, & Finkbeiner, 2019).
- Weighting of impact categories is controversial and often too dependent on subjective judgment
(ISO14044, 2006).
Furthermore, transportation users are becoming more aware not only of the environmental issues, but
also of the social and socio-economic impacts related to their choices. Private actors (technology,
services level) and public actors (policy level) in the mobility sector are, therefore, compelled to design
more sustainable mobility technologies and services that fulfill users’ growing needs and expectations.
In this regard, it is necessary to investigate explicit stakeholders’ involvement within an integrated vision
from the sustainability assessment to the decision-making process. Following these observations, the
second challenge identified within this research work is expressed as:
Challenge 2: Contribution to better-informed decisions on sustainability by
integrating both LCSA results and stakeholders’ perspectives
3. Objective and research questions

The scientific objective of present PhD thesis seeks to design a comprehensive sustainability evaluation
framework, adopting a life cycle perspective, through Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA).
The methodological challenges sketched above are thus investigated and addressed within each phase
of its implementation. The proposed framework is applied to evaluate electric mobility scenarios by
including both mobility technologies and services.
Stakeholders’ involvement – either those who are affected, involved or concerned by the ongoing shift
towards sustainable mobility – is to be thoroughly investigated within an integrated vision from LCSA
to the decision-making. Transportation users are to be given a particular focus to allow accounting for
their perspectives within the context of mobility decision-making.
In order to bring and integrate relevant knowledge on sustainability for decision makers, multicriteria
decision analysis is introduced to manage the emerging trade-offs from LCSA results while accounting
for users’ perspectives. This is expected to ease the connection between public authorities and industrial
actors that are involved in the decision-making process by providing them with scientific-based
information on sustainability aspects and users’ perspectives.
Such comprehensive LCSA framework developed in this research should provide generic methodology
and reliable information to be used by LCSA experts. This research is, moreover, contributing to the
ongoing advances in LCSA. As such, this work comes in support for the recently published ten
principles, in a position paper from the Life Cycle Initiative (Valdivia et al., 2021), to strengthen the
consensus around LCSA. Two main research questions are addressed:
42
1st Research Question (RQ1)

How can environmental, societal, and economic impacts be integrated into a
comprehensive methodological framework to address sustainability with a life
cycle perspective?
2nd Research Question (RQ2)

How can LCSA results support the decision-making process within electric
mobility context considering actors perspectives including users?
4. Thesis outline and structure

To address the defined research questions, this thesis is structured as illustrated in Figure 2 and
comprises the following chapters:
Chapter I: General introduction
Chapter II: The defined methodological framework: An integrated vision from LCSA to the
decision-making process
- This chapter includes the core methodological aspects addressed in the present thesis; An overview
of sustainability assessment methods and tools is presented together with the methodological
background of environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC, detailed in the first section of chapter II.
- A literature review of LCSA studies dealing with mobility is presented, allowing the main
shortcomings associated with current development of LCSA to be highlighted. This second section
proposes a definition of electric mobility scenarios following four elements: vehicle technologies,
mobility services, transportation infrastructures and energy consumption. A new feature is
introduced to the scope of LCSA, namely the definition of mobility key actors. Three mobility
scenarios are settled for further implementation of the proposed LCSA framework: personal, public
and shared transportation, with a focus on electric and conventional transportation technologies.
- A step-by-step explicit description of LCSA aligning with the ISO standards recommended phases
is provided. Key features and issues to be solved are detailed, including: the goal and scope
definition, the impact assessment approaches and the life cycle sustainability interpretation. Two
methodological pathways are identified for the conceptualization of a comprehensive LCSA
framework, and their relative challenges are highlighted. The comprehensive LCSA framework
proposed in this thesis is presented and claims to cover an integrated vision from LCSA
methodological framework to the decision-making process. The expected methodological outcomes
are settled for each LCA approach (environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC).
- A step-by-step approach is presented introducing MCDA techniques to support LCSA results
interpretation, tackling thus the trade-off induced by the sustainability assessment. Various MCDA
43
techniques are identified and analyzed to select the most appropriate one. Guidelines based on four
stages are proposed to support decision makers (public and private mobility actors) in using LCSA
results while accounting for users’ expectations and needs: (1) definition of the decision scenario,
(2) definition of sustainability criteria, (3) selection and application of the relevant MCDA
technique, and (4) results interpretation. The conjoint analysis is adopted in accordance with the user-
centric perspective enabling the consideration of final users’ needs and expectations in terms of
sustainable mobility alternatives.
Chapter III: Environmental evaluation of electric mobility scenarios through LCA
This chapter starts by analyzing the existing LCA studies for electric mobility scenarios and existing
models to identify the main impact categories and life cycle stages (section 2) and thus, define a set of
key input parameters to be entailed in the LCA modeling (section 3). Such LCA modeling is performed
by running parametrized LCA models fitting the electric mobility scenarios settled within this thesis.
Such parametrized LCA models clearly enhance the representativeness of the existing datasets by
including the multiple technological advances that may occur over time. The defined approach together
with the steps to be followed for the establishment of the parametrized models are detailed in section 4
all along the four iterative LCA phases. The concept of environmental LCA is mature enough prior to
this thesis, so the focus is made on (a) formalizing a systematic protocol to generate parametrized LCAs
fitting mobility scenarios and on (b) S-LCA development and LCC adaptation for the overall
sustainability evaluation method. The results are discussed from an environmental perspective for the
three considered scenarios (i.e., personal, public and shared transportation)
Chapter IV: Social evaluation of electric mobility scenarios through S-LCA
This chapter seeks to support the development of S-LCA methodology by introducing two novelties: (1)
the definition of a participatory approach to enable the selection of impact subcategories from all
concerned stakeholders’ perspectives, (2) the introduction of a user-centric impact assessment approach
to S-LCA. The chapter presents in detail the S-LCA framework developed to analyze potential social
and socio-economic impacts related to the considered mobility scenarios, as well as its application to
the case study. A step-by-step method in accordance with the recommendations of ISO 14,040 standards
is presented. The global S-LCA framework includes a participatory approach that enables practitioners
to account for stakeholders’ perception to select the most relevant social and socio-economic impact
subcategories for the evaluation step. Mobility technologies are therefore evaluated through reference
scale-based social life cycle impact assessment, and a generic database is used to perform the calculation
step. To analyze mobility services, a set of social and socio-economic indicators are further developed
based on a user-centric vision.
Chapter V: Economic evaluation of electric mobility scenarios through LCC
The chapter starts by introducing key features and phases for LCC and identifies the main challenges
within the implementation of LCC. It contributes to the harmonization of LCC method by introducing
44
the key steps for the economic assessment of mobility scenarios by adapting ISO standards for
environmental LCA to conventional LCC. Moreover, this chapter focuses on the analysis of the cost
effectiveness of mobility scenarios from a users’ perspective. In fact, an economic assessment approach
is proposed by first conducting a direct cost calculation of vehicle technologies through a Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO) and then, a cost calculation of the mobility services.
Chapter VI: Implementation of Conjoint Analysis to LCSA results interpretation: A support for
the decision-making process towards sustainable mobility accounting for users’ perspective.
This chapter seeks to provide insight on the applicability of the sustainability assessment framework
proposed in this PhD thesis, based on LCSA coupled to MCDA, to support decision-making process.
To meet this goal, a case study is designed to test how LCSA results can be used by public and private
actors within the development of sustainable mobility alternatives, while accounting for users’ needs
and expectations. The designed case study investigates a specific mobility case study on commuting
daily travels of persons between Sophia-Antipolis and Antibes, in the south of France. Hence, the
conjoint analysis was selected and implemented in the thesis as an appropriate MCDA approach to
integrate users’ preferences. This chapter explains how preference analysis is conducted for specific
users following a Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) approach. Weighting factors are obtained for each of
the sustainability criteria selected by users to enable their application within the LCSA interpretation of
results. The findings are compared to the results of a large-scale survey conducted by local authorities.
The comparison aims at pinpointing to what extent the method can be used to guide decision makers.
Chapter VII: General conclusions and recommendations for future research studies are presented. Key
features of this present PhD work are discussed with respect to both research questions together with
benefits of the implementation of such integrated vision of LCSA to the decision-making process. The
main limitations associated with the practical implementation of the developed LCSA framework to the
settled mobility scenarios are discussed as well as and the methodological challenges to overcome in the
future. This chapter paves the way of future research in terms of MCDA approaches and their coupling
to LCSA method. A set of recommendations is proposed to adopt and implement the proposed LCSA
framework by targeting other product systems and by including other stakeholders’ perspectives.
45
Figure 2 Structure and global outline of this PhD thesis chapter by chapter
46
5. References
ADEME. (2018). Définition, sources d’émission et impacts des émissions NOx. ADEME.
https://www.ademe.fr/entreprises-monde-agricole/reduire-impacts/reduire-emissions-
polluants/dossier/oxydes-dazote-nox/definition-sources-demission-impacts
Bigo, A. (2020). Les transports face au défi de la transition énergétique [PhD Thesis, Ecole Doctorale
de l’Institut Polytechnique de Paris (ED IP Paris)]. http://www.chair-energy-prosperity.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/These-Aurelien-Bigo.pdf
Bobba, S., Podias, A., Di Persio, F., Messagie, M., Cusenza, M. A., Eynardu, U., Fabrice, M., & Pfrang,
A. (2018). Sustainability Assessment of Second Life Application of Automotive Batteries
(SASLAB) (p. 140) [JRC Technical Reports].
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC112543/saslab_final_report_201
8_2018-08-28.pdf
Bortoli, A. D., & Feraille, A. (2015). Performance environnementale des modes de transports urbains
sur cycle de vie: Quels choix techniques pour le bus à haut niveau de service ? 17.
Cerdas, F., Egede, P., & Herrmann, C. (2018). LCA of Electromobility. In M. Z. Hauschild, R. K.
Rosenbaum, & S. I. Olsen (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment (pp. 669–693). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_27
CGDD. (2019). Chiffres clés du climat: France, Europe et Monde (p. 80). Institute ffor climate
economics. https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2018-
12/datalab-46-chiffres-cles-du-climat-edition-2019-novembre2018_1.pdf
CGEDD, Schmit, P., De Treglode, H., Marques, R., Farniaux, B., & Toulouse, P. (2015). Urbanisme et
mobilité|Rapports publiés du CGEDD (n° 009796-01; p. 117 p). CGEDD, MTES.
https://cgedd.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/notice?id=Affaires-0008638
CMED. (1987). Notre avenir à tous (Rapport de Brundtland). Commission mondiale sur
l’Environnement et le Développenet.
Cox, B. L. (2018). Mobility and the energy transition: A life cycle assessment of swiss passenger
transport technologies including developments until 2050 [ETH Zurich].
https://www.psi.ch/ta/PublicationTab/Thesis_Embargo_free_version.pdf
Datalab- CGDD. (2020, May 1). Chiffres-clés du transport, Édition 2020. ORT&L Grand Est.
https://www.ortl-grandest.fr/chiffres-cles-du-transport-edition-2020/
De Luca, A. I., Iofrida, N., Leskinen, P., Stillitano, T., Falcone, G., Strano, A., & Gulisano, G. (2017).
Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for agricultural
sustainability: Insights from a systematic and critical review. Science of The Total Environment,
595, 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.284
Del Duce, A., Gauch, M., & Althaus, H.-J. (2016). Electric passenger car transport and passenger car
life cycle inventories in ecoinvent version 3. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 21(9), 1314–1326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0792-4
Dell, R. M., Moseley, P. T., & Rand, D. A. J. (2014a). Unconventional Fuels. In Towards Sustainable
Road Transport (pp. 86–108). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-404616-0.00003-7
47
Dell, R. M., Moseley, P. T., & Rand, D. A. J. (2014b). Chapter 8—Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Fuel Cell
Vehicles. In R. M. Dell, P. T. Moseley, & D. A. J. Rand (Eds.), Towards Sustainable Road
Transport (pp. 260–295). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-404616-
0.00008-6
Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport
system, (2011). https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:EN:PDF
EC. (2016). A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (Communication from the Commission to
the European Parliement, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions : Europe on the Move - COM(2016) 501 final; p. 13). European
Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-501-EN-F1-
1.PDF
EC. (2017a). An agenda for a socially fair transition towards clean, competitive and connected mobility
for all (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliement, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions : Europe on the
Move - COM(2017) 283 final). European Commission.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/com20170283-europe-on-the-move.pdf
EC. (2017b). Smart mobility and services: Expert group report. Publications Office.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/490085£
EC. (2018). A Clean Planet for all A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern,
competitive and climate neutral economy (COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE OF THE
REGIONS AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK No. 773). European Commission.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0773&from=EN
EUR-Lex -On the road to automated mobility: An EU strategy for mobility of the future, (2018).
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0283
EC. (2019). The European Green Deal: Communication from the commission to the European
Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the regions. European Commission. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-8c1f-
01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
EC. (2020). Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the
future (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliement, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions : Europe on the
Move - COM(2020) 789 final). European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0789
ECA. (2018). Towards a successful transport sector in the EU: challenges to be addressed (p. 60)
[Landscape review]. European Union.
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/LR_TRANSPORT/LR_TRANSPORT_EN.
pdf
EEA. (2016). Electric vehicles and the energy sector—Impacts on Europe’s future emissions—
European Environment Agency [Briefing]. European Environment Agency.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/electric-vehicles-and-the-energy
48
EEA. (2020). Transport: Increasing oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions hamper EU
progress towards environment and climate objectives. European Environment Agency.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/downloads/2863e38fe827409d97ecf95e8059cae9/1616670582/incr
easing-oil-consumption-and-ghg.pdf
Field, F. R., Wallington, T. J., Everson, M., & Kirchain, R. E. (2017). Strategic Materials in the
Automobile: A Comprehensive Assessment of Strategic and Minor Metals Use in Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(24), 14,436–14444.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06063
Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309–3322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2103309
Guignard, S. (2010). Histoire du développement en France du Véhicule électrique-Rôle de l’ADEME

(p. 52). ADEME.
Harison, P. (2018). Fueling Europe’s Future-How the transition from oil strengthens the economy.pdf
(p. 28). Cambridge Econometrics. https://www.camecon.com/ how/our-work/fuelling-europes-
future/
Hu, Y., Cheng, H., & Tao, S. (2017). Retired Electric Vehicle (EV) Batteries: Integrated Waste
Management and Research Needs. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(19), 10927–
10929. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04207
IEA. (2020). Global EV Outlook 2020: Entering the decade of electric drive ? (p. 276) [Technology
report]. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020
IPCC. (1990). Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (J. T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J
Ephraums). Interngorvernmental Panel on Climate Change.
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
IRENA. (2017). Electric Vehicles: Technology Brief (p. 52). International Renewable Energy Agency.
https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/IRENA_Electric_Vehicles_2017.pdf
IRENA. (2018). Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 (p. 76). International Renewable
Energy Agency. https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Apr/IRENA_Report_GET_2018.pdf
ISO 15686-1. (2011). ISO 15686-1:2011 Buildings and constructed assets—Service life planning—Part
1: General principles and framework. ISO.
https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/04/57/45798.html
ISO14044. (2006). ISO 14044:2006—Management environnemental—Analyse du cycle de vie—

Exigences et lignes directrices. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14044:ed-1:v1:fr
Kloepffer, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products: (With Comments by Helias A.
Udo de Haes, p. 95). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89–95.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376
Kostiainen, J., & Tuominen, A. (2019). Mobility as a Service—Stakeholders’ Challenges and Potential
Implications. In B. Müller & G. Meyer (Eds.), Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe:
Challenges, Solutions and Collaborations (pp. 239–254). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99756-8_16
49
LOI n° 2015-992 du 17 août 2015 relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte (1), Pub.
L. No. 2015–992, 2015-992 (2015).
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2015/8/17/DEVX1413992L/jo/texte
MaaS Alliance. (2017). White Paper: Guidelines & Recommendations to create the foundations for a
thriving MaaS Ecosystem. Maas Alliance. https://maas-alliance.eu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/7/2017/09/MaaS-WhitePaper_final_040917-2.pdf
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A
Report for THE CLUB OF ROME’S Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books.
http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-
version.pdf
Loi-Mobilités-Présentation du projet de loi d’orientation des mobilités, (2018) (testimony of MTES).

https://www.ecologique-
solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/18191_DP_LOM_16p_DEF_Web.pdf
Transition écologique et solidaire. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-03-
25_MTES_SNBC2.pdf
Niestadt, M., & Bjornavold, A. (2019). Electric road vehicles in the European Union. 11.
Noussan, M., Hafner, M., & Tagliapietra, S. (2020). The Evolution of Transport Across World Regions.
In M. Noussan, M. Hafner, & S. Tagliapietra (Eds.), The Future of Transport Between
Digitalization and Decarbonization: Trends, Strategies and Effects on Energy Consumption
(pp. 1–28). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37966-7_1
OECD. (2018). Rethinking Urban Sprawl: Moving Towards Sustainable Cities. OECD.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264189881-en
OGL. (2019). A time of unprecedented change in the transport system. Government Office for Science.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/780868/future_of_mobility_final.pdf
OPECST. (2019a). Comment atteindre l’objectif d’un arrêt de commercialisation des véhicules
thermiques en 2040. http://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/static/15/infographie_1766.pdf
OPECST. (2019b). Les scénarios technologiques permettant d’atteindre l’objectif d’un arrêt de la
commercialisation des véhicules thermiques en 2040 (p. 4) [Synthèse]. Office parlementaire
d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques. http://www2.assemblee-
nationale.fr/content/download/78252/801175/version/2/file/4+pages+2040.pdf
Pasquier, M. (2015). Automotive battery recycling and second life application (ABATTERLIFE).
Rodrigue, J.-P. (2020). Chapter 8 – Urban Transportation | The Geography of Transport Systems. In The
Geography of Transport Systems (5th ed.). https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/
Rodrigue, J.-P., & Notteboom, T. (2020). 3.1 – Transportation and Economic Development | The
Geography of Transport Systems. In The Geography of Transport Systems (5th ed., p. 456).
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter3/transportation-and-economic-development/
Sencier, G., & Delasalle, A. (2015). Les automobiles électriques. Lilliad - Université de Lille - Sciences
et technologies. http://iris.univ-lille1.fr/handle/1908/3214
50
Tarne, P., Lehmann, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2019). Introducing weights to life cycle sustainability
assessment—How do decision-makers weight sustainability dimensions? The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(3), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1468-2
Regulation (EU) No 333/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014
amending Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to
reduce CO 2 emissions from new passenger cars, Pub. L. No. 32014R0333, 103 OJ L (2014).
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/333/oj/eng
Tietge, U., Mock, P., Lutsey, N., & Campestrini, A. (2016). Comparison of leading electric vehicle
policy and deployment in Europe (p. 88) [White paper]. International Council for Clean
Transportation. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EVpolicies-Europe-
201605.pdf
UN. (1998). KYOTO Protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (p. 24).
United Nations. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
UN. (2015). Paris Agreement (p. 27). United Nations.

Valdivia, S., Backes, J. G., Traverso, M., Sonnemann, G., Cucurachi, S., Guinée, J. B., Schaubroeck,
T., Finkbeiner, M., Leroy-Parmentier, N., Ugaya, C., Peña, C., Zamagni, A., Inaba, A., Amaral,
M., Berger, M., Dvarioniene, J., Vakhitova, T., Benoit-Norris, C., Prox, M., … Goedkoop, M.
(2021). Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01958-2
Valdivia, S., & Lie, C. M. (2012). Towards a life cycle sustainability Assessment-Making informed
choices on products. Sustainability Assessment, 86.
51
Chapter II: The defined methodological
framework: An integrated vision from
LCSA to the decision-making process
Summary (II)
The present chapter aims at contributing to the methodological development of Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment (LCSA) by addressing the research questions established in the introduction of this thesis. Thus, it
seeks to propose a comprehensive LCSA framework that enables the combined analysis of the three sustainability
dimensions and the integration of key stakeholders’ perspectives. It further explores how LCSA results can support
public and private decision makers for the design of more sustainable mobility alternatives.
A global overview of sustainability analysis methods and tools is proposed in section 1. It introduces LCSA
methodological background and focuses on key features and phases for environmental LCA, S-LCA, and LCC.
In section 2, LCSA studies dealing with mobility scenarios are reviewed and analyzed. The main methodological
issues are thus highlighted in terms of (i) coherence of the scope (ii) compliance with ISO standards and (iii)
transparency of the used data and assumptions. To handle these issues, the present thesis first focuses on how to
define mobility scenarios. Four elements need to be defined: (i) transportation technologies (ii) mobility services
(iii) roads and infrastructure and (iv) energy powering the vehicles. Three mobility scenarios are defined based on
this definition: personal, public and shared mobility, and analyzed with a special focus on electric vehicle
technologies.
With respect to the goal of this research to support stakeholders in their decision-making process within LCSA, an
identification of mobility key actors is required. Transportation users are found to be a key actor within the ongoing
shift towards sustainable mobility. Hence, careful attention is to be paid to account for their needs and expectations
so to help private and public decision makers better adapt sustainable mobility schemes.
Section 3 entails the design of LCSA framework fitting the research goals. In this section, two methodological
pathways are identified and explored; (i) the first one consists of developing a combined sustainability impact
assessment approach that accounts for environmental, social and economic dimensions throughout cause-effect
chains (ii) the second one, which has been adopted in the present thesis, consists of independently applying the
impact assessment approaches to each dimension. Separate applications of impact assessment approaches
(following pathway 2), lead to multidimensional results that require handling the induced trade-offs.
Section 4 comprises the main issues on how to make the most of the proposed LCSA and introduces multicriteria
decision analysis (MCDA) techniques to solve the challenges linked to trade-off multi-criteria sustainability
indicators management. Guidelines based on four stages are thus proposed to support decision makers (public and
private mobility actors) in using LCSA results while accounting for users’ expectations and needs: (1) definition
of the decision scenario, (2) definition of sustainability criteria, (3) selection and application of the relevant MCDA
technique, and (4) results interpretation. The selected MCDA technique herein is the conjoint analysis. It calls for
the scoring of preferences by the involved actors instead of weighting the criteria directly. It has been selected in
view of its ability to fully integrate the users’ needs and expectations within the decision-making process.
Chapter II: The defined methodological framework: An integrated vision from LCSA to the decision-making process
Table of content (II)
1. Methodological background of sustainability assessment and life cycle-based methods………54
1.1. Sustainability main methodological references and tools ......................................................... 54
1.2. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) ......................................................................... 56
1.2.1. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) .......................................................................... 57
1.2.2. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) .................................................................................... 59
1.2.3. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) ......................................................................................................... 62
1. Sustainability assessment of electric mobility integrated to the Life Cycle Thinking .................... 63
2.1. A literature review of sustainability assessment studies for mobility scenarios ....................... 63
2.2. Definition of electric mobility scenarios: use scenarios and actors’ involvement .................... 67
2. Designing a comprehensive LCSA methodological framework ..................................................... 71
3.1. Pathway 1: A combined life cycle sustainability impact assessment methodology .................. 73
3.2. The limits of a combined sustainability impact assessment within LCSA ................................ 75
3.3. Pathway 2: the proposed LCSA framework: individual application of environmental, social, and
economic LCIA approaches .................................................................................................................. 76
3. Tackling trade-off management challenges in LCSA through MCDA approaches........................ 77
4.1. MCDA approaches to support the LCSA interpretation of results ............................................ 79
4.2. The designed framework for the introduction of MCDA to LCSA .......................................... 81
4.2.1. Definition of the decision scenario ............................................................................................ 81
4.2.2. Definition of sustainability decision criteria ............................................................................. 82
4.2.3. Selection and application of the MCDA approach to LCSA ..................................................... 82
4.2.4. Interpretation of results.............................................................................................................. 86
4. Conclusions of the chapter .............................................................................................................. 86
References ............................................................................................................................................. 88
53
1. Methodological background of sustainability assessment and life cycle-based methods

1.1. Sustainability main methodological references and tools
In view of the ever-increasing and wide-ranging environmental problems the world has witnessed in the
last century, global ecological awareness gave birth the concept of sustainability. In 1980, the
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) published “World Conservation
Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development” (IUCN et al., 1980). Major
concerns on climate change, biodiversity, and resources overexploitation were underlined and directly
linked to the industrial progress. Afterwards, the concept of sustainable development was defined in
1987, in the report “Our Common Future” by the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED, 1987), as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The authors claimed a balance among
sustainability inherent pillars, namely, environmental, social, and economic dimensions, to guarantee
equity among future generations.
The Earth Summit was held by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro (UN 1992) to discuss strategies and visions for a sustainable future. Since
then, sustainable development has been adopted at the international level as an overarching principle for
human well-being and its interest is constantly increasing both in public and private sectors. Efforts have
been focusing on its integration to national and international policies and a broad set of normative
references fostered its implementation. These references include the Nation’s Millennium Development
Goals (European Commission & Eurostat, 2017), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2016), the ISO
26000:2010 standard, introducing the concept of corporate social responsibility (ISO26000, 2010), and
the Organization for Economic and Co-operation and Development principles for multinational
organizations (OECD, 2011), etc. Figure 3 illustrates the large panorama of sustainability methods, tools
and standards and proposes their classification among two different levels. The first level of
classification distinguishes four different scales depending on the focus of the sustainability method:
national or international scale, organizational scale, local and territorial scale and, finally, individual
product or material scale. The second level of the proposed classification identifies sustainability
methodologies and tools that have different objectives. The objectives are classified in three categories:
i) impacts’ evaluation, ii) management and design, and (iii) communication or reporting. Life cycle-
based methods are considered as one of the most effective techniques for evaluating impacts throughout
their life cycle stages (Blanc, 2015). They were primarily developed for evaluations at the product level,
as illustrated in Figure 3. Given the rising interest and need for impacts’ evaluation at the various scales,
LCA methods have been increasingly adapted to inform decision makers on how to improve products’
environmental, social and economic performances.
54
Figure 3 Mind mapping of sustainability evaluation, management and communication methods and tools for the different scales (product, organization, local, national, and international levels), used Mindmap online
tool: https://app.mindmup.com/

1.2. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)

In 2008, Kloepffer (2008) introduced the first formulation for LCSA to allow the identification and
assessment of the potential environmental, societal and economic impact categories of product systems.
Such model is represented in Equation 1 and Figure 4. LCSA incorporates the life cycle perspective to
the three dimensions of sustainable development based on the “triple bottom line” principle. This
concept, first defined by Elkington (1998), distinguished three dimensions of sustainability to be
integrated within the industrial sector. The aim was to strengthen the vision of organizations in terms of
environmental, social, and economic impacts while meeting the constant needs of the industrial progress
(Valdivia & Lie, 2012). In this sense, the triple bottom line concept encourages the integration of LCSA
to account for the three dimensions simultaneously. Elkington's (1998) definition of “triple bottom line”
is in line with the approach known as 3Ps, which stands for Planet, People, Profit and emerged in 2002
(Purvis et al., 2019). Since then, the interest of both public policy-makers and private companies (which
constitute the two main groups of decision makers) on LCSA method has drastically increased
(Finkbeiner et al., 2010).
[1] LCSA = LCA + S-LCA + LCC
LCSA: Life Cycle Sustainability

Assessment
S-LCA: Social Life Cycle Assessment
LCA: environmental Life Cycle
Assessment
LCC: Life Cycle Costing
Figure 4 Sustainability pillars and the corresponding LCA

methods based on Barbier (1987) proposed model of the
three intersecting circles and Kloepffer (2008) first
formalized framework for LCSA integrating the TBL to LCT
perspective.
Recognizing the need for a global integrated sustainability assessment, the UNEP/SETAC and Life
Cycle Initiative published in 2012 global guidance for the implementation of LCSA (Valdivia & Lie,
2012). This document introduced the main features required to conduct a holistic LCSA. These features
included specific adjustments for each of the phases of the method.
56
Valdivia and Lie (2012) also highlighted the interest of integrating the life cycle thinking to
sustainability evaluation methods to go beyond the traditional focus on the direct impacts of
organizations. A significant number of LCSA studies have further followed (Zamagni 2012; Traverso
et al. 2012; Zamagni et al. 2013; Bachmann 2013; Pérez-López 2015; Ekener et al. 2018), seeking to
address sustainability of products, technologies, and services and thus, support the decision-making
process (De Luca et al., 2017b; N. C. Onat, Kucukvar, Tatari, & Zheng, 2016; Tarne, Lehmann, &
Finkbeiner, 2019). Nevertheless, LCSA framework still faces major methodological challenges related
to the harmonization between the three dimensions (Valdivia et al., 2021). In order to conceptualize a
comprehensive LCSA framework, it is important to understand the key features deriving from each of
the environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC. These features are introduced in the following subsections.
1.2.1. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) allows the evaluation of the potential environmental
impacts related to products (goods and services) throughout their entire life cycle, including raw
materials extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use and final disposal at its end of life (ISO 14040
2006). The concept of LCA was first used in the late 1960s to analyze environmental impacts of various
packaging options and thus, support the decision-making process for private companies (UNEP/SETAC,
2009). LCA was further applied to other products and technologies contributing, hence, to its
methodological development. Over 40 years later, “Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: a Code of
Practice” (Consoli et al., 1993) was published by SETAC and substantially contributed to a consistent
and thorough methodology construction for environmental management.
The ISO 14040-44 standards (ISO 14040 2006; ISO 14044 2006) were later developed and published
for the first time in 1997 with the aim of providing more consolidated methodological guidance. LCA
was defined as a technique for understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the
potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout its life cycle. These international
standards established the global framework, which consists of four iterative phases, as presented in
Figure 5: (1) Goal and scope definition; (2) Life Cycle Inventory (LCI); (3) Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA); and (4) Life Cycle Interpretation. In addition, the standards provided LCA
practitioners with requirements and recommendations for conducting an LCA and thus allow them to i)
identify opportunities to improve the environmental performance of products and services, ii) inform
decision makers in private and public sectors, and iii) communicate through labels and certifications on
the environmental impacts of products.
a. Goal and scope of the study:
This first phase of an LCA consists of defining the objective of the study, the intended application, and
the targeted stakeholders. The second element of this step consists of defining the scope of the study.
The evaluated product system should be described in detail including the assumptions to be made as
well as the functional unit, which serves to represent the function of the evaluated product system
57
according to a measurable reference unit upon which all input and output flows are expressed. The scope
of the study should cover the system boundaries within which all the process activities that are accounted
in the evaluation are included, as well as the data quality that entails considering the level of precision,
variability, completeness and representativeness of the gathered primary and secondary data.
Figure 5 LCA methodological framework adapted from ISO 14040

b. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI):
This second phase consists of collecting qualitative and quantitative data for all input flows (raw
materials, energy, water) and output flows (solid waste, emissions to air and water, etc.) in agreement
to the considered system boundaries of the study. The collected data should be i) validated following
ISO 14040 data quality requirements, ii) related to unit processes and functional unit through an
allocation approach if needed. Finally, the system boundaries may be adjusted depending on the selected
cut-off criteria.
c. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA):
The third phase of LCA entails three mandatory steps:
- Selection of impact categories that should be duly justified according to the goal and scope of the
study, environmental indicators and the corresponding characterization models that allow environmental
impacts mapping on a cause-effect chain (from environmental inventory indicators to midpoint and
endpoint impact categories).
- Classification of LCI results of the substances emitted by the evaluated product system into impact
categories, as represented in Figure 6.
- Characterization step, which consists of converting LCI results assigned in the impact categories (step
2) into common units through characterization factors. These characterization factors determine the
magnitude of contribution of each input and output flow to the impact category and thus allow the results
to be expressed in a uniform reference unit (e.g., kg SO-2 equivalent for acidification potential).
58
This phase can also include an additional fourth step depending on the goal and scope of the study,
consisting of the normalization of the results, weighting, grouping, and data quality analysis (Finkbeiner
et al., 2006).
Figure 6 Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment: classification and characterization steps
The scope of the evaluated impacts within LCA was gradually extended from energy consumption and
solid waste production to other input and output flows. Today, LCA is considered as a multicriteria
assessment method that allows various environmental impact categories to be accounted for (JRC, 2010;
EC and JRC, 2018), such as global warming potential, acidification potential, resource depletion, to
human toxicity, etc. LCA robustness has been significantly enhanced thanks to a wide set of methods
and standards developed for the characterization step (EC and JRC, 2018). In fact, recommendations on
impact assessment characterization models are regularly published and revised by the European
Commission (EC and JRC, 2018; JRC, 2010) to ensure consistent impact assessment results. In addition,
methods to analyze uncertainties and variability within LCA are increasingly adopted to support the
results interpretation phase.
d. Results interpretation:
The last phase of an LCA consists of analyzing results from both LCI and LCIA phases in line with the
goal and scope of the study. This phase also includes a review of the scope, data quality, completeness,
sensitivity and consistency of the obtained results related to the product system. The analysis of results
should help identify significant environmental impacts and the main contributing process activities for
each of the analyzed impact categories.
1.2.2. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA)
In 1993, a “social welfare impact category” was proposed after the release of the SETAC Workshop
report “A Conceptual Framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment” (Fava et al., 1993). Since then,
the debate on how to evaluate social and socio-economic impact categories through LCA methodology
is still ongoing (UNEP/SETAC, 2009). Ten years later, the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
59
launched a dedicated task force to work actively on S-LCA development, so as to complete LCA and
LCC towards a coherent and integrated sustainability assessment. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-
LCA) methodological framework was developed following the ISO 14040-44 standards (Finkbeiner et
al., 2006), originally developed for the environmental LCA. S-LCA is defined as “a technique that
allows social and socio-economic impacts evaluation all along the products and services life cycle
stages.” (UNEP, 2020).
The first guidelines for S-LCA of products published by UNEP/SETAC in 2009 (UNEP/SETAC, 2009)
introduced five different stakeholder categories, namely workers, value chain actors, local community,
consumers and society. A set of impact subcategories was also proposed for each stakeholder group
describing the potential impacts that may arise from the product’s life cycle stages and the related
organization’s activities.
Since the publication of S-LCA guidelines (UNEP/SETAC, 2009) and the methodological sheets
(Benoît Norris et al., 2013), an increasing number of scientific articles on S-LCA have been published
(Dreyer, Hauschild, et Schierbeck 2010; Neugebauer et al. 2014; Zanchi et al. 2018; Arvidsson 2019;
Macombe 2019; Mancini et al. 2019). This fact demonstrates the need and interest of this approach to
complete the results from the environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing
(LCC) towards a better evaluation of the sustainability of products and services. To further promote the
development of S-LCA, the UN Environment Program has published the updated version of the S-LCA
guidelines: “Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020” (UNEP,
2020). A new stakeholder category “Children” has been introduced and three subcategories are proposed
in the guidelines to evaluate potential social and socio-economic impacts affecting this stakeholder
category. In addition, the focus has been extended from products to also include an organizational level
(UNEP, 2020).
The UNEP S-LCA guidelines for products and organizations (2020) provided guidance for the
implementation of S-LCA following the four main iterative phases to be conducted in accordance with
the ISO standards (Finkbeiner et al., 2006).
a. Goal and Scope:
This first phase of S-LCA covers the definition of the purpose of the study and the system boundaries
under investigation. The goal and scope definition is considered as a key phase of S-LCA (UNEP, 2020).
It should describe the main methodological choices adopted such as the functional unit, the cut-off
criteria and the impact assessment method together with stakeholder groups and impact subcategories
to be considered.
b. Social Life Cycle Inventory (S-LCI):
In this phase, all input and output flows are identified, as well as the social inventory indicators to be
evaluated. For each considered product system, data is normalized for a given output process.
Input/output flows can then be interlinked through an activity variable. Activity variables were first
60
defined by Norris (2006) to reflect the relevance of social impact subcategories related to the process
output. They allow describing the most intensive activities in a unit process and could therefore be used
to prioritize data collection and quantify the considered social inventory indicators (UNEP, 2020). The
most common activity variable is “working hours” which refers to the number of hours spent to produce
1 USD output of the considered product system (Maister et al., 2020).
The S-LCI covers both quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative data collection and validation.
Generic databases such as the Production Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) and Social
Hotspots Database (SHDB) can be used as a basis. These make use of economic input/output models
for interlinking the process activities and calculate the social inventory indicators based on the working
time variable activity.
c. Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Social indicators are attributed to the chosen impact subcategories and can then be evaluated according
to the chosen S-LCIA approach. Despite providing the main steps and elements to conduct a S-LCA,
the framework proposed by these guidelines (UNEP/SETAC, 2009) did not include a clear consensus
on the impact assessment method itself. This has led to the development of a large panel of Social Life
Cycle Impact Assessment (S-LCIA) approaches. The developed approaches can be classified in two
main families as illustrated in Figure 7:
Figure 7 Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Type I and Type II approaches, adapted from Neugebauer (2016)
and UNEP Guidelines for S-LCA of products and organizations (2020)
- Reference scale assessment approaches (RS S-LCIA) or “Type I”, which focus on social
performance or social risk (Fontes, 2016; Franze, 2011; Goedkoop et al., 2020a; Russo Garrido et
al., 2018). The aim is to examine organizations’ practices along the entire value chain of the product
or service being evaluated. RS-SLCIA approaches compare the life cycle inventory data to
Performance Reference Points (PRPs) that represent the expected social performance in terms of
each impact subcategory without linking them to endpoint impact categories (representing long-
term effects). They therefore estimate the potential social and socio-economic impacts of an activity
on a given stakeholder category. Quantitative, qualitative, and semi-quantitative indicators may be
defined for each impact subcategory (Benoît Norris et al., 2013), and the data collected can be
61
generic using national and sectorial data or site-specific data. A repository was developed by the
"Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment" (Goedkoop et al., 2020a), which defines
performance scales (from -2, -1, 0, +1, to +2) for different indicators associated with impact
subcategories for four stakeholder categories; small-scale entrepreneurs, workers, local
communities, and consumers.
- Impact pathway assessment approaches (IP S-LCIA) or “Type II”, which assess the social and
socio-economic potential or actual impacts through characterization models (Dreyer et al., 2010;
Jørgensen et al., 2009; Neugebauer et al., 2014; Rugani et al., 2012). The so-called Type II
approaches are based, similarly to environmental LCA, on a cause-effect oriented approach
(including midpoint and endpoint impact categories). Characterization factors are therefore used to
reflect the potential (present or future) social impacts of the entire value chain (Macombe et al.,
2013) with a long-term perspective. Despite the connectedness of IP-SLCIA approaches with
analogous environmental impact assessment models, their methodological development is slow
(Neugebauer et al., 2014). This can be explained by the complexity of identifying and drawing the
causal relationships and their translation into appropriate characterization models for all six
stakeholder categories proposed by UNEP guidelines.
d. Social Life Cycle Interpretation
The interpretation of results is the final phase of S-LCA. It consists of reviewing all the previous phases
and conducting a thorough analysis of S-LCA results. According to requirements of ISO 14044 (ISO
14044 2006), it should cover a completeness check, consistency check, sensitivity and data quality
check, a materiality assessment and conclusions, limitations and recommendations (UNEP, 2020). A
materiality assessment is a process that selects the most significant social issues regarding their impact
on stakeholders or relevance to the business (UNEP, 2020). It has also been defined and recommended
by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2011) and ISO 26000 (ISO26000, 2010) to allow accounting
for all relevant topics that might influence the assessment and decision-making process.
1.2.3. Life Cycle Costing (LCC)
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) was first developed by the Defense Department of the United States in mid-
1960s for a strictly financial purpose in the military sector (Epstein, 1996). The technique was used to
calculate costs related to different life cycle stages of military equipment and thus, analyze the
acquisition and operation costs (Asiedu & Gu, 1998). Following this framework, a significant number
of LCC tools were developed and used to support purchase decisions and the design of more costs-
effective products. In 2011, the first standardized framework for LCC was established to assess building
and construction assets following a life cycle perspective that includes operation and end of life stages
(ISO 15686-1, 2011). LCC was defined in ISO 15686-1 (2011) as “a methodology for systematic
economic evaluation of life cycle costs over a period of analysis, as defined in the agreed scope”.
62
Within sustainability assessment methodologies, an LCC methodology in accordance with

environmental LCA was developed by SETAC working group (Hunkeler et al., 2008). The developed
method was further used as a basis for the guidelines and a code of practice for LCC published by (Swarr
et al., 2011) following ISO 14044 (ISO14044, 2006) standards. Hunkeler et al. (2008) distinguished
between three cost categories, namely, direct or internal costs related to the product life cycle,
environmental costs and societal costs. These three cost categories can be evaluated respectively through
Conventional Life Cycle Costing (Conventional-LCC), Environmental LCC and Societal LCC. While
Conventional LCC measures private costs and benefits that are supported by the organization (Figure
8), Environmental and Societal LCC entail a larger scope that includes external costs that may be
supported by the society and thus, contribute to better informed decisions.
Figure 8 The different scope levels that can be adopted for LCC, adapted from Neugebauer 2016
Although LCC shares the life perspective with LCA and S-LCA, in practice the impact assessment step
does not refer to a cause-effect relationship linking cost impact categories to economic “areas of
protection” such as value-added, growth, trade, etc. (Neugebauer et al., 2016). Within LCC
methodology, impact categories represent aggregated costs that provide a measure of direct impacts
(Swarr et al., 2011). In this regard, LCC is often criticized for using merely monetary values through
cost categories, which is considered as not sufficient to account for a global economic sustainability.
2. Sustainability assessment of electric mobility integrated to the Life Cycle

Thinking
2.1. Literature review of sustainability assessment studies for electric mobility scenarios
As explained in the introduction (chapter 1 of this thesis), electric vehicle alternatives are currently seen
as a promising alternative to contribute to sustainable mobility. In this context, sustainability assessment
studies have been increasingly adopted to help decision makers (i.e., mobility services providers,
63
technologies manufacturers, etc.) identify the environmental, social and economic potential impacts of
future transportation systems. Within this manuscript, a focus has been made on sustainability
assessment studies for electric mobility scenarios. The reviewed studies aim to evaluate impact
categories on the three sustainability dimensions.
Table 1 presents the identified sustainability assessment studies for mobility including three reviews:
methodological publications, literature reviews and case studies. The scopes of the reviewed studies in
Table 1 targets both conventional and alternative technologies for passengers’ transport and covers,
transportation manufacturing and use, energy production, fuel production, transportation infrastructures,
mobility services and the. Some of these studies presented a full LCSA with an integrated sustainability
interpretation step while others considered each sustainability dimension separately.
As shown in Table 1, sustainability assessment studies that include a life cycle perspective and thus
apply a full LCSA are more recent. Wulf et al. (2019) highlighted this aspect and found that the number
of LCSA publications is more significant between 2016 and 2018.
The analyzed studies mainly focus on the product and technology level. This can be explained by the
barriers that can arise when applying LCSA framework to complex systems. In fact, these systems often
require considering a substantial number of components to ensure an exhaustive evaluation. This
concept was introduced by Tarne (2019) for the automotive sector, who suggested an application of
LCSA per individual component, to overcome this complexity.
Among the different reviewed sustainability studies, only a limited number integrated a life cycle
perspective and considered the three sustainability dimensions equally. This finding agrees with the
review of sustainability studies in the construction sector by (Backes & Traverso, 2021). The increasing
number of publications tend to focus on case studies rather than methodological aspects (Wulf et
al., 2019). As a result, environmental impacts are the most covered aspect by LCSA studies, while social
and economic impacts are often neglected due to several methodological barriers still being identified
for S-LCA and LCC.
64
Table 1 Summary of the selected 16 sustainability assessment studies in mobility including LCSA studies. The scope of this review covers transportation technologies, mobility
services, automotive products and companies, transport infrastructures and related energy systems (in red). *Includes technical/quality social indicators
Reference Type Scale Scope LCSA Objective of the study Indicators
Yes No Environmental Social Economic
(Tarne, 2019) Method Organizational Automotive – X S-LCA targeting data collection 2 2 2
product MCDA-LCSA weighting factors
(N. C. Onat et Method and Product / Electric vehicle X Approach for regionalized LCSA of 7 4 3
al., 2019) Case study Technology technologies alternative vehicle technologies:
(Traverso et al., Method Product / Vehicle X Managing Life Cycle Sustainability -- -- --
2015) Technology Aspects in the Automotive Industry:
methodological aspects in LCSA
(Stark et al., Method and Territorial Urban mobility X Benefits and obstacles of sustainable 2 6* 1
2017) Case study product development methods: a case
study in the field of urban mobility
(N. C. Onat, Method and Product / Alternative X Uncertainty-embedded dynamic life 1 1 1
Kucukvar, & Case study Technology vehicle options cycle sustainability assessment
Tatari, 2016) framework: An ex-ante perspective on
the impacts of alternative vehicle
options
(Jasinski et al., Method Product / Vehicle X A comprehensive framework for 12 8 5
2015) Technology automotive sustainability assessment:
definition of LCSA impact categories
and comprehensive assessment
framework
(Günther et al., Case study Product / Electric vehicles X Sustainability analysis of electric 1 1 1
2015) Technology vehicles supply chain - company
specific supply chain models
65
(Bueno et al., Review Product / Transport X Literature review of methods and tools --- --- ---
2015) Technology infrastructures for sustainability assessment of
transport infrastructure projects
(N. Onat, 2015) Method and Product / Alternative X Macro-level sustainability assessment 5 4 3
Case study Technology vehicle of alternative passenger vehicles.
technologies Input-Output analysis coupled with
TBL.
(Ben Hnich et Case study Product / Synthetic fuel - X Life cycle sustainability assessment of 2 2 2
al., 2021) Technology palm waste synthetic fuels from date palm waste:
application of LCA, S-LCA and LCC
(Hoque et al., Review Product / Transportation X Application of Life Cycle Assessment --- -- --
2018) Technology fuels for Sustainability Evaluation of
Transportation Fuels
(Ekener et al., Method and Product / Transportation X Developing Life Cycle Sustainability 4 ? 1
2018) Case study Technology fuels Assessment methodology by applying
values-based sustainability weighting -
Tested on biomass-based and fossil
transportation fuels
(Valente et al., Case studyProduct / Conventional X Comparative LCSA of hydrogen fuel 2 2 1
2021) Technology and renewable
hydrogen
(Santoyo- Method and Product / Energy systems X Sustainability assessment of energy 10 10 3
Castelazo & Case study Technology systems (coal, oil, natural gas,
Azapagic, 2014) geothermal, biomass, hydropower,
wind turbine, solar, nuclear, wave
energy): integrating environmental,
economic and social aspects
(Liu, 2014) Review Product / Energy systems X Development of general sustainability --- --- ---
Technology indicators for renewable energy
systems
66
2.2. Definition of electric mobility scenarios: use scenarios and actors’ involvement
To enable the development and implementation of an LCSA framework, the work carried out in this
thesis first focused on defining the mobility scenarios to be investigated. In fact, mobility is considered
as a complex system that can potentially extend over a large geographical scale (local, territorial,
national and international) (Gamage, 2011). Such complexity can be explained by the multitude of actors
involved in mobility schemes and the very broad system boundaries (vehicles life cycle, fuel or
electricity production, transportation infrastructures, etc.). This makes it difficult to establish a
methodological framework for sustainability analysis as it involves considering the system life cycle
from the three sustainability dimensions. In this regard, mobility scenarios were carefully defined by
dissecting all the elements included in.
To serve the goal of the present thesis in informing the private and public mobility decision makers
within the shift towards a sustainable mobility, it was necessary to identify the main actors (i.e., involved
and affected by the decision-making process) that are involved in mobility schemes and understand the
nature of the occurring relationships between them. This reasoning made it possible to identify three key
actors that are involved directly within a sustainable mobility transition. They are presented in Figure 9
as well as the connection occurring between them.
- Public actors defining actions to meet the requirements of the energy transition law in the transport
sector (e.g., local authorities) and guidance for local authorities to implement sustainability action
plans and regulations.
- Industrial actors who are bringing to market the technologies needed to provide the transport
service and develop the necessary infrastructure (infrastructure, fuel, and electricity distribution).
- Users choosing among technologies and mobility services those that meet their specific travel needs.
They are not decision makers but directly affected by the mobility decision schemes.
Figure 9 Identified target actors within the sustainability decision-making process of within mobility
67
Policies and strategies developed by public actors are increasingly oriented towards setting mobility
solutions that meet the objectives set in terms of energy transition (Bigo, 2016; Loi-Mobilités-
Présentation du projet de loi d’orientation des mobilités, 2018). In parallel to these decisions, private
actors are adapting their practices to comply with increasingly strict regulations and normative
requirements. Thus, to support the ongoing energy transition, new transportation technologies and
emerging mobility services have burst into the market. However, the associated environmental, and
particularly social and socio-economic impacts are often unknown and subject to weak
regulations.
As for users, they are increasingly aware of sustainability issues related to their choices, which promotes
further the shift towards sustainable mobility patterns. With this regard, private, and public actors are
expected to develop mobility alternatives that meet the users’ expectations in terms of environmental,
social, and economic performances while fulfilling their mobility daily needs. Moreover, the defined
measures and policies to meet the transition goals can have substantial effects on users, mainly in terms
of their travel patterns (Sierzchula et al., 2014). Hence, if users’ expectations and needs in terms of
mobility are not understood, several aspects of societal resistance can occur (i.e., habits, data and
technophobia, etc.) (Zanchi et al. 2018). The needs of transport users must, for this purpose, be
thoroughly analyzed and their perception must be considered at early stages of the decision-
making processes.
To this end, a new feature is introduced to the sustainability assessment framework proposed in this
thesis, which consists of integrating the user's perception into the definition of the assessment method.
Embedding users’ perspective will enable the identification of risks and benefits from the deployment
of electric mobility scenarios. Moreover, the use of such approach should allow decision makers to
account for users’ mobility needs and expectations, which is a key factor to achieve sustainable mobility
and help decision makers to better size and design future transportation schemes. That being said, users
only make a choice based on the availability of transportation alternatives and do not contribute to their
design, so they cannot be considered as decision makers but rather as a key actor. Hence, the system
boundaries were settled in such a way that can serve the objective of analyzing electric mobility
scenarios from a user perspective.
This thesis proposes to define mobility scenarios according to four main elements: (a) vehicle fleet
(including different technologies), (b) transportation energy source (either chemical fuels or electricity)
(c) the required infrastructures and (d) the mobility services (modes of transport), present on a given
geographical area at a territorial, national or international level.
a. Vehicle fleet:
By definition, a vehicle fleet is composed of several vehicles, which can be divided in several segments
and powertrains. For personal passenger’s transport, the vehicles can be classified as: light vehicle
segments (i.e., urban segment A, city cars segment B, mid-range segment C, and high-end segment D)
68
(IFP Energies Nouvelles, 2018; OIE, 2019), sport utility vehicles (SUV), and bus segments. Buses
technologies are in the case of local mobility defined according to two classes of urban areas: class 1
(urban areas with more than 250,000 inhabitants) and class 2 (urban areas with 150,000 to 250,000
inhabitants). It should be noted that electric modes are not present in class 3 (rural areas with fewer than
150,000 inhabitants) (CGEDD et al., 2015). As for the powertrains, they are classified into electric and
conventional transportation technologies (Cerdas, Egede, et Herrmann 2018; Del Duce et al. 2016).
Conventional vehicles (ICEV) powered by petrol (ICEV-p) or diesel (ICEV-d) and natural gas (ICEV-
g) are investigated. Different categories of electric vehicles (EV) can be distinguished depending on the
level of electrification: 100% electric vehicles (BEV), hybrid (HEV), plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV),
and hydrogen vehicles (FCEV).
b. Transportation energy source:
The source of energy powering the vehicle is a determining factor for the environmental impacts. Indeed,
emissions during the use phase remain the most significant ones for conventional vehicles over the
whole life cycle because of the use of fossil fuels. Despite remarkable improvements in the efficiency
of combustion engines over the past decade, and expected ones in the coming years, the energy transition
underway imposes exploring other alternatives for non-renewable energy sources. To this end,
electrification is proving to be an effective solution for reducing the carbon footprint (Bouter et al.,
2020). However, the potential of EVs to reduce the environmental footprint of transportation is
conditioned to the use of an electricity mix with low environmental impacts. It is therefore important to
account for the environmental impacts linked to the production and consumption of the two types of
energy sources powering the vehicles, namely electricity and fuel. Moreover, the impacts, of the broad
range of electric vehicle technologies that are gaining importance in the vehicle market, still need to be
carefully investigated. The level of electrification (i.e., hybrid, full hybrid, fuel cell, etc.), the size of the
vehicles, battery technology, all seem to be important parameters to be considered within LCA of
transportation technologies (Sacchi et al., 2021). The energy source can also generate significant social
and socio-economic impacts. The extraction of raw materials, often in non-OECD countries, is likely to
be a hotspot zone with high social risks for the different stakeholders (i.e., working conditions, healthy
and safe living conditions, employment, geopolitical risks, conflicts, etc.) (OECD, 2021). To this end,
the shift to electric mobility should be supported by consistent social impact assessment approaches to
contribute to better informed decisions.
c. Transportation infrastructures
Transportation infrastructures include road’s construction and maintenance, as well as all the related
infrastructures for the energy powering sources (i.e., charging infrastructures). Within a massive
development of electric mobility, several studies have analyzed their relative impacts on the electricity
network from a sustainability perspective (Bueno et al., 2015; RTE, 2015; Arshad et al., 2021; Hosny
et al., 2021). Such studies are key to ensure a balance of electricity supply and demand, and to investigate
69
the potential socio-economic impacts in a long-term perspective. Furthermore, an economic analysis

can be performed to determine the costs of deployment and use, as well as the generated profits (RTE,
2017a). Nevertheless, charging infrastructures are still poorly addressed within LCA studies and the
impacts related to their production and use are thus still unrevealed (Z. Zhang et al., 2019). This aspect
should be further analyzed within three-sustainability dimensions.
d. Mobility services
The mobility of people is first and foremost a social need related to the movement of passengers from
point A to point B, enabling them to carry out their daily activities (work, leisure, supply, etc.). Users’
mobility needs are fulfilled by different mobility services including collective, personal, and shared
transportation modes. These services have different characteristics and do not necessarily meet the same
criteria that passengers set in terms of cost, comfort, travel time, etc. In this regard, it is necessary to
account for mobility services and their synergies with electric vehicle technologies in urban areas.
In view of the four elements defined above, Figure 10 illustrates the three mobility scenarios that were
established to be analyzed through the LCSA framework proposed in this thesis, including an assessment
from the users’ perspective. Three scenarios are analyzed, corresponding to: scenario 1 “collective
mobility”, scenario 2 “personal mobility”, scenario 3 “shared mobility”.
Figure 10: the considered mobility scenarios along the 4 elements (technologies, services, transportation
infrastructures and energy sources) defined within this thesis
The three defined scenarios are analyzed for an urban area to enable the investigation of the
sustainability of both vehicle technologies and mobility services within the context of a short-distance
passenger’s transportation. The interest in considering a local mobility scenario can be summarized in
the following key points:
70
- 95% of GHG emissions come from road transport, 56% of which are associated with passenger
transport versus 43% for freight transport (CGDD, 2019).
- Individual passenger transport accounts for 80% of road transport and is the main source of transport
impacts (CGDD, 2021).
- 98% of French people's trips are short-distance trips (less than 80 km).
- Modal shift combined with electric vehicle technologies may be an opportunity to reduce the
environmental footprint of transport, as stated in the existing prospective scenarios (Bigo, 2020).
Within the implementation LCSA framework, it is important to ensure that the covered system
boundaries, as well as the geographical and temporal scales, are coherent for all three sustainability
dimensions (Valdivia et al., 2021). Such constraints directly affect the feasibility of the general
framework, since the current development of S-LCA and LCC may not allow to cover a similar
level of detail as that of the environmental LCA. To this end, the implementation of the developed
approach in this thesis was narrowed down to ensure the coherence of the assessment according to data
availability. Hence, the analysis focuses on the French context. Thus, the French electricity mix was
considered for powering electric vehicles with respect to the most updated values for the input and output
flows. A mid-size vehicle technology is considered for both personal and shared mobility scenarios, as
for public transport use, the available generic data was used to model bus technologies. The conducted
research does not assess prospective mobility scenarios since the analysis is performed following an
attributional LCA model. Hence, the results do not cover the potential evolution of environmental, social
and economic impacts over time (e.g., evolution of battery technologies, materials supply, cost
projections, geopolitical situations).
3. Designing a comprehensive LCSA methodological framework

With the ambition of designing an LCSA framework, this thesis focuses on how the three LCA
approaches could be brought together in a comprehensive method. Such framework should ensure the
connectedness between the impact assessment approaches for the three sustainability dimensions. In
addition, a thorough interpretation of results is required to provide decision makers with insight on the
sustainability performance of products and services. This requires adopting an interdimensional analysis
of the environmental, social and economic impact assessment results. Moreover, the present thesis
explores the potential of participatory approaches to improve stakeholders’ involvement from the
sustainability analysis to the decision-making process.
The development of a consistent method for sustainability assessment requires considering a set of key
features that can be structured within the four phases recommended in ISO standards (Finkbeiner et al.,
2006; Valdivia & Lie, 2012). The following paragraphs describe each of the four phases that need to be
considered within LCSA with respect to the three sustainability pillars. Key features to be addressed and
71
the challenges to overcome are thus highlighted in accordance with the defined LCSA principles by
Valdivia et al., (2021).
Phase 1: Definition of the objective and scope of the study
The UNEP/SETAC guidelines for LCSA (Valdivia & Lie, 2012) recommend defining a common
objective when conducting an LCSA. In fact, LCA, S-LCA, and LCC can have different objectives that
could be reflected on the key features of this stage. Hence, the LCSA study should ensure that the models
and assumptions are appropriate for the three dimensions:
- Functional unit: LCSA requires that characterization factors are linked to life cycle inventories
through a common functional unit for all three dimensions. For example, in the case of S-LCA, the
functional unit consists of describing both the technical function and the product utility (Traverso et
al., 2015) which is not necessarily the case for environmental LCA or LCC.
- System boundaries: as stated by Valdivia & Lie (2012), LCSA requires adopting a global vision
of the three sustainability dimensions when defining the system boundaries in order to identify the
different issues that may represent significant impacts. Each of the three dimensions entails
addressing relevant impact categories. As a result, life cycle stages and their corresponding process
activities should be carefully selected according to their relevance for the three pillars. For example,
the purchase and vehicles’ acquisition can be of major importance from a socio-economic point of
view, while the link with the relative environmental impacts are not evident to draw. Indeed, factors
such as the availability of charging stations or their adaptability to the types of charging required
for BEV technologies (type 1, 2, 3) can slow down the development of electric mobility and its
social acceptance.
- Impact categories: the previous step makes it possible to identify the potential impact categories
considering the three dimensions and the different life cycle stages. In addition, identification of
stakeholder groups is necessary at this stage to allow the identification of social impact categories
to be evaluated through S-LCA. Considering different stakeholders’ perceptions is recommended
by several studies in this step (Santoyo-Castelazo & Azapagic, 2014; Zamagni et al., 2013).
Phase 2 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for LCSA
In this step, it is advisable to consider both the interactions between the different unit processes of the
evaluated product system and the organizational aspects (certifications and system management) to
achieve consistency among the three techniques (environmental LCA, S-LCA, LCC). Data availability
and its accessibility are two limiting factors for S-LCA and consequently for the LCSA. As explained,
the existing databases for S-LCA are only compatible with Type I impact assessment approaches and
provide generic data following the country specific sector concept. Hence, when choosing to perform a
combined LCSA, the current databases for S-LCA are not coherent with LCSA characterization models
used within IP S-LCIA and use the reference scales instead. A generic database for LCSA named
72
“SOCA” is under development since 2018, relying on the "ecoinvent" and "PSILCA" databases and
aiming to be usable in OpenLCA (Del Duce et al., 2016b; Eisfeldt et al., 2017; Maister et al., 2020).
Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment in LCSA
The impact assessment entails the calculation of the input and output flows based on the collected data
in phase 2 for the defined environmental, social and economic impact categories. As previously stated,
the impact assessment approaches are different from one sustainability dimension to another. Hence,
major methodological issues are raised in this step. Two potential pathways to design the impact
assessment phase are identified for this purpose. Pathway (1) seeks to establish a combined LCSA
methodology by developing coherent life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches. This pathway
calls for the development of characterization models for each dimension, in consistency with a cause-
effect chain “impact pathway”, as it is the case for the environmental dimension. On the other hand,
pathway (2) allows an individual application of the three LCIA techniques and integrates other
complementary techniques to support the decision-making process in the results’ interpretation phase.
In this thesis, both pathways were explored, and their respective challenges were identified to define the
most appropriate approach to be followed within the development of LCSA framework. Both pathways
are thus explained in the coming sections 3.2. and 3.3.
Phase 4: Interpretation of Results in LCSA
This phase involves expanding the view to cover all three dimensions when interpreting the results to
identify the life cycle phases that are contributing the most to impacts. Process activities and their
corresponding geographical area can also be traced back to allow pathways for sustainability
performance improvement to be identified. However, as explained in the introduction chapter, the
interpretation step of LCSA is very challenging due to the multitude of impact categories to be
considered within the three LCA methods. Such statement was confirmed by the literature review of
LCSA studies conducted in this PhD thesis (table 1, section 2.1), which proved that only a limited
number of environmental, social, and economic impact categories were usually considered to facilitate
the interpretation of the results. They can be selected depending on their relevance for the goal and scope
of the study. However, consistent methods for selecting sustainability criteria are still needed. Moreover,
combined interpretation of LCSA results often pose trade-off issues, which can be limiting factor for
using LCSA to support decision-making. In this regard, the current PhD thesis explores how to tackle
the challenges related to the results’ interpretation phase of sustainability assessment.
3.1. Pathway (1): A combined life cycle sustainability impact assessment methodology
The first identified pathway comprises, in accordance with ISO standards (Finkbeiner et al., 2006), the
classification and characterization of impacts included in a set of analyzed impact categories. Such
framework is based on the environmental LCIA phase, which requires converting the environmental
input and output flows assigned in midpoint impact categories into common units through
characterization factors. Within a sustainability impact assessment, analogous characterization models
73
should be developed for S-LCA and LCC. Such models are illustrated in Figure 11, which highlights
the main steps of the impact assessment phase (i.e., classification, characterization, and weighting).
Figure 11 Combined life cycle sustainability impacts assessment: key features and challenges
When choosing the pathway of a combined LCSA method, characterization models for the social and
economic dimensions will have to be compatible with the characterization models in the environmental
LCA to ensure a consistent method. In this regard, the so-called "Type II" impact assessment approaches
appear to be the most appropriate to analyze the social impact subcategories (Valdivia & Lie, 2012;
Ekener et al., 2018). However, the use of impact pathway model-based approaches (IP-SLCIA) requires
characterization models that are still at an early stage of development. Although several studies have
attempted to develop these models, impact subcategories are still far from being totally covered and the
stakeholder categories that are fundamental for S-LCA are not all addressed (Neugebauer et al., 2014).
Moreover, it should be noted that the impact assessment in LCC follows a different approach than the
one in environmental LCA and S-LCA, when accounting solely for direct costs. In case of considering
economic indicators such as “value-added indicator”, characterization models for LCC should be
developed in accordance with the overall methodology.
74
The lack of characterization models is associated with the difficulty of defining a common functional
unit for different social and socio-economic impact subcategories but also in common with the other
sustainability dimensions. In addition, being limited to working hours or wages as an activity variable,
only part of the impacts on the category of workers can be reflected (Dreyer et al., 2010). As a result,
other stakeholder groups cannot be evaluated yet, as no correlation exist with the workers’ activity
variable. Such evaluation is essential to fulfill the objective of this thesis. In this regard, more maturity
is needed for the social impact categories characterization. This requires developing economic indicators
to be integrated in a combined impact assessment model for LCSA (Neugebauer et al., 2016).
3.2. The limits of a combined sustainability impact assessment within LCSA
Given the multiple challenges that were identified and discussed in the previous sections, it was
concluded that gaining more knowledge on characterization models specific to S-LCA and LCC is
crucial to conduct a combined impact assessment in LCSA. This lack of knowledge paved the way to
question the whole framework in this PhD thesis. In view of the highlighted methodological issues for
developing a combined sustainability impact assessment approach, a question has arisen: Are S-LCA
and LCC characterization models essential to ensure the harmonization of LCSA?
Although the need for an integrated sustainability assessment is undeniable, it is arguable whether the
development of specific characterization models is adequate for each of the three sustainability
dimensions or not. In fact, the three sustainability pillars address different types of information
corresponding to material and energy flows for the environmental dimension, social sensitive flows
related to stakeholder groups for the social dimension and finally monetary flows for the economic
dimension. This highly variable nature should be considered to enable a consistent analysis of results
and avoid missing significant impact categories due to the lack of a coherent methodological
development.
As explained in the previous sections, environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC have different backgrounds
and are not at the same level of development and implementation. So far, efforts have focused on
adapting S-LCA and LCC to the existing LCA method for environmental impact evaluation. This can
be explained by the fact that primary audience and practitioners for these techniques were environmental
LCA experts (UNEP, 2020). Hence, careful attention should be accorded when adopting the same matrix
to analyze social and socio-economic impact categories. In fact, this can lead to some serious shortages
while evaluating sustainability, which usually requires considering indicators that cannot be quantified
and projected on cause-effect relationships. As a result, the present thesis explores an alternative
methodological pathway to allow the design of a comprehensive LCSA method implemented to electric
mobility scenarios.
75
3.3. Pathway (2): the proposed LCSA framework: environmental, social, and economic
LCIA approaches
The identified pathway (2) adopted in this PhD thesis aims to design a global sustainability method
using a separate assessment of LCIA approaches for each of the three dimensions. Such structure is
illustrated in Figure 12. The aim is to use approaches that fit the nature of each sustainability dimension
thus, allowing the evaluation of all significant impact categories. For this purpose, the main
methodological aspects related to the three-life cycle-based methods are addressed, as well as
requirements for conducting a coherent LCSA framework regarding the system boundaries and the
functional unit.
Figure 12 The designed LCSA framework: key features and challenges to be addressed
As reflected in the first research question of this thesis, limitations related to S-LCA and LCC
implementation should be solved to allow the design of a comprehensive sustainability evaluation
method. Results for each sustainability dimension should be sufficiently consistent and representative
to support the decision-making process. Although environmental LCA has been widely implemented to
analyze different mobility scenarios, a global S-LCA framework that addresses both mobility
technologies and services is still lacking. In addition, LCC is implemented at the technologies’ level yet,
the mobility services are still not clearly addressed. To overcome these limitations, the following sub-
targets have been fixed:
- Environmental dimension: Based on the defined mobility scenarios, a systematic approach is
proposed to integrate a parametrized LCA model for mobility technologies allowing thus to enhance
representativeness of the multiple technological aspects that may influence the results. The main
influent parameters on the environmental impacts are identified as well as the potential
environmental impacts of the three considered electric mobility scenarios.
76
- Social dimension: A step-by-step S-LCA framework is proposed ensuring a consistent social and
socio-economic evaluation of electric mobility scenarios. Reference Scale-based Social Life Cycle
Impact Assessment (RS-SLCIA) approaches are adopted to allow accounting for the different
stakeholder groups that could be involved or affected from the value chain of the evaluated product
system. The adapted framework for S-LCA includes a novel participatory approach that allows
stakeholders’ perception to be accounted for in order to select the most relevant social and socio-
economic subcategories for the evaluation. In addition, a set of specific indicators are defined in
accordance with a user-centric vision adopted in this thesis. Specific social and socio-economic
indicators and their calculation methods are therefore developed for electric mobility scenarios to
enhance potential impacts’ assessment for users’ stakeholder group. This additional step in the
impact assessment phase allows thus mobility services (i.e., personal, public and shared
transportation) to be analyzed from a user’s perspective.
- Economic dimension: several techniques are studied in terms of their relevance with respect to the
defined methodological framework for sustainability evaluation including conventional Life Cycle
Costing (LCC), environmental LCC and societal LCC. In line with the goal of the study, this chapter
suggests the key steps to be conducted in accordance with ISO standards when performing an
economic assessment of mobility scenarios. To enable the user-centric vision within LCC, a Total
Cost of Ownership (TCO) technique is adopted and applied to different transportation technologies
from the users’ point of view. The evaluation phase is, thus, complemented by a service costs
calculation for each of the mobility services through a user-centric approach.
4. Tackling trade-off management challenges in LCSA through MCDA

approaches
Following the separate application of impact assessment approaches, an important question rises
regarding the interpretation phase, which is also the main challenge associated to this second pathway.
In fact, the three LCA techniques deliver separate multidimensional results (potential environmental
impacts, social risk or performance and cost categories), as presented in Figure 13, which induce trade-
offs’ management. A straightforward interpretation of LCSA results is insufficient to guide decisions in
view of the complexity of the systems studied on the one hand, and the divergence of sustainability
dimensions on the other. Results from environmental, social, and economic pillars can present
heterogenous and sometimes contradictory performances.
77
Figure 13 Illustration of trade-off management within LCSA interpretation step
Regarding this type of multi-criteria problem, LCSA outcomes can only set compromises between
impact categories and among the sustainability dimensions. Hence, guiding the choice of decision-
makers turns out to be complex. Further techniques are necessary to go beyond a simple or even partial
representation of sustainability. This issue is directly connected to the second research question seeking
to inform the decision-making process in the ongoing shift of the transport sector. This requires handling
the induced compromises from LCSA results. In this regard, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)
approaches for a thorough interpretation of LCSA results within a comprehensive LCSA framework. In
fact, MCDA approaches are recognized as the most effective decision-making tools to handle the
induced compromises from multicriteria problems. Moreover, they were used in a substantial number
of studies dealing with transportation sustainability (Macharis et al., 2009; Barfod, 2018; R. Zhang &
Zhao, 2018; Nalmpantis et al., 2019; Brusselaers et al., 2021; Gompf et al., 2021).
MCDA includes a set of approaches that seek to support decision-making problems that call for trade-
offs’ management. To this end, MCDA enables accounting for multiple criteria, decision scenarios and
involved actors in the decision-making scheme, with the aim to compare and/or select the most
appropriate alternatives (Cinelli et al., 2014). These can be very relevant within the context of
sustainability analysis allowing thus to tackle the challenges that are likely to raise during the
interpretation of results phase.
Within the current thesis, the design of a comprehensive LCSA framework is conducted through an
individual application of LCIA approaches of the three sustainability dimensions. Thus, to support the
results’ interpretation phase, MCDA approaches are explored and introduced to support the decision-
making process while accounting for a given actor’s perspective. To serve this end, the following sub-
targets have been settled:
✓ Identification of the different multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) approaches to allow an

effective interpretation of LCSA results.
78
✓ Establishment of a step-by-step procedure that covers the definition of the decision scenario,
the selection of sustainability criteria and the involvement of stakeholders in the overall
framework.
✓ Implementation of the proposed methodological framework integrating MCDA with LCSA is
applied to a specific case study of electric mobility scenarios from a user’s perspective. This
section application seeks to check the consistency of the overall proposed framework by
narrowing down the scope to a specific geographical context and mobility commuting travel.
Later on, a discussion is provided on the generalization and application of the method to
embed other actors’ perspectives and other mobility scenarios.
4.1. MCDA approaches to support the LCSA Interpretation of results
Despite the undeniable progress of research in this field, most of the authors still highlight the difficulties
to define “the most appropriate” MCDA approach (Guitouni & Martel, 1998; Cinelli et al., 2014;
Wątróbski et al., 2019). Such statement is also reflected within studies that attempted to integrate MCDA
approaches to LCSA (He-Hua et al., 2018; Tarne, Lehmann, & Finkbeiner, 2019; Arshad et al., 2021).
In fact, these studies have used different MCDA techniques, yet no clear reporting of the actual reasons
and motivations for the choices were given. Hence, two questions were raised in the thesis at this stage:
✓ What are the different MCDA approaches that can be used to support LCSA framework?
✓ What is the most appropriate technique to support the decision-making process within LCSA of
electric mobility scenarios while accounting for users’ needs and expectations?
In accordance with Cinelli et al. (2014), the literature review reveals a consensus on three categories of
MCDA approaches. These three categories have been summarized in the following paragraphs by
describing the corresponding approaches:
a. Utility-based approaches
This first type regroups the most widely used MCDA approaches to handle decision-making issues from
sustainability analysis studies (Macharis et al., 2009; Cinelli et al., 2014; Mohd Safian & Nawawi, 2011;
Garrido Fernández, 2018; Gompf et al., 2021). They consist of aggregating a set of criteria by directly
converting them into a single criterion. Such approaches usually call for participatory methods that
involve decision makers to perform the weighting of criteria through a scoring system that expresses the
levels of performance. There is a broad range of approaches that use this utility-based theory, namely
analytical hierarchy process (AHP), method of the weighted sum (Rowley et al., 2012; Majumder,
2015), multi-attribute utility theory , etc.
79
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), since its development by R. W. Saaty, (1987), has been widely
adopted in view of its easiness of implementation (Cinelli et al., 2014). In addition, it was supported by
several tools and software that have fostered its application (Goepel, 2018). Such approach uses a
pairwise comparison of criteria and their sub-criteria in a hierarchical manner to evaluate the different
alternatives that arise by comparing the alternatives in pairs (T. L. Saaty, 1989). First, sub-criteria are
reduced to a single criterion based on a set of weighting factors. Subsequently, the weights of each
criterion and alternative are calculated. For n =3 criteria, a binary comparison of (C1/C2) (C1/C3) (C2/C3)
allows us to develop weighting factors relative to each of the criteria (wc). We thus constitute the
following matrix (Table 2):
Table 2 Decision criteria matrix and weighting factors calculation (R. W. Saaty, 1987)
𝐶1 𝐶2 𝐶3 Weighting factors
𝐶1 1 𝑤12 𝑤13 𝑤12 ∗ 𝑤13
𝑛
𝐶2 𝑤21 1 𝑤23 𝑤21 ∗ 𝑤23
𝑛
𝐶3 𝑤31 𝑤32 1 𝑤31 ∗ 𝑤32
𝑛
b. Outranking-based methods
The second type of MCDA approaches identified from the literature corresponds to methods that use
preference aggregations and focus on the alternatives. They can also use pairwise comparisons that
considers over-ranking through an actor value choice. For example, ELECTRE approach which stands
for “elimination and choice expressing the reality” is structured over four elements determining the
preference score of the alternatives (i.e., elementary binary relations, indifference, preference, weak)
(Roy & Vanderpooten, 1996; Kaya & Kahraman, 2011). This type of approach is relevant for cases
where the decision criteria cannot be aggregated in a single criterion. In fact, they allow accounting for
criteria with exogenous nature by assessing the preference models from a set of proposed alternatives
and avoid direct aggregation of the criteria (Jacquet-Lagrèze & Siskos, 2001). Similarly to ELECTRE
approaches, the preference ranking organization method for the enrichment of evaluation
(PROMETHEE) also uses the outranking method to calculate the relative importance.
c. Decision-making utility methods
The third type of MCDA approaches that were identified are “data oriented” approaches. These
techniques allow the assessment of a set of decision scenarios through decision-making units (Cooper
et al., 2004). Data Envelopment analysis (DEA) calls for multiple scenarios’ analysis to identify those
who meet the maximum number of settled decision criteria with a satisfying level of performance.
Vázquez-Rowe & Iribarren, (2015) have coupled such technique with environmental LCA to identify
the most environmentally performant scenarios. However, it should be noted that these approaches are
80
based on empirical observations and do not integrate the different actors’ perspectives into the overall
decision-making framework. It seemed for this reason that it is not the most appropriate option in the
present thesis as the goal is to consider users’ perspective in terms of their needs and expectations.
Moreover, a significant amount of information is needed to support the data analysis as the method
requires accounting for a high number of scenarios to enable an exhaustive assessment.
4.2. The designed framework for the introduction of MCDA to LCSA
To answer the defined sub-targets, this section entails the introduction of an MCDA technique to the
overall proposed LCSA framework. Such methodological contribution seeks to support the
interpretation of LCSA results, individually obtained for each dimension, and thus help inform decision
makers on the sustainability issues while accounting for users’ needs and expectations. The designed
framework includes four main steps, illustrated in Figure 14 and further explained step-by-step in the
subsequent paragraphs.
Figure 14 The main steps for the application of an MCDA technique to LCSA global framework
4.2.1. Definition of the decision-making scenario

This first step includes the definition of the alternatives and the concerned actors within the specific
decision-making scenario. The alternatives represent here the scenarios evaluated through LCSA for
which the results need to be analyzed from a sustainability perspective. The geographical, social and
political context also need to be defined.
81
Target actors could be identified depending on the nature of their involvement in the decision scenarios
and their relevance for the goal and scope of the study.
4.2.2. Definition of sustainability decision-making criteria
In this second step, decision-making criteria are identified and selected to perform the MCDA. Three
main steps are proposed in this thesis.
a. Definition of sustainability decision-making criteria: an approach is proposed for actors’

involvement within this step, in order to identify relevant criteria. The criteria considered when
applying MCDA should also reflect the needs and the expectations together with sustainability
impact categories to enable better representativeness of the actual decision-making scenario. In this
regard, different consultation methods can be used to collect the needed information. In this thesis,
a direct citation method, based on a focus group is used, allowing the actors to express their needs.
Actors are therefore asked to generate the largest possible number of environmental, social and
economic criteria that could affect their decisions and thus, guide their preferences and choices in
terms of the considered scenarios. The brainstorming is conducted for each sustainability criterion
individually and classified into three main categories.
b. Hierarchization of actors’ priority for decision criteria: the involved actors are asked, in the
second part of the focus group, to prioritize the established list in step (a) for each sustainability
dimension. The aim is to select a limited number of decision criteria that would allow the
implementation of the MCDA technique.
a. Normalization and definition of sustainability performance scales: The final step of the
decision-criteria definition consists of the attribution of the performance scales in order to prepare
data for the conjoint analysis. Impact categories that were previously evaluated through
environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC are used to compare the different alternatives through
sustainability performance scales. The application of CA requires two main elements: the attributes
that correspond to sustainability criteria in the considered use case, and their variation levels. In this
thesis three levels of performance are defined (favorable performance to unfavorable performance).
These scales are determined according with the geographical context of the study, the regulation
level for each of the impact categories used, and the specific characteristics of the considered
decision scenario. It is also important to note that other types of scales could be used depending on
the objective of the study (e.g., risk levels).
4.2.3. Selection and application of the MCDA approach to LCSA
In this section, the advantages and disadvantages of the identified three categories of MCDA approaches
presented in section 4.1 are discussed. The aim is to select the most relevant MCDA approach to deal
with different LCSA impact categories and to involve stakeholders’ views, namely users’ needs and
expectations in terms of mobility, within the framework. Prior studies have provided guidance on how
82
to select the most appropriate MCDA technique depending on the specific features investigated and can,
thus, be used to support this step (Guarini et al., 2018; Wątróbski et al., 2019).
One of the key features of MCDA approaches rely on the value choices introduced to determine the
weighting factors of the considered decision criteria. Although this participatory nature of MCDA
approaches is likely to be the most accurate for simulating real-world decision-making scenarios, it may
also involve a number of limitations. In fact, depending on the type of MCDA approach used in the
study, the involved actors and decision-makers might be expected to have a knowledge of the criteria
under study and the issues that may be involved. This is the case for pairwise comparison studies, where
the actors are asked to directly rank/compare and/or select the most representative criteria and aggregate
them into a single criterion. Such approach can lead to compensation among the sustainability
dimensions thus, misleading of the actual performance of each of the decision criteria, especially when
considering the three pillars.
One of the main challenges of these approaches is to define the decision-making factors that may vary
from one actor to another and that are not necessarily homogeneous. It is therefore necessary to
identify these factors through an analysis of needs and interests for each category of actor.
The chosen method is based on the scoring of preferences by the involved actor perspective instead of
weighting the criteria directly. This makes it possible to create different combinations of the selected
criteria based on their scales of variations. In fact, such approach can be very relevant to avoid a pairwise
comparison of the different sustainability criteria which often requires high knowledge of the magnitude
of impacts and induce a high uncertainty. Hence, no direct scoring is requested from the decision makers
for criteria that they sometimes do not fully master, but simply exposes the different existing possibilities
reflecting sustainability performances of the underlying product or service. This method seems to be
relevant in the context of sustainability analysis in view of the variable nature of the impact categories
and the various compromises that are likely to occur. However, a high number of criteria will lead to a
very high number of combinations. Thus, it is required to reduce the number of criteria to ensure the
feasibility of the method. The following section describes the chosen MCDA approach adapted to the
LCSA framework developed in this research, together with its relative features and key steps.
Conjoint Analysis based on a preference analysis
The Conjoint Analysis (CA) method is based on a statistical approach of preference analysis used to
develop weighting factors and to identify the relative importance of the constituent attributes (the
criteria). It is recognized for its ability to address trade-off issues where the choice is complex because
each criterion or attribute is characterized by variable specifications (v1, v2, ..., vn). It therefore calls for
combinations of these variants which the actors can rank according to their preferences.
83
Figure 15 Representation of conjoint analysis method in the case of sustainability trade-offs management:
environmental, social and socio-economic and costs decision criteria
As illustrated in Figure15Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable., the conjoint analysis entails the
implementation of the following steps:
a. Development of combinations (or profiles): it consists of building up a whole set of possible
profiles based on the defined decision criteria and their corresponding variants. The total number
of combinations thus, depends on the fixed number of decision criteria and the number of variants
associated to each criterion.
b. Preference ranking: consists of determining the rating value to be assigned to each of the
combinations according to the preferences of the considered actor’s perspective.
c. Preference analysis: allows the determination of the weighting factors according to the chosen
method, either through a ranking of the different combinations or through a choice-based conjoint.
A preference analysis based on the scoring-order method consists of a ranking of the defined
combinations according to the considered actor’s perspective, namely users in this study. One of the
problems of this approach is the high number of possible combinations, which calls into question the
practicality and ease of the method. As an alternative, the choice-based conjoint method can be used.
CBC allows the reduction of the number of defined combinations by eliminating those who are not
accurate for the real-world scenarios (either too weak performance or excessively high performance).
Thus, CBC analysis enables the development of weighting factors expressing the relative importance
of each decision criterion through a more restricted selection of combinations or profiles. In fact, the
concerned actor is here asked to choose between a selection of profiles representing variable
performances of the defined decision criteria.
84
The Conjoint Analysis (CA) has been used in the transport sector, since the very beginning of its
application. Louviere, (1988) reviewed the existing literature on this subject. Indeed, several researchers
were interested in the potential of this approach to study users’ mobility patterns and better understand
the drivers of their purchase decisions. Based on realistic models, these approaches allow the
experimental design of a set of alternatives compiled from combinations of different criteria (travel cost,
travel time, etc.).
Since Louviere's publication (1988), several studies sought to apply conjoint analysis to improve the
decision-making process. Table 2 provides brief insight on the case studies, the geographical scope, the
sampling size together with the used approach for the data collection and the selected decision criteria,
called attributes within the CA framework. (K. Lebeau et al., 2012a) investigated the market potential
for plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles in Flanders. The data were derived from a large survey
conducted in 2011. The explored approach was the "Choice Based-Conjoint" (CBC) technique, which
uses discrete choice models to collect users’ preferences. Respondents were asked to select a product
(based on defined combinations of features) that best meets their needs. This increases the
representativeness of the sample by getting closer to the real-world situations. Among several decision
criteria (purchase cost, recharging time, availability of recharging infrastructure, autonomy) identified
through the bibliography, the authors selected three major criteria (purchase price, maximum speed, and
autonomy). (P. Lebeau et al., 2016) also used the CBC approach to investigate the potential of electric
vehicles to support sustainability in logistics. The selection of attributes was considered one of the most
critical steps. In a study carried out by Tarne, Lehmann, & Finkbeiner (2019) weighting factors were
defined for three different sustainability criteria through the Conjoint Analysis method. This work was
carried out on electric motors to support manufacturers in the decision-making process.
References Themes & objective of Sampling & Method & considered criteria
the case study geographical area
K. Market for electric Flanders, Belgium Face-to-face interviews for attributes
Lebeau et vehicles (BEV) and plug- 2037 persons (over selection,
al. (2012) in hybrids (HEV, PHEV): 18 years old) of 8 attributes (purchase cost, annual
User preferences for which 1197 provided cost/year, trip cost/100 km, recharge
purchasing vehicles complete responses. time, range (km), average speed
(speed, charging time, Data from a national (km/h), brand image quality.
cost, etc.) survey in 2011. Surveys: options to rank
P. Exploring the EV market Belgium CBC Approach

Lebeau, for logistics: identification Transport companies 10 questions
Macharis of the main located in the capital 6 attributes (range, charging time,
et Van factors/barriers for the Brussels environmental performance, vehicle
Mierlo development of electric Sample 427 of which type, purchase price, operating cost)
(2016) mobility 128 accepted to
answer, of which
only 45 were usable
85
(Tarne, GMP: Germany

3 attributes (3 levels of
Lehmann Automotive 54 transportation
specifications: risks)
, & manufacturers' 27 combinations → Preferences
users (industrial
Finkbein preferences in terms of managers)
analysis: ranking
er, 2019) environmental, social and Definition of KO criteria by
economic performance of respondents
products Individual interviews
(20/30 min)
(Li et al., Public preferences for China: Beijing, 3 main issues: knowledge of
2020) government-initiated EV Shanghai, Nanjing, incentives, preferences, individuals’
incentives. Guangzhou, data (profiles, social class)
Hangzhou, and Hefei 4 attributes (purchase costs,
1039 people registration, operation, recharge).
Table 2 Identified case studies implementing the Conjoint Analysis with a focus on mobility scenarios
4.2.4. Interpretation of results

This last stage of the defined framework entails the use of the defined weighting factors in the previous
step to analyze the different decision scenarios from a sustainability perspective. The aim is to determine
the alternatives that are most respectful for the settled sustainability performance scales and those that
are ranked as the most important alternatives by the users. This stage can also include a validation of the
used data and techniques through a critical review which analyzes the accuracy of the developed and
implemented framework to decision-making process.
5. Conclusions of the chapter

Sustainability analysis has been widely covered in the literature review. Different methods and tools are
proposed and experimented. These are targeting objects with variable natures and scales. In particular,
LCA approaches are widely recognized as the most effective techniques allowing the evaluation of
impacts from the extraction of raw materials to the end of life of products and services.
Although LCA has been adapted to each sustainability dimension, there is still a significant research gap
in S-LCA and LCC as they raise substantial methodological challenges, whereas environmental LCA
has a higher level of maturity. Such challenges are reflected in the impact assessment phase, which calls
for the consideration of different features, namely stakeholder categories, in S-LCA and monetary values
in LCC. This is even more important to be considered when a sustainability analysis is conducted
through LCSA. Herein, the coherence of the three impact assessment approaches may be a critical issue.
When conducting an LCSA, other issues are to be solved, mainly in the results interpretation phase. The
heterogenous nature of the three LCA techniques induce variable results, namely environmental
quantitative impacts for LCA, social performance or social risks for S-LCA, and monetary values for
LCC. Such multidimensional results can induce trade-offs problems and require multicriteria analysis
to support decision makers compare the scenarios in terms of sustainability and select the most
86
appropriate ones. Moreover, despite the important role stakeholders play in sustainability decision-
making process, few studies have attempted to address their involvement within early stages of the
design of LCSA.
The current thesis focuses on evaluating sustainable electric mobility scenarios. Two research questions
were formalized in the introduction chapter; RQ1 targeting the design of sustainability analysis through
LCSA and RQ2 exploring how LCSA results can support the decision-making in the context of electric
mobility while integrating the users’ perspective.
To provide insight into these two research questions, a comprehensive methodological framework for
LCSA was proposed. Such framework relies on a separate assessment of the environmental, social and
economic dimension through LCA, S-LCA and LCC. With respect to the objective of this thesis, the
present chapter settled three mobility scenarios to be analyzed for passengers’ transportation, namely
personal, public and shared mobility scenarios with a special focus on electric vehicle technologies.
These scenarios aim to analyze not only the effectiveness of electric mobility – by covering
transportation technologies – but also the mobility services. Such vision is expected to better address
user-related impacts in the context of mobility and thus contribute to the ongoing shift towards
sustainable mobility while accounting for their needs and expectations.
To address the above-mentioned methodological challenges, a comprehensive LCSA framework has

been proposed in this chapter. It relies on the use of a separate application of impact assessment
approaches of environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC to the defined scenarios and on the interpretation
of LCSA results using MCDA techniques. The developed framework enables thus the heterogeneous
nature of each sustainability dimension to be considered by selecting the most appropriate impact
assessment approach depending on the goal and scope of the study. Hence, the main four phases of
LCSA are defined with respect to the key features of each sustainability dimension. The implementation
of the framework for the environmental, social and economic dimensions is addressed separately in the
next chapters.
Regarding the implementation of MCDA, this chapter has settled four steps guiding LCSA practitioners
in: (1) the definition of the decision scenarios, (2) the definition of sustainability decision criteria, (3)
the selection and application of a relevant MCDA technique and (4) the interpretation of LCSA results.
These steps are further implemented in a case study (Chapter 6) to analyze the obtained results from
each sustainability evaluation.
The Conjoint Analysis method is selected among different other MCDA techniques due to its ability to
deal with results of attributes rather than a direct weighting of sustainability criteria. Moreover, such
technique is also relevant to address the users’ perspective by proposing a set of different profiles
(scenarios) that are most accurate to the real-world scenario.
87
The overall framework is implemented (chapter 6 of this thesis), on a case study for daily commuting
travels. Users’ preferences are integrated to the defined LCSA framework to select the most relevant
sustainability criteria and their preferences are analyzed through the conjoint analysis. The applicability
of the comprehensive LCSA framework coupling MCDA to results interpretation is further investigated.
6. References
Aparcana, S., & Salhofer, S. (2013). Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment
of recycling systems in low income countries: Three Peruvian case studies. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(5), 1116–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0559-
3
Arshad, H., Thaheem, M. J., Bakhtawar, B., & Shrestha, A. (2021). Evaluation of Road Infrastructure
Projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability-Based Decision-Making Approach. Sustainability, 13(7),
3743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073743
Arvidsson, R. (2019). On the use of ordinal scoring scales in social life cycle assessment. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(3), 604–606.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1557-2
Asiedu, Y., & Gu, P. (1998). Product life cycle cost analysis: State of the art review. International
Journal of Production Research, 36(4), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075498193444
Bachmann, T. M. (2013). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: Drawing on the NEEDS
project’s total cost and multi-criteria decision analysis ranking methods. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(9), 1698–1709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0535-
3
Backes, J. G., & Traverso, M. (2021). Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in the
Construction Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. Processes, 9(7), 1248.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9071248
Barbier, E. B. (1987). The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development. Environmental

Conservation, 14(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900011449
Barfod, M. B. (2018). Supporting sustainable transport appraisals using stakeholder involvement and
MCDA. Transport, 33(4), 1052–1066. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2018.6596
Ben Hnich, K., Martín-Gamboa, M., Khila, Z., Hajjaji, N., Dufour, J., & Iribarren, D. (2021). Life cycle
sustainability assessment of synthetic fuels from date palm waste. Science of The Total
Environment, 796, 148961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148961
Benoît Norris, C., Franze, J., Valdivia, S., Traverso, M., Vickery, G., & Siddharth, P. (2013). The
methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (SLCA).
https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/S-
LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf
Bigo, A. (2016). Comment atteindre le facteur 4 dans les transports ? (p. 159). Chaire énergie et
prospérité. http://www.chair-energy-prosperity.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/publication2016-facteur-4-dans-les-transports-aurelien-bigo.pdf
88
Blanc, I. (2015). Comment calculer l’impact environnemental des énergies renouvelables ? https://hal-
mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01248286
Bouter, A., Hache, E., Ternel, C., & Beauchet, S. (2020). Comparative environmental life cycle
assessment of several powertrain types for cars and buses in France for two driving cycles:
“Worldwide harmonized light vehicle test procedure” cycle and urban cycle. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(8), 1545–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-
01756-2
Brusselaers, N., Mommens, K., & Macharis, C. (2021). Building Bridges: A Participatory Stakeholder
Framework for Sustainable Urban Construction Logistics. Sustainability, 13(5), 2678.
Bueno, P. C., Vassallo, J. M., & Cheung, K. (2015). Sustainability Assessment of Transport
Infrastructure Projects: A Review of Existing Tools and Methods. Transport Reviews, 35(5),
622–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1041435
CGDD. (2019). Chiffres clés du climat: France, Europe et Monde (p. 80). Institute ffor climate
economics. https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2018-
12/datalab-46-chiffres-cles-du-climat-edition-2019-novembre2018_1.pdf
CGDD. (2021). Chiffres clés du transport—Edition 2021 (p. 92). Commissariat Général au
Développement Durable, Ministère de la transition écologique.
https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-
transport-2021/livre.php
Cinelli, M., Coles, S. R., & Kirwan, K. (2014). Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision
analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecological Indicators, 46, 138–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.011
Consoli, F., Allen, D., Boustead, I., Fava, J., Franklin, W., Jensen, A. A., De Oude, N., Parrish, R.,
Perriman, R., Postlethwaite, D., Quay, B., Séguin, J., & Vigon, B. (1993). Guidelines for Life
Cycle Assessment: A “Code of Practice” (SETAC Workshop Report No. 1; p. 85). Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for Environmental
Education, Inc.
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.setac.org/resource/resmgr/books/lca_archive/guidelines_for_life
_cycle.pdf
Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2004). Data Envelopment Analysis. In W. W. Cooper, L. M.
Seiford, & J. Zhu (Eds.), Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis (Vol. 71, pp. 1–39). Kluwer
Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7798-X_1
89
De Luca, A. I., Iofrida, N., Leskinen, P., Stillitano, T., Falcone, G., Strano, A., & Gulisano, G. (2017).
Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for agricultural
sustainability: Insights from a systematic and critical review. Science of The Total Environment,
595, 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.284
Dreyer, L. C., Hauschild, M. Z., & Schierbeck, J. (2010). Characterisation of social impacts in LCA.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(3), 247–259.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0148-7
EC and JRC. (2018). Supporting information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF Life
Cycle Impact Assessment methods: New methods and differences with ILCD. Publications
Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/671368
Eisfeldt, F., Rodriguez, C., & Ciroth, A. (2017). SOCA- A database add-on for Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment. CILCA, by Greendelta, Medellin.
Ekener, E., Hansson, J., Larsson, A., & Peck, P. (2018). Developing Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment methodology by applying values-based sustainability weighting—Tested on
biomass-based and fossil transportation fuels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 337–351.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.211
Elkington, J. (1998). Accounting for the triple bottom line. Measuring Business Excellence, 2(3), 18–
22. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025539
Epstein, M. J. (1996). Measuring corporate environmental performance: Best practices for costing and
managing an effective environmental strategy. Irwin Professional Pub.
European Commission & Eurostat. (2017). Sustainable development in the European Union:
Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context : 2017 edition. Publications
Office of the European Union.
Fava, J., Weston, R. F., Consoli, F., Denison, R., Dickson, K., Mohin, T., & Vigon, B. (1993). A
Conceptual Framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (Workshop Report; p. 192). Society
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for Environmental
Education, Inc.
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.setac.org/resource/resmgr/books/lca_archive/impact_assessment
.pdf
Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R., Christiansen, K., & Klüppel, H.-J. (2006). The New International
Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.002
Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309–3322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2103309
Fontes, J. (2016). Handbook for product social impact assessment-version3.0-. PréSustainability.
Franze, J. (2011). Lca of an ecolabeled notebook—Consideration of social and environmental. Lulu

Com.
90
Gamage, G. B. (2011). A New Model for Assessing Sustainability of Complex Systems [University of
Auckland].
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/8348/02whole.pdf?sequence=2
Garrido Fernández, A. (2018). Towards transport futures using mobile data analytics: Stakeholder
identification in the city of Stockholm [KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment
(ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering.].
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-240604
Goedkoop, M., De Beer, I., Harmens, R., Saling, P., Morris, D., Florea, A., Hettinger, A. L., Indrane,
D., Visser, D., Morao, A., Musoke-Flores, E., Alvarado, C., Rawat, I., Schenker, U., Head, M.,
Collotta, M., Andro, T., Viot, J.-F., & Whatelet, A. (2020). Product Social Impact Assessment
Handbook 2020. https://product-social-impact-assessment.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/20-01-Handbook-2020_10.pdf
Goepel, K. D. (2018). Implementation of an Online Software Tool for the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP-OS). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10(3).
https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590
Gompf, K., Traverso, M., & Hetterich, J. (2021). Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to
Introduce Weights to Social Life Cycle Assessment of Mobility Services. Sustainability, 13(3),
1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031258
GRI. (2011). G3-Sustainaability Reporting Guidelines (3.1; p. 195). Global Reporting Initiative.
https://www.globalreporting.org/
GRI. (2016). GRI-2016-Consolidated set of GRI sustainability Reporting Standards. Global Reporting
Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/
Guarini, M. R., Battisti, F., & Chiovitti, A. (2018). A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes. Sustainability,
10(2), 507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020507
Guitouni, A., & Martel, J.-M. (1998). Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA
method. European Journal of Operational Research, 109(2), 501–521.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00073-3
Günther, H.-O., Kannegiesser, M., & Autenrieb, N. (2015). The role of electric vehicles for supply chain
sustainability in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, 220–233.
He-Hua, W., Jian-Jun, Z., Xiao-Yan, G., & Ye, C. (2018). A Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Method
for Alternative Assessment Results Obeying a Particular Distribution and Application
[Research Article]. Mathematical Problems in Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2108726
Hoque, N., Mazhar, I., & Biswas, W. (2018). Application of Life Cycle Assessment for Sustainability
Evaluation of Transportation Fuels. In Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials
Engineering. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10792-1
Hosny, H. E., Ibrahim, A. H., & Eldars, E. A. (2021). Development of infrastructure projects
sustainability assessment model. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01791-5
91
Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., & Rebitzer, G. (2008). Environmental Life Cycle Costing. CRC Press.
IFP Energies Nouvelles. (2018). Bilan transversal de l’impact de l’électrification par segment (p. 21).
PROJET E4T. ADEME. www.ademe.fr/mediatheque
ISO 14040. (2006). Management environnemental—Analyse du cycle de vie—Principes et cadre (p. :

23). Internationanl Standardization Organization.
https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/fr/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/03/74/37456.html
ISO 15686-1. (2011). ISO 15686-1:2011 Buildings and constructed assets—Service life planning—Part
1: General principles and framework. ISO.

ISO26000. (2010). ISO 26000:2010(en), Guidance on social responsibility.

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-1:v1:en
IUCN, UNEP, WWF, FAO, & Unesco (Eds.). (1980). World conservation strategy: Living resource
conservation for sustainable development (International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources, United Nations Environment Programme, World Wildlife Fund, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). IUCN.
Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., & Siskos, Y. (2001). Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience.
European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-
2217(00)00035-7
Jasinski, D., Meredith, J., & Kirwan, K. (2015). A comprehensive review of full cost accounting
methods and their applicability to the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108,
1123–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.040
Jørgensen, A., Lai, L. C. H., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2009). Assessing the validity of impact pathways for
child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 15(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0131-3
JRC. (2010). ILCD Handbook: Analysis of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodologies
for use in life cycle Assessment (1st ed.).
Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). An integrated fuzzy AHP–ELECTRE methodology for
environmental impact assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(7), 8553–8562.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.057
Kloepffer, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products: (With Comments by Helias A.
Udo de Haes, p. 95). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89–95.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376
Lebeau, K., Van Mierlo, J., Lebeau, P., Mairesse, O., & Macharis, C. (2012). The market potential for
plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles in Flanders: A choice-based conjoint analysis.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(8), 592–597.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.07.004
92
Lebeau, P., Macharis, C., & Van Mierlo, J. (2016). Exploring the choice of battery electric vehicles in
city logistics: A conjoint-based choice analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 91, 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.04.004
Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H., Dou, B., Chen, F., Zheng, X., & He, Z. (2020). Public Preference for Electric
Vehicle Incentive Policies in China: A Conjoint Analysis. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 318.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010318
Liu, G. (2014). Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 611–621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.038
Louviere, J. J. (1988). Conjoint Analysis Modelling of Stated Preferences: A Review of Theory,

Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity. Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy, 22(1), 93–119. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20052837
Macharis, C., Witte, A. de, & Ampe, J. (2009). The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology
(MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice. Journal of Advanced
Transportation, 43(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670430206
Macombe, C. (2019). Social Life Cycle Assessment for Industrial Biotechnology. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2019_99
Macombe, C., Leskinen, P., Feschet, P., & Antikainen, R. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of
biodiesel production at three levels: A literature review and development needs. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 52, 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.026
(PSILCA) Database v.3 Documentation (Databse Documentation version 1.0; p. 124).
GreenDelta. https://www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PSILCA_V3_manual.pdf
Majumder, M. (2015). Multi Criteria Decision Making. In M. Majumder, Impact of Urbanization on

Water Shortage in Face of Climatic Aberrations (pp. 35–47). Springer Singapore.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-73-3_2
Mancini, L., Eynard, U., Eisfeldt, F., Ciroth, A., Blengini, G., & Pennington, D. (2019). Social
assessment of raw materials supply chains. A life cycle-based analysis.
https://doi.org/10.2760/470881
Mohd Safian, E. E., & Nawawi, A. (2011). The Evolution of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a
Decision Making Tool in Property Sectors.

Nalmpantis, D., Roukouni, A., Genitsaris, E., Stamelou, A., & Naniopoulos, A. (2019). Evaluation of
innovative ideas for Public Transport proposed by citizens using Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA). European Transport Research Review, 11(1), 22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-019-0356-6
Neugebauer, S. (2016). Enhancing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment—Tiered Approach and new
Characterization Models for Social Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing [Thèse de
93
doctorat, Prozesswissenschaftender Technischen Universität Berlin].

http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-5644
Neugebauer, S., Forin, S., & Finkbeiner, M. (2016). From Life Cycle Costing to Economic Life Cycle
Assessment—Introducing an Economic Impact Pathway. Sustainability, 8(5), 428.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050428
Neugebauer, S., Traverso, M., Scheumann, R., Chang, Y.-J., Wolf, K., & Finkbeiner, M. (2014). Impact
Pathways to Address Social Well-Being and Social Justice in SLCA—Fair Wage and Level of
Education. Sustainability, 6(8), 4839–4857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6084839
Norris, G. A. (2006). Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles—Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.017
OECD. (2011). Les principes directeurs de l’OCDE à l’intention des entreprises multinationales. OCDE
Pub. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3026431
OECD. (2021). Trends in Stakeholder Reporting: Mineral Supply Chains (p. 39). OECD.
https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/trends-in-stakeholder-reporting-mineral-supply-chains.pdf
OIE. (2019). Chiffres des marchés de l’électromobilité. Observatoire de l’industrie électrique. EV
Onat, N. (2015). A macro-level sustainability assessment framework for optimal distribution of

alternative passenger vehicles.
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., Aboushaqrah, N. N. M., & Jabbar, R. (2019). How sustainable is electric
mobility? A comprehensive sustainability assessment approach for the case of Qatar. Applied
Energy, 250, 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.076
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2016). Uncertainty-embedded dynamic life cycle sustainability
assessment framework: An ex-ante perspective on the impacts of alternative vehicle options.
Energy, 112, 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.129
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., & Zheng, Q. P. (2016). Combined application of multi-criteria
optimization and life cycle sustainability assessment for optimal distribution of alternative
passenger cars in U.S. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 291–307.
Osorio-Tejada, J. L., Llera-Sastresa, E., Scarpellini, S., & Hashim, A. H. (2020). An integrated social
life cycle assessment of freight transport systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 25(6), 1088–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01692-w
Pérez López, P. (2015). Environmental sustainability of bioactive molecules from marine organisms.
https://minerva.usc.es/xmlui/handle/10347/13778
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual
origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Rowley, H. V., Peters, G. M., Lundie, S., & Moore, S. J. (2012). Aggregating sustainability indicators:
Beyond the weighted sum. Journal of Environmental Management, 111, 24–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.05.004
94
Roy, B., & Vanderpooten, D. (1996). The European school of MCDA: Emergence, basic features and
current works. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5(1), 22–38.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199603)5:1<22::AID-MCDA93>3.0.CO;2-F
RTE. (2015). Valorisation socio-économique des réseaux électriques intelligents-Méthodologie et

premiers résultats (p. 232) [Rapport d’étude]. Réseau de transport d’électricité-ademe.
https://www.rte-france.com/sites/default/files/rei_bd_1.pdf
RTE. (2017). Réseaux électriques intelligents: Valeur économique, environnementale et déploiement

d’ensemble (Synthèse; p. 12). Réseau transport électrifié. https://www.rte-
france.com/sites/default/files/rei_synthese_2017.pdf
Rugani, B., Panasiuk, D., & Benetto, E. (2012). An input–output based framework to evaluate human
labour in life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(6), 795–
812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0403-1
Russo Garrido, S., Parent, J., Beaulieu, L., & Revéret, J.-P. (2018). A literature review of type I SLCA—
making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 432–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1067-z
Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—What it is and how it is used. Mathematical
Modelling, 9(3), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
Saaty, T. L. (1989). Group Decision Making and the AHP. In B. L. Golden, E. A. Wasil, & P. T. Harker
(Eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies (pp. 59–67). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50244-6_4
Sacchi, R., Bauer, C., & Cox, B. L. (2021). Does Size Matter? The Influence of Size, Load Factor,
Range Autonomy, and Application Type on the Life Cycle Assessment of Current and Future
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07773
Santoyo-Castelazo, E., & Azapagic, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment of energy systems: Integrating
environmental, economic and social aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80, 119–138.
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., & van Wee, B. (2014). The influence of financial incentives and
other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy, 68, 183–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.043
Stark, R., Buchert, T., Neugebauer, S., Bonvoisin, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2017). Benefits and obstacles
of sustainable product development methods: A case study in the field of urban mobility. Design
Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.20
Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., & Pagan, R. (2011).
Environmental life cycle costing: A code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 3.
https://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/s11367-011-0287-5
Tarne, P. (2019). Life cycle sustainability assessment at an automotive company.

https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-7920
95
Traverso, M., Asdrubali, F., Francia, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2012). Towards life cycle sustainability
assessment: An implementation to photovoltaic modules. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 17(8), 1068–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0433-8
Traverso, M., Kim, P., Brattig, S., & Wagner, V. (2015). Managing Life Cycle Sustainability Aspects
in the Automotive Industry. In G. Sonnemann & M. Margni (Eds.), Life Cycle Management (pp.
331–339). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7221-1_24
UN. (1992). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Resolutions
adopted by the Conference (A/CONF.151/26/Rev.l (Vol. I); p. 492). United Nations.
https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1(vol.I)
UNEP. (2020). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations (C. Benoît
Norris, M. Traverso, S. Neugebauer, E. Ekener, T. Schaubroeck, S. Russo Garrido, M. Berger,
S. Valdivia, A. Lehmann, M. Finkbeiner, & G. Arcesse, Eds.). United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP). https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products-and-
Organizations-2020-sml.pdf
UNEP/SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products (C. Benoît, B. Mazijn,
CIRAIG, & P. and S. Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Producs, Eds.).
United Nations Environment Programme.
http://ra.ocls.ca/ra/login.aspx?inst=centennial&url=https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/236529
Valdivia, S., Backes, J. G., Traverso, M., Sonnemann, G., Cucurachi, S., Guinée, J. B., Schaubroeck,
T., Finkbeiner, M., Leroy-Parmentier, N., Ugaya, C., Peña, C., Zamagni, A., Inaba, A., Amaral,
M., Berger, M., Dvarioniene, J., Vakhitova, T., Benoit-Norris, C., Prox, M., … Goedkoop, M.
(2021). Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01958-2
Valdivia, S., & Lie, C. M. (2012). Towards a life cycle sustainability Assessment-Making informed
choices on products. Sustainability Assessment, 86.
Valente, A., Iribarren, D., & Dufour, J. (2021). Comparative life cycle sustainability assessment of
renewable and conventional hydrogen. Science of The Total Environment, 756, 144132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144132
Vázquez-Rowe, I., & Iribarren, D. (2015). Review of Life Cycle Approaches Coupled with Data
Envelopment Analysis: Launching the CFP + DEA Method for Energy Policy Making. The
Scientific World Journal, 2015, e813921. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/813921
Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., & Zioło, M. (2019). Generalised framework
for multi-criteria method selection. Omega, 86, 107–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004
WCED. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common
Future (Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1987.). World Commission on
Environment and Development.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
Wulf, C., Werker, J., Ball, C., Zapp, P., & Kuckshinrichs, W. (2019). Review of Sustainability
Assessment Approaches Based on Life Cycles. Sustainability, 11(20), 5717.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205717
96
Zamagni, A. (2012). Life cycle sustainability assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Zamagni, A., Pesonen, H.-L., & Swarr, T. (2013). From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment:
Concept, practice and future directions. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
18(9), 1637–1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0648-3
Zanchi, L., Delogu, M., Zamagni, A., & Pierini, M. (2018). Analysis of the main elements affecting
social LCA applications: Challenges for the automotive sector. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1176-8
Zhang, R., & Zhao, B. (2018). Research on Location Selection of Shared Vehicle Charging Station
Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Evaluation Method. OALib, 05(09), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1104899
Zhang, Z., Sun, X., Ding, N., & Yang, J. (2019). Life cycle environmental assessment of charging
infrastructure for electric vehicles in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 932–941.
97
Chapter III: Environmental evaluation of

electric mobility scenarios through LCA
Summary (III)
The aim of this chapter is to provide a systematic analysis of the environmental sustainability
dimension through LCA. The chapter underlines the key environmental issues related to the
considered mobility scenarios covering personal, collective, and shared use, with a special focus
on electric vehicle technologies.
LCA method is introduced in section 1, as well as the objective of this chapter. In section 2, an
extensive literature review on LCA studies is conducted to allow the identification of the main
impact categories (e.g., Global Warming Potential, Resources Depletion, and Air Quality) and life
cycle stages (e.g., manufacturing stage, vehicles’ operation stage and final disposal) for
mobility scenarios. This latter step enables the definition, in section 3, of key input parameters
(driving cycles, fuel pathways and electricity mix, etc.) and assumptions to be integrated in the
analysis. Several drawbacks are identified within the most current LCA datasets that could lead
to a poor representation of the environmental impacts. A strategy based on the development
and the use of parametrized LCA models is proposed and encouraged to define key input
parameters and to update LCA datasets fitted to the considered mobility scenarios. Such
approach is presented in section 4. Finally, the environmental midpoint indicators together with
the obtained results are discussed for the three considered scenarios.
98
Table of content (III)

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 100
2. Environmental evaluation of electric mobility: State of the art ............................................. 100
2.1. The main covered environmental impact categories in the LCA literature ..................... 101
2.1.1. Contribution to climate change ................................................................................................. 101

2.1.2. Impacts on the ecosystem quality ............................................................................................. 102
2.1.3. Impacts on human health and toxicity ...................................................................................... 103
2.1.4. Noise emissions ........................................................................................................................ 104
2.1.5. Impacts on natural resources depletion ..................................................................................... 105
2.2. Identification of key life cycle stages and processes ........................................................... 106
2.2.1. Manufacturing stage: main contributing processes and parameters .......................................... 106
2.2.2. The use phase: main contributing processes and parameters .................................................... 107
2.2.3. Vehicle’s end of life: main contributing processes and parameters .......................................... 112
3. Key assumptions and input parameters for LCA of electric mobility scenarios .................. 112
4. Systematic approach for the environmental impacts analysis: integrating parametrized LCA
models and its application to electric mobility scenarios ........................................................ 114
4.1. Goal and Scope ...................................................................................................................... 114
4.2. Life Cycle Inventory .............................................................................................................. 116
4.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment .............................................................................................. 120
4.4. Life Cycle Interpretation ...................................................................................................... 122
4.4.1. Personal use mobility scenario .................................................................................................. 122

4.4.2. Collective use mobility scenario ............................................................................................... 124
4.4.3. Shared use mobility scenario .................................................................................................... 125
5. Conclusions of the chapter ......................................................................................................... 127
6. References .................................................................................................................................... 128
99
1. Introduction
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been widely adopted for the evaluation of potential environmental
impacts in the mobility sector at various scales (e.g., automotive components, vehicles technologies,
vehicle fleets, etc.). LCA allows basic “Cradle to Gate” impact evaluation of raw materials extraction
and equipment production to be extended to a broader scope including the end of life of the vehicles
according to a “Cradle to Grave” perspective, and energy power sources used for the vehicle’s
operation with a “Well to Wheel” perspective. Moreover, LCA aims at assessing a wide range of
environmental impact categories that are supposed to represent the most relevant ones for the scope and
objective of the study. LCA is generally used for two main purposes: (1) identifying most significant
environmental impacts and investigating the most contributing processes together with the potential
improvements to be made for the design of the product systems and services (2) comparing products,
technologies and services that share the same functional unit (e.g., vehicle technologies, mobility
services, etc.) towards more informed decision-making.
Within the rise of electric mobility, a large number of transportation technologies and mobility services
have gained the market whose impacts are still unknown. The need of analyzing the potential
environmental impacts that are directly and indirectly related to these emergent technologies as well as
the infrastructures they require is therefore essential to gain insights on the consequences on human
health, ecosystem quality, resources availability and climate change, etc.
This chapter aims at investigating through LCA the environmental impacts associated with three
mobility scenarios with a focus on electric vehicle alternatives. The results of the environmental
evaluation are further used conjointly with S-LCA and LCC results within the LCSA developed
framework integrating the MCDA approach.
This chapter starts by analyzing the existing LCA studies and existing models to identify the main impact
categories and life cycle stages (section 2) and thus, define a set of key input parameters to be entailed
in the modeling (section 3). The environmental analysis is performed through parametrized LCA models
which have been adjusted to cover the electric mobility scenarios settled within this thesis. Such models
enhance representativeness of the existing datasets by including the multiple technological advances
that may occur over time. The defined approach together with the steps to be followed for the
establishment of the parametrized models are detailed in section 4 all along the four iterative LCA
phases.
2. Environmental evaluation of electric mobility: State of the art

The aim of this section is to investigate environmental evaluation studies in the context of mobility. The
focus is made on LCA of mobility services, vehicle technologies, powertrains, batteries as well as
transportation fuels. A thorough analysis of the existing LCA studies is presented allowing the most
significant impact categories and key life cycle stages to be identified and understood. As a result, the
100
main assumptions and input parameters are identified to be integrated further into the LCA model
developed for the defined mobility scenarios (detailed in section 2.2. of chapter 2).
2.1.The main covered environmental impact categories in the LCA literature
Given the intensive use of petroleum products, road transport is one of the largest contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (EEA, 2019) and thus, Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been
widely covered in LCA studies. Nevertheless, it is by no means the only relevant impact category for
mobility scenarios. Indeed, as highlighted by a study from the European Commission (2020a), most
studies focus also on energy consumption, air quality, toxicity and resources depletion. Other impact
subcategories, such as noise emissions have been often neglected despite their relevance for
transportation technologies and especially within the fleet electrification. In the following paragraphs
the main impact categories for mobility scenarios are discussed as well as their relevance for a
comprehensive within LCA framework.
2.1.1. Contribution to climate change
In France, 31% of the total GHG emissions are produced by the transport sector (CGDD, 2021). These
GHG emissions are closely related to fuel combustion in the use phase. Such emissions cause extreme
and irreversible consequences on the planet. According to the most recently published report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2021), widespread and rapid changes have occurred
in the last decades on the atmosphere, ocean and land. CO2 12-month global mean atmospheric
concentration reached 415 ppm in 2021 (Dlugokencky & Tans, 2021). As a result, GHG emissions have
modified the Earth's energy budget, leading to an accumulation of energy within the earth system, which
is at the origin of the observed climate changes.
The global heating of the climate system caused a 20-cm rise of the global sea level over the last century
due to ice loss on land and thermal expansion through ocean warming. Indeed, the global ocean has
warmed since 1871, including depths below 2000 meters since 1992 (Arias et al. 2021). and the rate of
ice sheet loss has increased by a factor of four between 1992-1999 and 2010-2019 (IPCC, 2021).
Furthermore, a portion of the CO2 emitted is also absorbed by the oceans causing ocean acidification
which results in consequential damages in the marine eco-system (IPCC, 2021).
The five presented scenarios in the IPCC report, seeking to explore consequences of climate change
over the 21st century, have stated that the best estimates for the period 2081-2100 are ranging from 1.9°C
for the SSP1-1.9 to 4.4°C for the SSP5-8.5. These consequences are also apparent in terms of precipitations
frequency and soil moisture with variable regional effects.
The unequivocal consequences caused by the anthropogenic activities, more likely due to fossil fuels
combustion, call for unprecedented actions to limit the forecasted climate system variations below the
low-CO2 emissions scenarios. Accordingly with the Paris agreement (UN, 2015), appropriate responses
should be developed to foster climate resilience and limit the temperature increase within the coming
years. Although electric mobility is the most promising technological solution to substitute the use of
101
fossil fuels by conventional vehicles, it is wrong to claim zero CO2 emissions. In fact, electric vehicle
technologies emit indirectly CO2 emissions through their production and through the electricity
production used for their operation. In contrast, the impacts associated with the production of electric
vehicles are greater than their thermal counterparts due to the electric powertrain and batteries
production (European Commission, 2020a). It is therefore highly relevant to consider this impact
category within the environmental evaluation of mobility scenarios.
2.1.2. Impacts on the ecosystem quality
Transport sector is responsible of significant drawbacks on the environment associated with water and
soils acidification, their eutrophication, and the decrease of agricultural yields. Emissions from transport
and related infrastructures contribute directly to the ecosystem alteration.
The IPBES report (2019) have underlined the importance of designing nature-sensitive road networks
and developing low impact infrastructures and transportation systems to meet SDGs related to
sustainable production and consumption patterns as well as sustainable cities.
The rapid expansion of road transport and especially individual passenger vehicles has fostered the urban
sprawl which in turn has resulted in vast and complex transportation infrastructures network. The need
for road and transport infrastructures has been growing since then, driven by additional environmental
concerns for communities and governments. In fact, 1.5% to 2.0% of the world’s total land surface is
devoted to road infrastructures and parking lots (Rodrigue, 2020b). As a result, it is becoming
increasingly challenging to afford sustainable and cost-effective mobility services that fit users’ needs
in the urban, sub-urban and rural areas.
There are numerous effects associated with land use transformation. The outward expansion of cities
and suburbanization contributes further to the heat island effect (Rodrigue, 2020b). Urban surfaces
absorb more significant portions of the heat during the days which induces higher temperatures during
the nights. Such phenomena create unbalances in the local climate. Moreover, land use change is the
main driver for negative impacts on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems quality. After agriculture,
infrastructures’ development associated with the growing population in urban areas since 1992 has come
at the expense of forests, wetlands and grasslands (IPBES, 2019).
Climate change, which is direct result of road transport emissions, has been exacerbating negative effects
of the ecosystem quality through the increase of the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.
These have notably increased in the past 50 years, driving by more fires, floods and droughts. Profound
and widespread changes have consequently occurred in the marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems
and disabled nature’s ability to sustain its main ecological functions and processes. About 1 million
species are threatened and facing extinction as substantial losses are demonstrated in the biodiversity
(IPBES, 2019). If no serious actions are taken, these effects are expected to accelerate in the coming
years driving by more complex and negative effects on agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and in general
nature’s functions to people.
102
2.1.3. Impacts on human health and toxicity

Transport sector contributes to a wide range of gaseous air pollutants (e.g., O3, SO2, NOx, CO and COVs)
and suspended particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) of different sizes and composition. These Pollutant
emissions come either from direct fuel combustion in the case of conventional vehicles operation
(exhaust emissions), or from indirect emissions (non-exhaust emissions) linked to the friction of the tires
and the road. These emissions play a major role in the deterioration of local air quality, resulting in
substantial drawbacks for human health and the environment. Accordingly, 60% of cities in Europe
exceed the World Health Organization (WHO) thresholds for particulate matter (Arseni & Racioppi,
2018) and 91% of the world population is exposed to low air quality risks (Anenberg, 2017). These
overshoots are even more worrisome as transport demand is constantly increasing and individual
mobility continues to grow.
Health effects can be of short or long term and can range from minor ailments (fatigue, nausea, eye and
skin irritation) to serious illnesses (asthma, allergies) and even life-threatening effects (cancer,
cardiovascular disease) (WHO, 2015). About 100.000 premature adult deaths related to air quality occur
each year in Europe (Arseni & Racioppi, 2018). Health concerns are prominent in dense urban areas
where the road traffic is more concentrated which increases the exposure of the local population to
emissions. Although significant improvements in the diesel powertrains efficiency and reductions in
tailpipe emissions have occurred (Del Duce et al., 2016a; IEA, 2020a), fuels combustion for ICEV
operation accounted for 60% PM2.5 emissions, in 2015, in Europe (Anenberg, 2017). These PM
emissions comprise a broad range of toxic micro particles that penetrate easily and lastingly into the
organism. In addition, Nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions are mostly resulting from transport sector.
Tailpipe emissions such as NOx and PM have been targeted by the EU 2016/2284 directive (2018) and
emissions stringent standards for commercialized passenger cars and vans (currently Euro 6). As a result,
these have significantly declined between 2000 and 2019 in France; PM10 emissions have decreased by
51%, PM2.5 by 61% and NOx emissions have decreased by 56% (CGDD, 2020a). Nevertheless, NO2,
PM10 and O3 emissions still exceed the European recommendations. The annual average concentrations
have to be reduced for NO2 by 10% compared to 2018, to meet the European thresholds (CGDD, 2020a).
More tightening of the existing limits is therefore expected in the future through the development of
EURO 7.
Human toxicity from local air quality degradation is an important impact category to consider within
LCA of mobility scenarios. A holistic evaluation of this impact category should enable the quantification
of potential adverse effects of conventional vehicle technologies but also evaluate electric mobility
technologies in the sense of their benefits in urban areas. Vehicles fleet electrification can yield
significant local air quality improvements in dense urban areas and thus, reduce the societal costs related
to human health damages. In fact, the total cost of air pollution in France, based on transport-related
health damages estimations (although these are complex and utmost uncertain) are between 68 to 97
103
billion euros, each year (Sénat, 2015). Nevertheless, it is important to note that electric vehicles also
emit particulate matter through tire abrasion that should be quantified. In this regard, several studies
(Buekers et al., 2014; Ke et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2021) have focused on this impact category to analyze
the benefits from the development of electric vehicles in the future. Although real-time measurement of
the exhaust and non-exhaust emissions is the best way to improve the representativeness of the results,
these can be quantified based on the driving cycles profile and thus EURO standards are commonly used
to determine their values.
2.1.4. Noise emissions
Noise emissions are a major environmental health concern commonly associated to transport, as a large
part of the world population is exposed to exceeded noise threshold. More than 100 million Europeans
are exposed to road-traffic noise (Lden) ≥ 55 dB against 40 dB WHO recommended level and 32 million
are exposed to very high levels (above 65 dB) (EEA, 2021). The WHO has identified noise emissions
as the second most pressing problems in European dense urban areas after the air pollution (Arseni &
Racioppi, 2018). In fact, excessive noise levels affect the organs of hearing (physiological dimension),
but can also disrupt the body in general, including sleep or behavior (psychological dimension).
In an attempt to reduce this nuisance, since the law n° 92-1444 (1992), relating to the fight against noise,
the French government has implemented a set of policy measures that target noise risks through both
preventive and curative requirements. This has been reinforced by the application of the directive
2002/49/EC (2002) on the assessment and management of environmental noise. Emitted noise from
electric and hybrid vehicles has also been a source of concern at the European level. In fact, despite the
benefits electric vehicles might generate for the environment in terms of lower noise pollution compared
to the combustion engine transportation systems, their quietness can be dangerous to road users and
cyclists (European Commission, 2019). Hence, the acoustic vehicle alerting system (AVAS) has
introduced a set of rules for exterior and interior noise levels following various driving profiles (Fortino
et al., 2016). All these measures are expected to reduce transport-related noise effects on human health
and the environment in accordance with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Although measuring noise emissions is highly recommended when evaluating mobility scenarios (Del
Duce et al., 2013), especially when comparing conventional and electric vehicle technologies through
LCA these have been often neglected (Cucurachi et al., 2019). Moreover, noise emissions are still not
included in the set of impact categories covered by the ILCD recommendations handbook (European
Commission & JRC, 2010). Hence, noise emissions models should be added for a comprehensive
environmental analysis of mobility scenarios. In a recent publication by Cucurachi et al. (2019), noise
calculation models are introduced to LCA allowing the characterization of noise potential impacts
associated the use of private and public road transport. Furthermore, Sacchi et al., (2021) have integrated
these models to “carculator”, a python library tool that allows computing noise impact category among
a numerous other categories, for various driving profiles and vehicle technologies within LCA.
104
2.1.5. Impacts on natural resources depletion

The rapid expansion of the automotive market since the early half of the 20th century, was driven by
petroleum low-cost extraction which fostered people’s accessibility to the market and thus increased
transportations demand. This growth hit a hard wall in 1973 when the oil prices rose to an all-time high
due to the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. As a result, dependency of western countries on oil
products has since been questioned, yet not entirely addressed. In fact, oil extraction has never stopped
growing despite the constantly increasing awareness on the declining reserves around the globe. Such
statement can apply to any non-renewable resource, especially when accounting the huge automotive
energy supply demand.
Transport manufacturing supply chain involves increasingly complex and diverse mineral resources to
produce automotive components (e.g., catalytic converters, powertrains, batteries, etc.). Some of these
used for electric motors and automotive electronics are particularly vulnerable for future disruption (e.g.,
rhodium, dysprosium, neodymium, terbium, europium and praseodymium) (Zimmermann et al., 2018).
In fact, if conventional transport rises oil dependency questions and the limited supplies in the future,
several studies have discussed the new demand for critical raw materials related to the low-carbon
mobility transition (Ortego et al., 2018; Zimmermann et al., 2018; IEA, 2020a; Schmid, 2020).
The fast-evolving energy transition, including electric mobility and renewable energies sectors, still
count on the oil and gas industry to fulfill the shift from conventional transportation fleet to electric
alternatives. In addition, raw materials scarcity is expected to increase within the fleet electrification due
to the significant amounts of critical raw materials used.
The expansion of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) market should increase the production of lithium-ion
batteries and therefore, the demand of lithium and other minerals such as cobalt, neodymium, and
praseodymium (Ortego et al., 2018). In fact, the main materials that are used in commercial lithium-ion
batteries figure on the EU’s (European Commission, 2020b) list of critical raw materials (i.e. lithium,
cobalt and natural graphite). In this regard, a more sustainable and efficient management of resources
supply is of utmost importance to guarantee a secure and effective energy transition. Correspondingly,
materials criticality has been increasingly introduced in the recent years within the automotive sector to
analyze the system resource supply and the related risk for its disruption (Hache et al., 2018; Knobloch
et al., 2018; Lapko & Trucco, 2018). However, within LCA methods, criticality assessment is still an
on-going research subject as for the most part it requires the use of economic modeling (J. Zhang et al.,
2016) and thus, consequential LCA seems to be more suitable than attributional LCA studies.
The present analysis from LCA studies highlights the importance of clearly presenting the choice of
impact categories to be included as well as the assumptions and data sources when reporting results. It
also has implications for understanding the environmental burden of different vehicles life cycle stages
by covering the various powertrains, vehicle and batteries technologies, together with the fuel types and
electricity generation as discussed in the following section.
105
2.2.Identification of key life cycle stages and processes

There are numerous environmental LCA studies that have been identified (Cerdas et al., 2018; Hawkins
et al., 2013; Van Mierlo et al., 2017; Cox, 2018; Sacchi et al., 2021) that addressed the environmental
issues of electric mobility scenarios. Depending on their objectives, these studies considered different
system boundaries.
2.2.1. Manufacturing stage: main contributing processes and parameters
There’s a significant number of LCA studies that focus on the extraction of raw materials or the
production of some key components such as batteries (Notter et al., 2010; Oliveira et al., 2015; De Sutter
et al., 2019) or vehicle powertrains (Edwards et al., 2004; Dell et al., 2014b; Cox & Mutel, 2018). In
fact, the automotive sector depends on a substantial number of materials (e.g., steel, copper, aluminum,
plastics, platinum, gold, lithium, etc.) that are used in different amounts and can lead to very different
environmental impacts. Consequently, the identification of key processes, components and sub-
components involved in the manufacturing stage is essential to ensure representativeness of the
potential impacts and the main contributing processes. The geographical scope of the extraction and
production activities is also important for determining impacts related to the energy pathway for the
foreground and background processes. In addition, decarbonization of the industry sector is occurring
at a different pace in separate locations which induces a major source of uncertainty in the current
production trends of automotive materials and components depending on the region of manufacturing
and the origin of these materials.
Figure 16 Definition of the background systems: vehicle’s components manufacturing and vehicle's assembly
106
Depending on the considered vehicle’s equipment, the environmental impacts resulting from the
extraction of raw materials and components production could vary significantly (Nordelöf et al., 2014).
The inventory should therefore cover input materials for each investigated process in detail. Background
processes for the manufacturing stage include the production of components, such as the battery, and
sub-components, such as, for batteries, the electrolyte, the separator, and the electrodes. Batteries’
production for BEV has been identified as a major source of impacts, up to 35-41% of total GHG impacts
(Hawkins et al., 2012), 7-8% from the electric motor and 16-18% from other powertrain components.
The intensive use of copper to manufacture some batteries, driven by its conductivity properties, could
lead to acidifying emissions and sulfidic tailings generated by mining activities (Del Duce et al., 2013).
As presented in Figure 16, this also applies to other vehicle’s components that may involve the use of
potentially critical raw materials (e.g., platinum, gold, silver, copper, etc.) for components such as power
electronic devices and, in the case of electric vehicles, the non-propulsion electrical system. The
powertrain technology under investigation, plays an important role due to the use of some critical raw
materials or ferrite permanent magnets (e.g., neodymium) (Hernandez et al., 2017).
The automotive sector has experienced the integration of more lightweight materials for the glider
production which has significantly decreased the vehicle’s final weight and thus, the energy
consumption for the vehicle’s operation. In fact, the use of steel is replaced by aluminum, plastics and
carbon fiber, which results in a significant decrease in the vehicle’s total weight, i.e., the steel weight
share goes from 60% of the vehicle’s total weight to 30.75% when shifting from ICEV conventional to
lightweight materials and Appendix 1: Input conventional and lightweight materials share (%) for
Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (GREET, 2020).). Nonetheless, these lightweight materials
are not devoid of environmental impacts due to their extraction and production. Hence, environmental
impact mitigation that may result from the introduction of lightweight materials can be negligible
especially when vehicles are operated with a low environmental footprint energy mix (Del Duce et al.,
2013).
2.2.2. Vehicle’s operation phase: main contributing processes and parameters
When modeling the vehicle’s operational phase, it is important to consider exhaustive emissions from
the fuel combustion, non-exhaustive emissions, maintenance, transportation infrastructure and indirect
emissions from the life cycle of fuel or electricity production. To do so, the following elements need to
be investigated:
Energy consumption
The energy consumption represents the specific energy required by a vehicle for its operation. It can be
determined from measurements of actual values of a vehicle or a fleet of vehicles, or through estimation
from mathematical models/formulas (Del Duce et al., 2013). Total energy consumption, expressed in
[Wh/km] for EV or [L/km] for ICEV, depends on the driving cycle and the weather conditions as well
107
as standardized comfort values (heating, air conditioning), equipment efficiency (powertrain, battery)
and charging characteristics.
The energy required by the vehicle is defined based on a set of input parameters also identified for the
production phase modeling (such as the mass of the vehicle, the battery, the power of the GMP, its
efficiency, etc.), but also on other parameters specific to the operation phase such as the driving cycle,
the powertrain and battery efficiencies. These are illustrated in Figure 17.
Figure 17 Vehicles’ use phase and the main elements to be covered: energy consumption, driving cycles,
fuel/electricity generation, maintenance and roads infrastructures
Fuel pathways and electricity mixes

The energy mix powering the vehicle (e.g., electricity or fuel) is a key determinant factor for the
vehicle’s environmental impacts. In fact, previous LCA studies have demonstrated that the operation
phase contributes the most significantly to the environmental impacts of conventional vehicles due to
fuel combustion (Bouter et al., 2020; Cerdas et al., 2018; European Commission, 2020a). In contrast,
electric mobility offers the opportunity for substantially reducing the environmental footprint of the
operation phase, especially when using of low-impact energy sources.
The European strategy for carbon-neutrality by 2050 (MTES, 2020) calls for significant reductions of
the GHG emissions arising from the different sectors (e.g., industry, energy, residential, transport, etc.).
In this context, various prospective scenarios have been developed to identify key pathways for
achieving an effective energy transition at different temporal horizons (ADEME, 2015; Bigo, 2020;
IEA, 2020b; RTE, 2021), or their associated impacts (Volkart et al., 2018; Catalan & Cornelus, 2019;
Besseau, 2019). These scenarios have focused on the massive integration of renewable energies to
108
substitute fossil resources in the long-term. Given the high dependence of transport sector on petroleum-
based products (91% of the total final energy consumed in 2019), more specific scenarios were
established to tackle the challenges that may occur particularly for this sector. Bigo (2020) studied 5 key
evolution factors, namely transport demand, modal shift, occupation rate, energy efficiency, and carbon
intensity, to achieve energy transition in the transport sector based on 18 different prospective
passengers transport scenarios.
The shift from petrol-based fuels and non-renewable energy sources to low-impact energy pathways is
essential to achieve sustainability in future mobility schemes. Hence, renewable energy sources, such as
photovoltaics, wind energy systems and other bio-energy sources, can be favored for EVs charging
(Longo et al., 2019) enabling thus a better environmental performance. The evolution of the electricity
mix following a scenario from the IRENA (2018) revealed that the share of renewable energies is
expected to increase by 61% between 2015 and 2050. Moreover, Hoarau & Perez (2018) have identified
the underlying synergies between the joint development of PV-powered EVS. The most disruptive
synergies reside in the environmental benefits that EV massive development could use from such
renewable energy source and, in return, the bi-directional flexibility of EV batteries to maximize the
PV’s self-consumption. The IEA’ sustainable development scenario “Scenario EV30@30” has also
pointed out the importance of an accelerated deployment of EV fleet coupled with decarbonized power
generation allowing thus to reduce up to 50% the GHG emissions of WTW perspective from an
equivalent conventional fleet.
When analyzing the environmental benefits or burdens related to the integration of renewables to electric
mobility scenarios, various electricity pathways are to be considered within LCA studies. Such
multicriteria assessments are needed to provide consistent information on all the environmental impact
categories rather than a narrow focus on the GHG emissions and thus, guide the public and industrial
actors towards more informed decision-making.
Definition of the vehicles’ driving cycles
The vehicle speed and acceleration needed to compute the required motive energy depend on the driving
cycles performed by the vehicle. The New European Driving Cycle (NEDC), the worldwide harmonized
Light vehicles Test Conditions (WLTC) and the Common Artemis Driving Cycle (CADC) illustrated in
Figure 1818 are three of the most common approval cycles. They are most often used to define the
energy consumption according to standardized test conditions (e.g., temperature, wind speed, etc.).
109
Figure 18 Driving cycles velocity and time for CADC, NEDC, and WLTC. In the right is presented the WLTC 3
covering the urban profil driving characterisitics
The WLTC and NADC cycles are more representative of real-world use than NEDC one thanks to the
consideration of 4 driving profiles (congested urban use, free-flowing urban use, extra-urban use and
motorway use) and measurements made in real time on the daily operation of vehicles in European
countries. In contrast, the NEDC cycle, used by the ecoinvent database, considers only 2 types of driving
profiles (urban and highway) and seems to underestimate the real energy consumption because of the
use of optimal conditions used during the test (temperature, wind speed, etc.) and the limited driving
profiles. Moreover, the driving cycles also play an important role in determining the exhaust emissions
and noise emissions as discussed in Sacchi et al. (2021).
Roads and infrastructures
The evaluation of transportation technologies requires the integration of road infrastructure and all
activities related to its maintenance, but also technology-specific infrastructure such as charging stations
for electric vehicles.
Two types of loads exist (RTE, 2017b; UFE, 2019): (1) a normal, slow charge, most often performed,
through which the battery is recharged by means of the on-board charger in the vehicle and lasts on
average from 6 to 8 hours. (2) an accelerated charge requiring a much more powerful charger (43 kW)
to reduce the charging time to less than one hour. This type of charging is only applicable to a limited
number of vehicle models and requires a specific connection to the charging stations provided for this
purpose.
Depending on the type of transport, the type of charge (normal or accelerated) may differ. Indeed, given
the high capacity of electric bus batteries, and in order not to weigh them down with large on-board
chargers, slow charging, using external chargers, is more efficient by organizing it in depots during the
night. Normal charging delivers 50kW while for fast charging, sometimes organized in line terminus,
can reach a power of the order of 300 to 600kW (RTE, 2019).
110
Maintenance and repair

It includes all activities related to maintaining the vehicle in good working order and replacing certain
components (wheels, batteries, fluids, etc.) during its use. Battery replacement has been considered
crucial for EVs by the "Electric Car LCA (eLCAr)" guidelines (Del Duce et al., 2013) due to the presence
of batteries that could be replaced during the use phase of the vehicle. Indeed, the life of a battery is
expressed in terms of the number of complete charge/discharge cycles performed to fulfill its function.
The number of cycles is in the order of 650 cycles for a battery of 11kWh capacity and can go up to
1000 cycles for batteries of 25kWh (Cox, 2018). Given, that the ecoinvent database considers the
presence of a single battery for a 10-year life of a vehicle (Del Duce et al., 2016b), the variation of this
parameter depending on the type of transport will be estimated in order to evaluate its impact on the
results.
Mobility services: shared, personal and collective transport
Three main categories of mobility services can be distinguished:
Personal mobility: consists of individual use of transportation technologies. In France, it represents
80% of total traveled kilometers in 2020 (CGDD, 2021). The use of private cars is the most contributing
to carbon footprint with 56% of total GHG emissions.
Collective mobility: consists of public transportation services, can be distinguished by the traveled
distance; long-distance transportation such as trains, ships, aircraft, and short-distance transportation in
urban cities such as buses, tramways, subways, etc.
Shared mobility: consists of the shared use of transportation technologies, i.e., vehicles, bicycles,
motorcycles, etc. Often calls for a digital service to make the link between the service provider and the
end-user possible.
One of the key drivers for future energy transition within mobility relies on the modal shift. Since 1960,
collective transport modes have declined by 11% giving way to the expansion of individual passenger
vehicles (CGDD, 2021). As a result the GHG emissions have increased by 22% between 1960 and 2016
(Bigo, 2016). Personal mobility involves the concept of “ownership” by which the users’ relationship
with vehicles involve issues of convenience, independence, safety and social status (Lawler et al., 2013).
Hence, promoting the modal shift directly affect users’ mobility patterns as it requires changing their
habits, sometimes, with public or shared transportation offers that do not fully meet their needs.
Exhaust and non-exhaust emissions
Exhaust emissions arise from conventional vehicles and can be grouped into two types (Del Duce et
al., 2016b): (1) emissions that are directly related to fuel combustion and depend on the nature of the
fuel (e.g., diesel, petroleum, etc.) and the amount consumed fuel per km. (2) emissions that depend on
EURO standards (3, 4, 5, and 6) representing standardized emissions according to the class of the
vehicle. The EURO 6-d standard is seen as the most challenging for emissions reduction, especially in
terms of particulate matter affecting human health (European Commission 2012).
111
Non-exhaust emissions related to the vehicle’s braking system include particulate matter from vehicle
tires and road abrasion (Del Duce et al., 2016b). These emissions are proportionally related to the vehicle
size and are prevalent for both conventional and electric vehicles and they depend on the nature of the
road tires and the driving patterns.
2.2.3. Vehicle’s end of life: main contributing processes and parameters
The European directive has set the rate of reuse of vehicles at the end of their lifecycle at 95% in 2015
(MTES, 2018). The vehicles end of life involves a set of processes allowing the reuse and recycling of
raw materials or components. A depollution is carried out after the separation of liquid and solid
hazardous waste (battery, cooling and braking fluid, etc.). All the extracted parts are redirected to a
specialized center for reuse, recovery or final disposal as illustrated in figure 19.
Figure 19 "Cradle to Grave" perspective: accounting for the vehicle’s End of Life through a second application
of the battery
After a regular automotive use, corresponding to a specific number of charge/discharge cycles, batteries
lose 20 to 30% of their initial capacity and the driving range is thus affected. The battery reaches end-
of-life conditions at 80% of its initial capacity (De Sutter et al., 2019). Secondary applications can be
envisaged. For example, stationary storage to support the production of self-consumption renewable
energies such as photovoltaic and wind power (Bobba et al., 2018). In this thesis, such accounting of the
battery second life application was not possible due to the complexity of impacts allocation with respect
to the sustainability assessment. Such allocations models are still not sufficiently developed within the
social dimension. Nonetheless, it is important to note that from the environmental perspective, it can be
very relevant to consider this within LCSA studies to allow a full representation of the environmental
impacts.
3. Key assumptions and input parameters for LCA of electric mobility scenarios
In this section, the most significant parameters that have been identified from the previous literature
review are established. These parameters enable comparing between the three mobility scenarios that
are under investigation and are later used in section 3 for the construction of the parameterized LCA
112
model. The parameters that have been chosen as variable are not exhaustive and should be adapted
following the objective of the study. In fact, there’s a substantial number of parameters that could have
an influence on the final results which can vary according to the considered scope of the study. For
instance, total number of travels operated by a vehicle within a shared use and the average traveled
distance is a key parameter when analyzing solely shared mobility services while for collective use the
operation duration and heating and cooling systems can have a significant influence on the generated
impacts. In this study, those parameters are identified from previous studies and their values are fixed
to reflect the average use case. The defined parameters are therefore adapted for this purpose. Vehicles’
modeling, whether for individual, shared or collective transport, depends on a high number of key input
parameters. These parameters have been determined according to their influence on the results.
Vehicle lifetime [years]: represents the total number of years or traveled kilometers for the vehicle’s
operation, expressed in driven km or in yrs. This is a key factor for determining the overall impacts of
the vehicles. This parameter is lower in the case of shared mobility use (4 years) because of the intensive
use of the vehicle. However, the total traveled distance is more significant than individual mobility use.
Vehicle lifetime kilometers [km]: represents the total number of traveled kilometers during the
vehicle’s operation, expressed in driven kilometers. This is a key factor for determining the overall
impacts of the vehicles.
Battery lifetime kilometers [km]: corresponds to total number of the battery’s years of operation and
given number of charge and discharge cycles. It is expressed in total traveled kilometers. This parameter
allows determining the battery’s replacement number.
Total driving mass [kg]: The total mass of the vehicle is the sum of the battery mass, powertrain mass
and the glider mass. Within this thesis midsize passenger vehicles are evaluated.
Energy consumption [Wh/km] or [L/km]: represents the total energy consumption, expressed in
[Wh/km] for EV or [L/km] for ICEV, depends on total driving mass, the driving cycle chosen for the
study. Such parameter is directly linked to the weather conditions as well as standardized comfort values
(heating, air conditioning), equipment efficiency (powertrain, battery) and charging characteristics, etc.
Average passengers (unit): this parameter corresponds to the percentage of the passenger mass on the
total mass of the vehicle, thus expressing the number of passengers that use a vehicle during a trip. Being
different according to the type of transport evaluated, this parameter is very significant for the
comparison between the types of uses. In the ADEME-IFPEN 2018 study, it is 1.3 for an individual use,
about 17.4 for collective use and 2.6 for a shared free-floating use (IFP Energies Nouvelles, 2018).
Driving cycle: Urban driving conditions are considered to allow the calculations of the energy required
for the vehicles' operation and thus the evaluation of the considered scenarios.
Very high temporal and technological variability is found for all of these parameters due to significant
research and development advances in the automotive sector (Tamayao et al., 2015; Cox, 2018). In
addition, the modeling of the parameters as well as the corresponding values in the ecoinvent 3.6
113
database are derived from the Habermarcher (2011) study. Hence, the included information could be
outdated and lead to erroneous representation of the actual environmental impacts. In order to take into
account, the technological advancements, these data are updated to improve the representativeness of
the evaluation results through the use of parameterized models.
Systematic approach for the environmental-impact analysis: integrating parametrized LCA models and
its application to electric mobility scenarios. Built on the analysis of LCAs related to electric mobility
scenarios, the current thesis proposes a four-step approach for establishing an LCA parametrized model
and its implementation for mobility scenarios:
a) Selection of the input variables. This step is conducted according to the previous literature review
where the key input parameters are defined.
b) Modeling of mobility scenarios or product system under investigation. In this thesis, various external
models and tools are identified and adjusted to integrate the key input parameters.
c) Selection of appropriate background inventory data for the settled scenarios. The ecoinvent database
or other data sources can be used depending on their relevancy for the study and the data quality
they provide.
d) Definition impact categories and characterization models to perform the impacts analysis.
Such model is further implemented by specifying the input parameters corresponding to the three electric
mobility scenarios considered within this thesis.
4. Systematic approach for the environmental impacts analysis: integrating

parametrized LCA models and its application to electric mobility scenarios
4.1.Goal and Scope
The goal of this study is to analyze two key aspects of passenger mobility: electric mobility and urban
transport modes. It therefore seeks to identify the environmental impacts associated with mobility
scenarios that cover three different mobility services and various vehicles technologies with different
electrification levels. The study focuses on the case of urban mobility. The most representative vehicles’
segments corresponding to urban transport for personal, collective, and shared mobility is therefore
analyzed. To achieve this goal, five different powertrains (BEV, PHEV-p, HEV-p, ICEV-p, ICEV-d)
corresponding to passenger midsize vehicles are analyzed over the WLTC driving cycle in the French
context. The national electricity mix is therefore used for performing the analysis of electric vehicles.
In a second part, the environmental impacts of buses for the collective transport mode scenario are
analyzed. Urban public transport modes depend on 2 classes of agglomerations: class 1 (agglomerations
of more than 250,000 inhabitants) and class 2 (agglomeration of 150,000 to 250,000 inhabitants).
Electric modes are not present on class 3 (agglomerations of fewer than 150,000 inhabitants), which are
more accurate for a rural area representation (CGEDD et al., 2015).
114
Within the definition of the goal and scope of the study, and according to the ISO standards (ISO 14,040,
2006) the functional unit is key for analyzing the impacts of the different mobility scenarios considered
within this thesis. The function of the evaluated product systems should also be coherent for the three-
sustainability dimensions considered within this thesis (Traverso et al., 2015). Hence, the transportation
of people for similar driving condition is expressed as passengers per traveled kilometer.
The lifetime of the analyzed transportation systems depends on the mobility services. In fact, different
values should be considered for the type of the technology and the mobility services. The assumptions
made for the lifetime of passenger vehicles are based on the literature (Bouter et al. 2020, Guyon 2021).
For a personal use, the vehicle lifetime in kilometers is 150,000 km corresponding to 10 years of a
personal vehicle operation and 480.000km corresponding to 12-year operation is taken for buses. For a
shared use, the life span is shorter compared to a personal use as the operation phase accounts for 4 years
corresponding to 138,500 km. This assumption is based on Guyon (2021) study for carpooling service
LCA modeling.
The system boundaries covered in this study, and shown in Figure 20 System boundaries of the current
study: the integration of the Well to Wheel perspective to account for the impacts from the
fuel/electricity production and use within the vehicle’s operationaddress the environmental impacts
stemming from the entire life cycles, i.e., the production of the transportation technologies, including
different powertrains for electric and conventional vehicles, the WTW perspective accounting for the
energy pathway used (electricity generation and fuel pathways) as well as their use within a TTW
perspective in the French context.
Figure 20 System boundaries of the current study: the integration of the Well to Wheel perspective to account for
the impacts from the fuel/electricity production and use within the vehicle’s operation
115
The LCA is performed following ISO standards (ISO 14040-44, 2006), using brightway2 library (Mutel,
2017) in python language to allow integrating the identified key parameters within the life cycle
inventory suggested by the ecoinvent database 3.6 (Del Duce et al., 2016b). The brightway2 library
allows loading the existing datasets in ecoinvent or creating new updated ones and thus, advanced
impacts calculations can be performed. As mentioned above, the identified key parameters could
substantially influence the results and the existing vehicles’ datasets could include outdated information.
Moreover, this thesis makes use of a second open-source Python library “carculator” dedicated to
adjusting passenger vehicles’ inventories by covering the production, use and disposal stages (Sacchi et
al., 2021). Such tool allows the integration of the most significant parameters through parametrized
inventories to LCA and consequently enhance the representativeness of the obtained results. The impact
assessment of the three mobility scenarios considered within this study covers the ILCD midpoint
indicators (European Commission. Joint Research Centre., 2018b) corresponding to the most significant
impact categories identified from the literature.
4.2.Life Cycle Inventory definition
According to the ISO 14040-44 standards, the LCI should include all input and output flows from the
various processes covered by the study. This entails data collection for the foreground and background
systems. In addition, data validation is also required in this phase to ensure compliance with the
standards requirements. The quantification of input and output flows as well as their units of
measurement should be utmost representative of the current situation.
This thesis uses the cut-off version of the provided datasets by the ecoinvent database v3.6 for passenger
vehicles and buses (Del Duce et al., 2016b) as a basis of the modeling. The first step that was conducted
within the LCI phase consists of analyzing the ecoinvent datasets for four covered vehicle technologies
corresponding to passenger electric and conventional vehicles, i.e., petrol-ICEV, diesel-ICEV, natural
gas-ICEV and BEV. This analysis was performed for the 19-midpoint ILCD indicators and provided in
Appendix 2: Inventory analysis with brightway 2 Python library, ecoinvent 3.6, ILCD midpoint
indicators 20 and noise emissions. The same analysis was conducted for two existing inventories for
buses corresponding to electric (trolley bus) and conventional (diesel bus) technologies, presented in
Appendix 3: Analysis of the variations of the parameters depending on the EURO emissions standards
(3.4 and 5), the location (GLO, RER and RoW), size (large, medium, small) and the powertrain (diesel,
petrol, natural gas and electric) Moreover, the variability of the environmental impacts was analyzed for
the different existing systems following four elements, the size (small, medium, large), the powertrain
(ICEV-d, ICEV-p), the EURO standards (3, 4 and 5) and location (GLO, RER and RoW). These are
presented in Appendix 3: Analysis of the variations of the parameters depending on the EURO emissions
standards (3.4 and 5), the location (GLO, RER and RoW), size (large, medium, small) and the powertrain
(diesel, petrol, natural gas and electric). Following this step, we have identified several shortcomings
116
for the datasets that could lead to a poor representation of the actual impacts mainly for the following
reasons:
- The existing inventories for vehicles and batteries do not reflect the technological advances that
have occurred over time in the automotive industry.
- The NEDC cycle, used by the ecoinvent database, considers only 2 types of driving profiles (urban
and highway) and seems to underestimate the real energy consumption because of the conditions
used during the test (temperature, wind speed, etc.) and the limited driving profiles. As discussed in
section 1.2 more recent driving cycles exist, such as the WLTC and CADC driving cycle and are
more accurate for a realistic use.
- EURO5 standards are used for modeling the exhaust emissions instead of the updated version
EURO 6-d (the updated EURO 6).
- Noise emissions are not included
- The electricity pathway corresponds to the year of the vehicle production rather than a time-
distributed electricity mix for the year of the analysis.
Several previous studies dealing with energy systems have pointed these drawbacks and developed
specific parametrized models and tools to allow the integration of the important parameters (Padey et
al., 2012; Besseau, 2019; Sacchi et al., 2019; Douziech et al., 2021). Such studies provide parametrized
models for LCA to perform advanced environmental impacts or uncertainties calculations based on
updated inventories of the systems under investigation. In the same line, Cox (2018) has developed these
parametrized models for different vehicle powertrains and thus enabled more representativeness of the
energy, materials flows used through more updated life cycle inventories. Sacchi & Mutel (2019) have
designed the “carculator” model that includes more updated information on various key parameters for
passenger vehicles. This model is developed with Python programming language to assess the
environmental and economic life cycle footprint for a wide range of vehicle technologies based on the
work of Cox (2018). All required information is provided in Sacchi & Mutel (2019) study and the library
is open-source and available in (Sacchi, 2019/2021).
The use of parametrized models within LCA in the present chapter would enable to consider the key
input parameters listed above, including energy mix modeling, noise emissions modeling, vehicle
powertrains modeling. This should enhance the representativeness of the findings by accounting for
more specific inventories compatible with the analyzed technologies. With respect to the previous
statements, the current environmental study makes use of carculator tool by integrating the identified
key parameters within the literature review (section 2) to perform the impacts evaluation phase for
personal passenger vehicles.
To build the carculator model (Sacchi, 2019/2021), numerous databases and models were used for
calculating the parameters including (mass module, auxiliary energy, motive energy, noise emissions
117
and exhaust emissions). Figure 21 21 illustrates a snapshot of the calculated energy consumption model,
as an example, of the performed modeling. Hence, input parameters that are used by the carculator (in
yellow circles) for its calculation together with those adjusted in the current study (represented in red
circles). Carculator model provides more than 300 input parameters that can be accounted for and
processed within the modeling. The relative values and their range of variations can be found directly
in the published vehicle inventories and associated publication that analyzes the uncertainties for the
some of the parameters such as the mass modules, energy modules and noise emissions (Sacchi & Mutel,
2019; Sacchi, 2019/2021).
Figure 21 Snapshot of the defined variable parameters (in red) to calculate the vehicle's energy consumption and
those who were fixed during this study (yellow)
Within this research, the provided inventories in carculator for passenger cars and buses are used within
the environmental analysis. Seven parameters were adjusted to enable the analysis of the three
considered scenarios. Table 3 presents all the key adjusted parameters and assumptions for the three
considered mobility scenarios and their corresponding values (illustrated in red in).
Table 3 Key input parameters adjusted from carculator for each mobility scenario considered in this thesis
Parameters Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3:

personal mobility Public transportation Shared mobility
Technologies 5 powertrains 4 powertrains 5 powertrains
(BEV, HEV-p, PHEV- (BEV, ICEV-d, PHEV- (BEV, HEV-p, PHEV-
p, ICEV-d, ICEV-p) p, ICEV-g) p, ICEV-d, ICEV-p)
118
Vehicle size: total Medium size 13m city bus Medium size
driving mass* (Depends on specific (Depends on specific (Depends on specific
powertrains parameter) powertrains parameter) powertrains parameter)
Vehicle lifetime in 10 12 4
years [10-16] [12-14] ; -20 for BEV] [2-4]
Vehicle lifetime in km 150,000 480,000 138,500
[120,000-200,000] [480,000-700,000] [66,200-138,500]
Number of passengers 1.6 17.4 2
(Sacchi & Mutel 2019) (ADEME & IFPEN (Guyon 2021)
2018 ; Bouter 2020)
Electricity mix used for France France France
EV technologies (Assumption) (Assumption) (Assumption)
Driving cycle WLTC 3.1 WLTC 3.1 WLTC 3.1
Energy consumption** Variable Variable Variable
(Depends on specific (Depends on specific (Depends on specific
powertrains parameter) powertrains parameter) powertrains parameter)
* and ** depends on each of the powertrain technologies considered in the study.
The analysis is conducted for a medium size vehicle for scenario 1 and 3 (personal and shared mobility
use case) and for a 13m city bus for the scenario 2 (public transportation use case). Within each of these
three scenarios a set of different powertrains are considered as represented in table 4 covering electric
(BEV, HEV-p, PHEV-p) and conventional (ICEV-p, ICEV-d, and ICEV-g for public transportation).
The total driving mass is calculated by considering the powertrain mass, glider mass, battery mass and
passengers’ mass are thus specific for each of the evaluated vehicle powertrains. As for the energy
consumption (tank to wheel energy), it is determined by using both the total driving mass and the
considered driving cycle, namely urban cycle WLTC3.1 in this study. The energy consumption also
depends on other parameters, such as the battery charge and discharge efficiency (%), the average
passenger mass considered, powertrain and recuperation efficiency (%). These are fixed and their values
are based on those provided by inventories in carculator. Table 4 presents an example of both the total
driving mass and the energy consumption for each of the five vehicle technologies analyzed.
Table 4 Fixed input parameters and those calculated for five vehicle technologies considered within a personal
mobility use case
BEV HEV-p ICEV-p ICEV-d PHEV-p
Driving mass (kg) 2049 1783 1719 1894 1857

Powertrain mass (kg) 95 126 123 131 189
Average passenger mass (kg) 75 75 75 75 75
119
Battery charge efficiency (%) 0.85 -- -- -- 0.85

Battery discharge efficiency (%) 0.88 -- -- -- 0.58
Recuperation efficiency (%) 0.73 0.73 0.69 0.69 0.69
Powertrain efficiency (%) 0.89 0.30 0.28 0.35 --
TTW energy (kWh) 785.78 2001.08 2409.86 2055.48 1284.27
Exhaust emissions module uses the Handbook Emissions Factors for Road Transport (HBEFA) database
v4.1 (INFRAS, 2019) that provide emission factors following each level of speed. The driving cycle
chosen for the study influences thus the emissions factors. Moreover, the amounts of pollutants are
calculated with respect to the EURO 6-d standards (Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/427, 2016).
Noise emissions model uses Cucurachi et al. (2019) study where noise profiles are suggested based on
various driving conditions. The WLTC 3 urban driving cycle is also used to calculate these emissions.
4.3.Life Cycle Impact Assessment
In this phase the impact categories and their corresponding indicators are defined, and the analysis is
performed through the characterization of the emitted substances and the extracted materials and energy
sources (both for renewables and non-renewables). To perform the analysis of the relevant impact
categories identified, this thesis uses midpoint impact categories that arise from the ILCD handbook
recommended indicators (EC and JRC, 2018b). These impact categories concern various environmental
related effects such as climate change, ecosystem deterioration, human health, resources depletion.
Table 5 presents a summary of the impact categories and their corresponding indicators used in this
evaluation phase. As explained previously, emissions factors for noise impact categories are not covered
by the ILCA handbook. In the present work, this category is quantified based on (Sacchi, 2019/2021)
parametrized models based on the chosen driving cycle, i.e., urban driving cycles (WLTC) in this study
both for passenger vehicles and buses models. These are calculated within the calculator model as direct-
exhaust emissions from the vehicle’s operation.
120
Table 5 Impact categories and their corresponding midpoint indicators from ILCD 2018 used within the
conducted analysis in this thesis from European Commission and JRC (2018) handbook on ILCD Midpoint
indicators.
Impact category Indicator Unit Recommended LCIA

model
Climate change Radiative forcing as Global Warming kg CO2 eq Baseline model of 100
Potential (GWP100) years of the IPCC
Ozone depletion Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) kg CFC-11eq Steady-state ODPs
Human toxicity, cancer Comparative Toxic Unit for humans CTUh USEtox model
effects (CTUh)
Human toxicity, non- Comparative Toxic Unit for humans CTUh USEtox model
cancer effects (CTUh)
Particulate matter / Human health effects associated with Disease incidences PM model
respiratory inorganic exposure to PM2.5 recommended by UNEP
235
Ionizing radiation, Human exposure efficiency relative to kBq U Human health effect
human health U235 model
Photochemical ozone Tropospheric ozone concentration kg NMVOC eq LOTOS-EUROS as
formation increase applied in ReCiPe
Acidification Accumulated Exceedance (AE) Mol H+ eq Accumulated
Exceedance
Eutrophication terrestrial Accumulated Exceedance Mol N eq Accumulated

Exceedance
Eutrophication aquatic Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater kg P eq EUTREND model
freshwater end compartment (P)
Eutrophication aquatic Fraction of nutrients reaching marine kg N eq EUTREND
marine end compartment (N)
Ecotoxicity (freshwater) Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems CTUe USEtox model
(CTUe)
Land use Soil quality index (Biotic production, Dimensionless* Soil quality index based
Erosion resistance, Mechanical filtration, on LANCA
and Groundwater replenishment
Water scarcity User deprivation potential (deprivation- kg world eq. Available Water
weighted water consumption) deprived REmainning
Resource use, minerals Abiotic resource depletion (ADP kg Sb eq CML Guinée et al. 2002
and metals ultimate reserves)
Resource use, energy Abiotic resource depletion – fossil fuels MJ CML
carriers (ADP-fossil)
*: aggregated index of kg biotic production/(m²*a) 7 kg soil/(m²*a); m3*a; m3 water/(m²*a); m3g.water/(m²*a)
121
4.4. Life Cycle Interpretation

A multicriteria environmental analysis is presented for the three mobility scenarios analyzed within this
thesis with a focus on electric vehicle technologies. These results are analyzed per each mobility use
corresponding to personal use, collective use and shared use mobility.
The obtained results will later be used conjointly with S-LCA results and LCC results through an MCDA
approach aiming to improve the overall interpretation phase of the proposed LCSA framework.
4.4.1. Personal use mobility scenario
Figure 22 Environmental Impacts calculation for personal passenger midsize vehicles in France 2020
for each powertrain technologyillustrates impacts calculation for midsize passenger vehicles with
respect to the WLTC driving cycle corresponding to an urban driving profile in France. The
environmental impacts are performed for conventional diesel (ICEV-d), petrol (ICEV-p) fueled vehicles
and are compared with electric powertrains with different electrification levels (BEV, HEV-p, PHEV-
p). These results were obtained following the adjustment of a set of input parameters (section 3) using
carculator model and performed through brightway2 python library and ecoinvent v3.6 database as a
basis for the datasets.
As it can be observed on Figure 22 Environmental Impacts calculation for personal passenger midsize
vehicles in France 2020 for each powertrain technology22, the main factors associated to the calculated
impact categories are highlighted, i.e., vehicle production, energy chain (fuel or electricity generation),
road, exhaust-direct emissions and non-exhaust emission as well as the energy storage (battery
technology NMC produced in China).
The overall impacts analysis for the 20 environmental indicators is quite complex as the different
powertrains show different environmental impacts. Within the current study, electric powertrains,
especially in the case of BEV technologies, show enhanced performance for climate change and fossil
depletion thanks to the use of France low-carbon electricity mix. As represented in figure 22, climate
change impacts are directly linked to the electrification level where the direct exhaust emissions
stemming from the liquid fossil-fuel combustion are the most significant in the case of ICEV-p and
ICEV-d. In contrast, electric powered vehicle technologies present higher environmental impacts for
resources depletion (i.e., water and metal depletion) and the impacts on the ecosystem quality (i.e.,
ionizing radiation, freshwater ecotoxicity and marine eutrophication, etc.). Such environmental impacts
for BEV are mainly derived from the battery production, while PHEV showed better environmental
performance as lower energy storage capacity required and thus fewer environmental impacts from the
battery production. The electricity mix in France used for the vehicles’ battery powering is mostly
responsible for the significant impacts on ionizing radiation due to high share of nuclear sources that
amounts to 67% in France in 2020 (CGDD, 2021), but can also present impacts on human toxicity and
metals depletion as discussed in (Besseau, 2019).
122
A study from Bouter et al. (2020) have already discussed the significant influence of the electrification
level on the generated environmental impacts and discussed the double-edged effects of the PHEV
technologies. In fact, if these technologies show better environmental performance than their
counterparts BEV, the use of fossil fuel as the only energy source for the WTW stage can lead to more
significant environmental impacts that are comparable with those associated with ICEV-p.
The same study has pointed out the fact that conventional vehicles could present better performance for
some impacts categories compared to electric powertrains (Bouter et al., 2020). Although such
observation can also be highlighted by the present work, it is important to note that a classification of
resources depletion impact category could lead to partial conclusions. In fact, the updated list of ILCD
midpoint indicators (European Commission. Joint Research Centre., 2018b) distinguish between the
metal, fossil and water depletion which in this study demonstrated different results for electric vehicles.
When considering the vehicle’s production (without batteries), the different powertrains perform similar
results for most of the evaluated impact categories. As for noise emissions, electric vehicles have better
environmental performance on this impact category compared to the conventional ones.
Figure 22 Environmental Impacts calculation for personal passenger midsize vehicles in France 2020 for each
powertrain technology
Impacts on local air quality are showing variable environmental performance between BEV and PHEV
but also compared to conventional vehicles. Indeed, the associated impacts to ozone depletion showed
123
better performance for BEV while for other indicators, i.e., photochemical oxidant formation, human
toxicity and particulate matter formation, HEV and PHEV demonstrated better environmental
performance compared to ICEV technologies. This can be explained by the use of nickel for batteries
production which is the main contributor to the impacts on air quality in the case of BEV technologies.
4.4.2. Collective use mobility scenario
This section presents the performed impacts calculation for four different buses’ powertrains
corresponding to full BEV technology (BEV-depot), hybrid electric buses (HEV), natural gas powered
(ICEV-g) and diesel fuel powered buses (ICEV-d). The analysis is performed for a use case in France
in 2020 following an urban driving profile. Input data for the used life cycle inventories in
bus_carculator (Sacchi, 2020/2021) are mostly based on data from the European Commission for heavy-
duty vehicles. The results are illustrated in figure 23 for the fourth analyzed technologies.
Figure 23 illustrate impacts calculation results for four powertrains of buses (13m city bus) with urban driving
use scenario in France 2020
The results show significantly higher environmental impacts for BEV buses technologies compared to
other technologies regarding the ecosystem quality, metals depletion and water depletion, human
toxicity and ionizing radiation. These impacts are directly associated to the important battery life cycle
while ionizing radiation is mainly associated with the electricity generation in France.
124
Better environmental performance is observed for climate change, fossil-resource depletion, noise
emissions, particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification and ozone layer depletion. If such results
are favorable to the current massive fleet electrification within the transport sector decarbonization and
the objective settled for air quality improvements in dense urban areas, questions should be raised on
the environmental burdens these technologies can generate on other impact categories.
4.4.3. Shared use mobility scenario
The third mobility use scenario analyzed within this thesis corresponds to a shared mobility use of
midsize passenger vehicles within an urban driving profile in France. Results are illustrated in figure
24 for the five analyzed technologies.
Figure 24 Environmental Impacts calculation for shared passenger midsize vehicles in France 2020 by
powertrain
The overall environmental multicriteria analysis demonstrates similar tendance of the environmental
impacts compared to those obtained within the personal use mobility. Nonetheless, the environmental
performance seems to be slightly lower than a personal mobility use scenario, as the impacts are
allocated to a reduced vehicle lifetime, i.e., 4 years instead of 10 years in the case of personal passenger
vehicles. It is important to note that the service end of life does not correspond to the vehicle’s final
125
disposal. Hence, some studies suggest allocating the impacts for the vehicle’s total lifetime operation
with battery’s replacement to enhance representativeness of the final impacts.
4.4.4. Discussions of the results
The interpretation of results for the environmental impact categories did not show a clear clustering for
the environmental performance as the different powertrains considered induced a large variability of the
environmental impact results. Electric vehicles exhibited a low contribution to climate change, to a
large extent linked to the French electricity mix, which is relatively dominated by nuclear energy source.
In contrast, higher environmental impacts were recorded by electric vehicles compared to their
conventional counterparts for resources depletion (i.e., use of water and metal resources use) and
ecosystem quality (i.e., ionizing radiation, freshwater ecotoxicity and marine eutrophication). These
impacts mainly derived from the electric batteries’ production which led to higher impacts in the case
of full BEV than in the case of PHEV. Public transportation has shown the best environmental
performance compared to other analyzed scenarios, namely personal and shared mobility. Such
improved environmental performance is observed for most of the environmental impacts except for
noise emissions. In contrast, full-electric transportation buses illustrated significant environmental
impacts in comparison with their conventional counterparts and the hybrid vehicles due to the significant
weight of batteries. As for the shared transportation vehicle, although the number of passengers
considered within this scenario was higher than the case of personal mobility, it was not reflected in the
environmental impacts. This can be explained by the missing allocation of the impacts on the total
duration of the vehicle lifetime, as only four years was considered within the LCA modeling. It is worth
to note that results associated with the shared mobility scenario showed a number of issues to be solved
in the future within LCA studies. Indeed, data availability is an issue as well as the modeling of the
shared mobility that implies variable travel characteristics (i.e., distance, duration, number of trips per
day, etc.) that need to be accounted for within the assessment to fully account for the environmental
impacts.
Overall, the results of the analysis of this environmental dimension show that modal shift can be very
beneficial for reducing the environmental impacts. Electric transportation technologies can also be an
opportunity for reducing the carbon footprint within the context of low-carbon electricity mix. Other
impact categories highly depend on the level of electrification involving battery production, which
generally contributed the most to the environmental impacts. Massive development of electric mobility,
especially for long-distance travels where significant battery autonomy is required, involves heavier
batteries and thus impacts. Several solutions are under development to solve this issue. For example,
battery swapping technologies appears to be an interesting alternative by reducing the battery size and
also to better manage the potential imbalance in the electricity network due to its massive development
(Vallera et al., 2021). Other alternatives, especially for long-distance travels are being explored such as
electrified highways (Fragnol, 2017), highways with fast charging infrastructures (Mowry &
126
Mallapragada, 2021), and tenders (Gonzalez Venegas et al., 2019). All these technologies still need
thorough environmental, social and economic analysis to investigate their potential impacts throughout
a life cycle perspective.

The concept of environmental LCA is considered mature enough prior to this thesis, so research has
focused on (a) formalizing a systematic protocol to generate parametrized LCAs fitting mobility
scenarios and on (b) S-LCA development and LCC adaptation for the overall sustainability evaluation
method. The results are discussed from an environmental perspective for the three considered scenarios
(i.e., personal, public and shared transportation).
This chapter starts by analyzing the existing LCA studies for electric mobility scenarios to identify the
main impact categories and life cycle stages. As a result, a set of key input parameters has been identified
to be entailed in LCA modeling, e.g., the driving cycles, fuel pathways and electricity mixes.
The environmental evaluation is performed for the considered set of mobility scenarios covering five
different conventional and electric powertrains as well as three mobility services, namely personal,
public and shared mobility use.
This chapter highlights the main drawbacks related to the available LCA Datasets. A systematic
approach for the implementation of parametrized LCA models has been proposed to cover and fit at best
all scenarios under study. Such approach is used to integrate different LCA models from the literature
and to adjust them with the key input parameters for the defined mobility scenarios in this thesis. LCA
is thus performed by running parametrized LCA models fitting these electric mobility scenarios. Such
parametrized LCA models clearly enhance the representativeness of the existing datasets by including
the multiple technological advances that may occur over time. The defined approach together with the
steps to be followed for the establishment of the parametrized models are detailed in section 4 all along
the four iterative LCA phases for the case study.
127
6. References
ADEME. (2015). Un mix électrique 100% renouvelable? Analyses et optimisation- Un travail
d’exploration des limites du développement des énergies renouvelables dans le mix électrique
métroppolitain à un horizon 2050 [Rapport d’étude].
https://www.ademe.fr/sites/default/files/assets/documents/mix-electrique-rapport-2015.pdf
Anenberg, S. (2017). A global snapshot of the air pollution-related health impacts of transportation
sector emissions in 2010 and 2015 (p. 55). International Council for Clean Transportation.
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global_health_impacts_transport_emissions_
2010-2015_20190226.pdf
Arseni, O., & Racioppi, F. (2018). Making the transport, health and environment link—Transport,
Health and Environment Pan-European Programme and the Sustainable Development Goals (p.
60). World Health Organization: Europe.
https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/375511/9789289053334-eng.pdf
Besseau, R. (2019). Analyse de cycle de vie de scénarios énergétiques intégrant la contrainte

d’adéquation temporelle production-consommation [Phdthesis, Université Paris sciences et
lettres]. https://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02732972
Bigo, A. (2016). Comment atteindre le facteur 4 dans les transports ? (p. 159). Chaire énergie et
prospérité. http://www.chair-energy-prosperity.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/publication2016-facteur-4-dans-les-transports-aurelien-bigo.pdf
8_2018-08-28.pdf
Bouter, A., Hache, E., Ternel, C., & Beauchet, S. (2020). Comparative environmental life cycle
assessment of several powertrain types for cars and buses in France for two driving cycles:
“Worldwide harmonized light vehicle test procedure” cycle and urban cycle. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(8), 1545–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-
01756-2
Buekers, J., Van Holderbeke, M., Bierkens, J., & Int Panis, L. (2014). Health and environmental benefits
related to electric vehicle introduction in EU countries. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 33, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.09.002
Catalan, C., & Cornelus, M. (2019, March). Energy Transition scenarios: Strengths and weakness of
LCA in a resource-limited context. Séminaire-SCORE LCA.
128
CGDD. (2020). Bilan de la qualité de l’air extérieur en France en 2019 (p. 36). Commissariat Général
au Développement Durable, Ministère de la transition écologique.
https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-
09/datalab_71_bilan_qualite_air_france_2019_septembre2020.pdf
Cox, B. L. (2018). Mobility and the energy transition: A life cycle assessment of swiss passenger
transport technologies including developments until 2050 [ETH Zurich].
https://www.psi.ch/ta/PublicationTab/Thesis_Embargo_free_version.pdf
Cox, B. L., & Mutel, C. L. (2018). The environmental and cost performance of current and future
motorcycles. Applied Energy, 212, 1013–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.100
Cucurachi, S., Schiess, S., Froemelt, A., & Hellweg, S. (2019). Noise footprint from personal land-based
mobility. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(5), 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12837
De Sutter, L., Firouz, Y., De Hoog, J., Omar, N., & Van Mierlo, J. (2019). Battery aging assessment and
parametric study of lithium-ion batteries by means of a fractional differential model.
Electrochimica Acta, 305, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2019.02.104
Del Duce, A., Egede, P., Öhlschläger, G., Dettmer, T., Althaus, H.-J., Bütler, T., & Szczechowicz, E.
(2013). E-Mobility Life Cycle Assessment Recommendations (No. 285571; p. 150). EMPA.
http://www.elcar-project.eu/uploads/media/eLCAr_guidelines.pdf
Del Duce, A., Gauch, M., & Althaus, H.-J. (2016a). Electric passenger car transport and passenger car
Del Duce, A., Gauch, M., & Althaus, H.-J. (2016b). Electric passenger car transport and passenger car
Dell, R. M., Moseley, P. T., & Rand, D. A. J. (2014). Chapter 8—Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Fuel Cell
Vehicles. In R. M. Dell, P. T. Moseley, & D. A. J. Rand (Eds.), Towards Sustainable Road
Transport (pp. 260–295). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-404616-0.00008-
6
129
Dlugokencky, E., & Tans, P. (2021). Global Monitoring Laboratory—Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_data.html
Douziech, M., Ravier, G., Jolivet, R., Pérez-López, P., & Blanc, I. (2021). How Far Can Life Cycle
Assessment Be Simplified? A Protocol to Generate Simple and Accurate Models for the
Assessment of Energy Systems and Its Application to Heat Production from Enhanced
Geothermal Systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(11), 7571–7582.
Edwards, R., Mahieu, V., Griesemann, J.-C., Larivé, J.-F., & Rickeard, D. J. (2004). Well-to-Wheels
Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context. 2004-01–1924.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2004-01-1924
EEA. (2019). Greenhouse gas emissions by aggregated sector—European Environment Agency [Data
Visualization]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/ghg-emissions-by-aggregated-
sector-5#tab-dashboard-02
EEA. (2021). Exposure of Europe’s population to environmental noise—European Environment

Agency [Indicator Assessment]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/exposure-to-and-annoyance-by-2/assessment-4
Directive (EU) 2016/2284 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 14 décembre 2016 concernant la

réduction des émissions nationales de certains polluants atmosphériques, modifiant la directive
2003/35/CE et abrogeant la directive 2001/81/CE (Texte présentant de l’intérêt pour l’EEE )—
Légifrance, 01-07–2018 L. 222-9 (2018).
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000035464615
Directive 2002/49/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 25 juin 2002 relative à l’évaluation et à

la gestion du bruit dans l’environnement—Déclaration de la Commission au sein du comité de
conciliation concernant la directive relative à l’évaluation et à la gestion du bruit ambiant—
Légifrance, 2002/49/CE (2002).
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/427 of 10 March 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as
regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (Text with EEA
relevance), Pub. L. No. 32016R0427, 082 OJ L (2016).
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/427/oj/eng
Electric and hybrid cars: New rules on noise emitting to protect vulnerable road users, (2019).
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/electric-and-hybrid-cars-new-rules-noise-emitting-protect-
vulnerable-road-users_en
European Commission. (2020a). Determining the environmental impacts of conventional and

alternatively fuelled vehicles through LCA (p. 456) [Final report for the EC, DG Climate
Action]. Directorate-General for Climate Policy -European Commission.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehicles/docs/2020_study_main_report_e
n.pdf
130
European Commission. (2020b). Study on the EU’s list of Critical Raw Materials (2020) (p. 157) [Final
report]. European Commission.
https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/CRM_2020_Report_Final.pdf
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. (2018). Supporting information to the characterisation
factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods: New methods and
differences with ILCD. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/671368
European Commission, & JRC. (2010). ILCD-Handbook-Framework and requirements for Life Cycle
Impact Assessment (LCIA) models and indicators (First Edition). Publications Office of the
European Union.
Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.002
Fortino, A., Eckstein, L., Viehöfer, J., & Pampel, J. (2016). Acoustic Vehicle Alerting Systems
(AVAS)—Regulations, Realization and Sound Design Challenges. SAE International Journal
of Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems, 9(3), 995–1003. https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-
1784
Fragnol, L. (2017). Concept de l’autoroute électrique: Évaluation socio-économique. Ministère de

l’Environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer, en charge des relations internationales sur le climat.
https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma%20-
%20Concept%20autoroute%20%C3%A9lectrique.pdf
Gonzalez Venegas, F., Petit, M., & Perez, Y. (2019). Can DERs fully participate in emerging local
flexibility tenders? 2019 16th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM),
1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/EEM.2019.8916343
Habermarcher, F. (2011). Modeling Material Inventories and Environmental Imapcts of Electric

Passenger Car. Department of environmental science, ETH Zurich.
Hache, E., Simoën, M., & Seck, G. S. (2018). Electrification du parc automobile mondial et criticité du
Lithium à l’horizon 2050 (p. 71). ADEME et IFP Energies Nouvelles.
https://librairie.ademe.fr/mobilite-et-transport/3803-electrification-du-parc-automobile-
mondial-et-criticite-du-lithium-a-l-horizon-2050.html
Hawkins, T. R., Gausen, O. M., & Strømman, A. H. (2012). Environmental impacts of hybrid and
electric vehicles—A review. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(8), 997–
1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0440-9
Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Strømman, A. H. (2013). Comparative Environmental
Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles: LCA of Conventional and
Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2012.00532.x
131
Hernandez, M., Messagie, M., De Gennaro, M., & Van Mierlo, J. (2017). Resource depletion in an
electric vehicle powertrain using different LCA impact methods. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 120, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.005
Hoarau, Q., & Perez, Y. (2018). Interactions between electric mobility and photovoltaic generation: A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 510–522.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.039
IEA. (2020a). Global EV Outlook 2020: Entering the decade of electric drive ? (p. 276) [Technology
report]. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020
IEA. (2020b). World Energy Balances: 2020 Edition (Database documentation).

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4f314df4-8c60-4e48-9f36-
bfea3d2b7fd5/WorldBAL_2020_Documentation.pdf
INFRAS. (2019). Handbook emission factors for road transport 4.1. IFRAS.
https://www.hbefa.net/e/help/HBEFA41_help_en.pdf
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and
ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science—Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (p. 39). IPBES.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yd8l2v0u4jqptp3/AACpraYjOYWpTxAFv5H-
2vrKa/1%20Global%20Assessment%20Summary%20for%20Policymakers?dl=0&preview=S
ummary+for+Policymakers+IPBES+Global+Assessment.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 3949).
Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
IRENA. (2018). Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 (p. 76). International Renewable
Energy Agency. https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Apr/IRENA_Report_GET_2018.pdf

Ke, W., Zhang, S., Wu, Y., Zhao, B., Wang, S., & Hao, J. (2017). Assessing the Future Vehicle Fleet
Electrification: The Impacts on Regional and Urban Air Quality. Environmental Science &
Technology, 51(2), 1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04253
Knobloch, V., Zimmermann, T., & Gößling-Reisemann, S. (2018). From criticality to vulnerability of
resource supply: The case of the automobile industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
138, 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.05.027
132
Lapko, Y., & Trucco, P. (2018). Influence of power regimes on identification and mitigation of material
criticality: The case of platinum group metals in the automotive sector. Resources Policy, 59,
360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.08.008
Lawler, J. J., Spencer, B., Olden, J. D., Kim, S.-H., Lowe, C., Bolton, S., Beamon, B. M., Thompson,
L., & Voss, J. G. (2013). 4.25—Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies to Reduce Climate
Vulnerabilities and Maintain Ecosystem Services. In R. A. Pielke (Ed.), Climate Vulnerability
(pp. 315–335). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384703-4.00436-6
LOI n° 92-1444 du 31 décembre 1992 relative à la lutte contre le bruit (1), 92-1444 (1992).
Longo, M., Foiadelli, F., & Yaïci, W. (2019). Electric Vehicles Integrated with Renewable Energy
Sources for Sustainable Mobility. In L. Romeral Martínez & M. Delgado Prieto (Eds.), New
Trends in Electrical Vehicle Powertrains. IntechOpen.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76788
Mowry, A. M., & Mallapragada, D. S. (2021). Grid impacts of highway electric vehicle charging and
role for mitigation via energy storage. Energy Policy, 157, 112508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112508
MTES. (2018). Véhicules hors d’usage. Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire.

https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/vehicules-hors-dusage
Transition écologique et solidaire. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-03-
25_MTES_SNBC2.pdf
Mutel, C. (2017). Brightway: An open source framework for Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Open
Source Software, 2(12), 236. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00236
Nordelöf, A., Messagie, M., Tillman, A.-M., Ljunggren Söderman, M., & Van Mierlo, J. (2014).
Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—What can we
learn from life cycle assessment? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(11),
1866–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0
Notter, D. A., Gauch, M., Widmer, R., Wäger, P., Stamp, A., Zah, R., & Althaus, H.-J. (2010).
Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles.
Environmental Science & Technology, 44(17), 6550–6556. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903729a
Oliveira, L., Messagie, M., Rangaraju, S., Sanfelix, J., Hernandez Rivas, M., & Van Mierlo, J. (2015).
Key issues of lithium-ion batteries – from resource depletion to environmental performance
indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 354–362.
Ortego, A., Valero, A., Valero, A., & Restrepo, E. (2018). Vehicles and Critical Raw Materials: A
Sustainability Assessment Using Thermodynamic Rarity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12737
133
Padey, P., Blanc, I., Le Boulch, D., & Xiusheng, Z. (2012). A Simplified Life Cycle Approach for
Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Wind Electricity. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
16(s1), S28–S38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00466.x
Pan, S., Fulton, L. M., Roy, A., Jung, J., Choi, Y., & Gao, H. O. (2021). Shared use of electric
autonomous vehicles: Air quality and health impacts of future mobility in the United States.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 149, 111380.
Rodrigue, J.-P. (2020). The Geography of Transport Systems—Chapter 4 – Transport, Energy and
Environment ‣ 4.3 – The Environmental Footprint of Transportation (5th Edition, p. 456).
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environmental-footprint-of-transportation/
romainsacchi. (2021). Carculator_bus [Jupyter Notebook].

https://github.com/romainsacchi/carculator_bus/blob/9749b2a6fa931b30fee015b0b1a543e349
5b766b/examples/buses.ipynb (Original work published 2020)
RTE. (2017). Valorisation socio-économique des réseaux électriques intelligents-Synthèse commune

des contributions [Synthèse].
https://www.ademe.fr/sites/default/files/assets/documents/valorisation-socio-economique-
reseaux-electriques-intelligents_synthese.pdf
RTE. (2019). Enjeux du développement de l’électromobilité pour le système électrique (p. 82)
[Principaux résultats]. https://www.rte-
france.com/sites/default/files/electromobilite_synthese_9.pdf
RTE. (2021). Futurs énergétiques 2050: Les scénarios de mix de production à l’étude permettant
d’atteindre la neutralité carbone à l’horizon 2050. https://www.rte-france.com/analyses-
tendances-et-prospectives/bilan-previsionnel-2050-futurs-energetiques
Sacchi, R. (2021). Carculator [Python]. https://github.com/romainsacchi/carculator (Original work

published 2019)
Sacchi, R., Bauer, C., & Cox, B. L. (2021). Does Size Matter? The Influence of Size, Load Factor,
Range Autonomy, and Application Type on the Life Cycle Assessment of Current and Future
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology.
Sacchi, R., Besseau, R., Pérez-López, P., & Blanc, I. (2019). Exploring technologically, temporally and
geographically-sensitive life cycle inventories for wind turbines: A parameterized model for
Denmark. Renewable Energy, 132, 1238–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.020
Sacchi, R., & Mutel, C. (2019). Carculator: Prospective environmental and economic life cycle
assessment of vehicles. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778259
Schmid, M. (2020). Challenges to the European automotive industry in securing critical raw materials
for electric mobility: The case of rare earths. Mineralogical Magazine, 84(1), 5–17.
https://doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2020.9
134
Sénat. (2015). Rapport fait au nom de la commission d’enquête sur le coût économique et financier de
la pollution de l’air. [N° 610 TOME i]. Mme Leila AÏCHI. http://www.senat.fr/rap/r14-610-
1/r14-610-11.pdf
Tamayao, M.-A. M., Michalek, J. J., Hendrickson, C., & Azevedo, I. M. L. (2015). Regional Variability
and Uncertainty of Electric Vehicle Life Cycle CO 2 Emissions across the United States.
Environmental Science & Technology, 49(14), 8844–8855.
Traverso, M., Kim, P., Brattig, S., & Wagner, V. (2015). Managing Life Cycle Sustainability Aspects
in the Automotive Industry. In G. Sonnemann & M. Margni (Eds.), Life Cycle Management
(pp. 331–339). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7221-1_24
UFE. (2019). Développement de l’électromobilité: Démystifier les questions de faisabilité pour faire
apparaître les opportunités pour le système électrique. http://ufe-electricite.fr/IMG/pdf/ufe-
developpement_de_l_electromobilite-2.pdf
UN. (2015). Paris Agreement (p. 27). United Nations.

Vallera, A. M., Nunes, P. M., & Brito, M. C. (2021). Why we need battery swapping technology. Energy
Policy, 157, 112481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112481
Van Mierlo, J., Messagie, M., & Rangaraju, S. (2017). Comparative environmental assessment of
alternative fueled vehicles using a life cycle assessment. Transportation Research Procedia, 25,
3435–3445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.244
Volkart, K., Mutel, C. L., & Panos, E. (2018). Integrating life cycle assessment and energy system
modelling: Methodology and application to the world energy scenarios. Sustainable Production
and Consumption, 16, 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.07.001
WHO. (2015). Health 2020: Transport and health. World Health Organization: Europe.
https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/286421/Transport_E.pdf
Zhang, J., Everson, M. P., Wallington, T. J., Field, F. R., Roth, R., & Kirchain, R. E. (2016). Assessing
Economic Modulation of Future Critical Materials Use: The Case of Automotive-Related
Platinum Group Metals. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(14), 7687–7695.
Zimmermann, T., Knobloch, V., & Goessling-Reisemann, S. (2018). From criticality to vulnerability of
resource supply: The case of the automobile industry. Resources Conservation and Recycling,
138, 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.05.027
135
Appendix 1: Input conventional and lightweight materials share (%) for Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (GREET, 2020).
136
137
Appendix 2: Inventory analysis with brightway 2 Python library, ecoinvent 3.6, ILCD midpoint indicators 20
Results from the inventory analysis of the existing buses datasets in the ecoinvent 3.6 datasets and using the brightway2 Python library.
Two technologies are analyzed (trolley and electric buses)
138
Results of inventory analysis of passenger vehicles inventories provided by the ecoinvent 3.6 datasets using the brightway2 Python library. Four different
vehicle’s powertrains (medium size, NEDC driving cycle, EURO 5 standards, RER)
139
Appendix 3: Analysis of the variations of the parameters depending on the

EURO emissions standards (3.4 and 5), the location (GLO, RER and RoW), size
(large, medium, small) and the powertrain (diesel, petrol, natural gas and
electric)
LCI Analysis (ecoinvent 3.6 – brightway 2) depending on EURO 3, 4 and 5
LCI Analysis (ecoinvent 3.6 – brightway 2) depending on Location GLO, RER and RoW
140
LCI Analysis (ecoinvent 3.6 – brightway 2) depending on different powertrains (LPG, NG,
diesel, petrol)
LCI Analysis (ecoinvent 3.6 – brightway 2) for buses depending on powertrains (regular and
trolley)
141
LCI Analysis (ecoinvent 3.6 – brightway 2) depending on size of the vehicles (large, medium,
small)
142
Chapter IV: Social evaluation of electric mobility scenarios through Social Life Cycle Assessment
Chapter IV: Social evaluation of electric

mobility scenarios through Social Life
Cycle Assessment
Summary (IV)
The current thesis gives particular attention to the methodological development of Social-LCA (S-LCA)
by proposing a step-by-step S-LCA framework in accordance with the recommendations of ISO 14040-
44 standards. Such framework includes two innovative features: (1) a participatory approach for the
selection of impact subcategories and (2) a user-centric social impact assessment. It is implemented to
investigate potential social and socio-economic impacts associated with the three mobility scenarios
considered within this thesis.
Section 0 starts by identifying the main methodological issues and present limitations within S-LCA
studies for the mobility sector and thus introduces the challenges to be addressed in the present research
work.
Section 2 presents the key identified specific social topics for mobility scenarios by expanding the scope
of the current published studies to be able to cover different stakeholder groups, life cycle stages,
existing vehicle technologies and current and emerging mobility services.
Section 3 describes the comprehensive step-by-step S-LCA framework proposed in this work with two
new features: (1). A participatory approach for the selection of relevant impact subcategories and (2). A
specific social impact assessment to support S-LCA evaluation phase through a user-centric approach.
These two novelties are detailed in two toolboxes to enable their adaptation and application to other
product systems and sectors.
Section 4 entails the implementation of the proposed framework to the considered electric mobility
scenarios, conventional and electric vehicle technologies and mobility services. Hence, it describes the
four phases of ISO standards and specifications that were added. The evaluation phase is performed
through a reference scale-based Social Life Cycle Impact assessment (RS S-LCIA). It is carried out in
two steps: first, a generic assessment is used to perform the impacts calculation of vehicle technologies
and then, the assessment is complemented by a specific analysis of mobility services from a user point
of view.
143
Table of content (IV)

Summary (IV) .................................................................................................................................... 143
Table of content (IV) ......................................................................................................................... 144
1. S-LCA for mobility scenarios: State of the art and the main limitations ................................. 146
2. Key social topics for mobility scenarios: A first screening of the literature ............................ 148
2.1. Social and socio-economic impacts on workers ...................................................................... 148
2.2. Social and socio-economic impacts on local communities ..................................................... 150
2.3. Social and socio-economic Impact on the users ...................................................................... 151
2.4. Social and socio-economic impacts on value chain actors ...................................................... 154
2.5. Social and socio-economic impacts on society ....................................................................... 155
3. Development of S-LCA methodological framework with two novel features .......................... 156
3.1. Goal and scope definition ........................................................................................................ 158
3.1.1. Design of a participatory approach for the selection of impact categories.............................. 158
3.2. Definition and structure of the Social Life Cycle Inventory (S-LCI) ...................................... 162
3.3. Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (S-LCIA) definition .................................................... 163
3.3.1. Introducing a user-centric perspective to S-LCA .................................................................... 164
3.4. A comprehensive analysis for Social Life Cycle interpretation .............................................. 166
4. Application of the developed S-LCA framework to electric mobility scenarios ...................... 167
4.1. Goal and Scope definition ....................................................................................................... 167
Stage 1: Identification of impact subcategories following a sectorial social risk analysis applied
to mobility scenarios ........................................................................................................................... 171
Stage 2: Actors’ consultation process for the prioritization of relevant impact subcategories
applied to mobility scenarios—comprise the data collection method (S-LCA iterative aspect) ......... 174
4.2. Definition and structure of the Social Life Cycle Inventory (S-LCI) for electric mobility
scenarios .............................................................................................................................................. 184
4.2.1. Generic data collection through PSILCA database ................................................................. 184
4.2.2. Specific data collection for the participatory approach and specific analysis of impacts ....... 186
4.3. Social Life Cycle Impact assessment (S-LCIA) of electric mobility scenarios: ..................... 189
4.4. Social Life Cycle Interpretation of results............................................................................... 190
144
4.4.1. S-LCIA results for workers ..................................................................................................... 190
4.4.2. S-LCIA results for local communities ..................................................................................... 193
4.4.3. S-LCIA results for value chain actors ..................................................................................... 195
4.4.4. S-LCIA results for society ....................................................................................................... 196
4.4.5. S-LCIA results for users’ stakeholder group: Analyzing mobility services with a user-centric
approach .............................................................................................................................................. 197
5. Conclusions of the chapter............................................................................................................ 198
6. References ...................................................................................................................................... 201
Appendix 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 215
145
1. S-LCA for mobility scenarios: State of the art and the main limitations
Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) allows the analysis of potential social and socio-economic
impacts all along the products and services life cycles (UNEP, 2020). Potential social impacts are
defined by UNEP guidelines (2020) as: “the likely presence of a social impact, resulting from the
activities/behaviors of organizations linked to the life cycle of the product or service and from the use
of the product itself”.
The updated version of S-LCA guidelines by UNEP (2020) for products and organizations introduced
six different stakeholder categories, as represented in figure 25 (i.e., society, workers, local
communities, value chain actors, consumers, and children). By definition, stakeholder categories
include one or a group of persons that are involved in the product system value chain (i.e., involved
stakeholders) or susceptible of being affected by its related activities (i.e., affected stakeholders) all
through life cycle stages. For each of the stakeholder groups, a set of impact subcategories is
recommended. Impact subcategories are social and socio-economic items or attributes that describe how
each stakeholder category can be affected by the potential social and socio-economic impacts of the
product system. These impact categories are analyzed using quantitative, semi-quantitative and
qualitative indicators for which generic and specific data is collected.
Figure 25 Stakeholder categories and their associated social and socio-economic impact subcategories following the new
updated S-LCA guidelines (in red the added stakeholder impact subcategories in UNEP Guidelines 2020)
Studies that tackle the challenges of S-LCA in the automotive sector have been recently increasing
(Zimmer et al., 2017; Zanchi et al., 2018; Karlewski et al., 2019; Zanchi et al., 2020; Osorio-Tejada et
al., 2020b; Gompf et al., 2020).
146
The main methodological issues that were identified from the literature review covering S-LCA studies
in the mobility sector and would require further development are:
- The focus is mainly made on the development of social impact subcategories and inventory
indicators based on a literature review analysis (Gompf et al., 2020; Karlewski et al., 2019; Pastor
et al., 2018), the domain of applicability and the main barriers for practical application of S-LCA
(Zamagni et al., 2013; Zanchi et al., 2018).
- The selection of impact subcategories is often missing, not sufficiently justified, or based solely
on a literature review. Participatory approaches are rarely applied for this purpose, despite their
promising ability to introduce further stakeholders’ opinions to S-LCA and thus increase the
local relevancy of the results (UNEP, 2020).
- Most studies adopt the companies and designers’ perspectives within the assessment while the
users’ point of view and other concerned stakeholders are rarely included in the assessment
(Zanchi et al., 2018).
- Most studies do not include the user stakeholder group in the evaluation phase and do not analyze
the use phase of mobility scenarios due to its complexity (Petti et al., 2016; Osorio-Tejada et al.,
2020b).
- The evaluation phase is challenging as very few studies consider a complete product system in
S-LCA but rather focus on a specific component or lifecycle stage to simplify the modeling, e.g.,
notably the production and manufacturing stages (Karlewski et al., 2019; Osorio-Tejada et al.,
2020b; Zimmer et al., 2017). On the other hand, the first study to introduce a core set of mobility
services evaluation is Gompf et al. (2020) still, no application of the proposed indicators to assess
the impacts of a specific case study is available.
To overcome the above-mentioned limitations, this thesis seeks to support the development of S-LCA
methodology by introducing two novelties:
✓ Definition of a participatory approach to enable the selection of impact subcategories from

all concerned stakeholders’ perspectives
✓ Introduction of a user-centric impact assessment approach to S-LCA
These two features are integrated to an S-LCA method and explained step-by-step in accordance with
the four recommended phases in ISO standards (ISO 14040-44, 2006). The new proposed framework,
applicable to various product systems and sectors, is implemented in this thesis to assess the three
electric mobility scenarios under study. Hence, the results of the S-LCA obtained within this chapter are
meant to feed the development of LCSA framework and provide science-based information to the
decision makers within the context of electric mobility scenarios.
147
2. Key social topics for mobility scenarios: A first screening of the literature
This section comprises the five stakeholder groups proposed by UNEP guidelines and investigates the
key social topics to be considered within S-LCA for the different life cycle stages of transportation
systems and mobility services. The aim is to identify main social topics to be further considered in the
evaluation and explores the existing social assessment studies, main references and key locations or
process activities that may substantially contribute to positive or negative social impacts.
2.1. Social and socio-economic impacts on workers

Workers are generally involved in the different life cycle stages of products, technologies, and services.
In the case of mobility, these stages cover the extraction activities and manufacturing of the vehicle
technologies to their final disposal, but also include workers involved in the vehicle’s operation
(purchase, repair and maintenance activities together with drivers and road infrastructure’s workers).
The working conditions can substantially vary depending on the geographical context, thus the social
and political context of the country under consideration but can also be linked to the organization
practices and its social management system efficiency. Although the transport sector is a major source
of employment (CGDD, 2021), it is essential to verify the conditions under which the workers carry out
their activities. Consequently, the so-called “sustainable” mobility requires compliance with workers’
rights all along transportation systems life cycle stages.
Transportation supply chain, especially for electric transportation systems, raises several concerns about
the working conditions due to the intensive use of metals and minerals. In fact, extractive activities
are more likely to be a hotspot linked to several key social risks, i.e., human rights abuses, conflict
financing and crimes (OECD, 2021). Although social risks underlined by the extractive industry are
increasingly being reported within social risk assessment studies, there is still a significant lack of
transparency and socially responsible mineral sourcing is still scarce. A recent publication from the
OECD (2021) has demonstrated the need of more transparent information to support policy-makers in
enforcing sustainability practices and due diligence process. The mining industry is generally
insufficiently controlled by regulations as the most majority of activities are located in non-OECD
countries with less restrictive policies. Hence, men and women workers without basic protection
equipment are directly exposed to severe pollution aspects driving by serious short—and long-term
health threats. Workers in cobalt and copper mines, which are primary sources of materials for the
automotive sector among others, suffer from diverse health effects such as respiratory diseases, urinary
tract infections and can also face birth defect problems (Amnesty International, 2021). It is important to
note that, until now, most studies rely on direct measure of given emitted substances whereas long-term
characterization of the pollution effects on workers and local communities is not adequately informed
(Amnesty International, 2020).
148
Moreover, child and forced labor are very common in the mining sector (OECD, 2021). The list of
goods produced by child labor or forced labor was published by The Bureau of International Labor
Affairs (2020). Cobalt has been identified a high-risk input product which is generally mined in
Central Africa by child laborers before being refined and integrated to electric vehicles batteries in
factories in China (ILAB, 2020). There are several other social and socio-economic impact
subcategories included in the UNEP guidelines (UNEP, 2020) that are of high importance to the
transportation sector.
The likelihood of social risks can be different in the case of OECD countries. In fact, by considering
mobility use scenarios in France, child labor, forced labor and other concerns related to working
conditions are less likely due to the stricter regulation.
It is important to highlight that social performance also depends on mobility services that take place
in the use phase. In fact, a wide range of mobility services have become widespread in recent years, but
their associated social and socio-economic impacts are not fully characterized and are still poorly
controlled and regulated. This raises the need for transparent information which S-LCA can provide.
More often the emergence of certain mobility services, such as shared mobility, is hampered by the lack
of social security coverage for the employees, in the absence of mature regulatory measures
(European Commission. Joint Research Centre, 2018). For instance, the French social security authority
(URSSAF) has taken legal action against the UBER company due to the fact that the workers are mostly
independent contractors and are not recognized as “employees” (Alix, 2017). The UBER company,
claiming to be only a provider of a digital facilitating platform for mobility end-users, has strongly
disputed the proceedings. In response, the European court of justice classified in 2017 UBER as a
“transport company” and not only a digital service provider (Ingber, 2018). Such gaps in the regulatory
coverage might substantially undermine the social security of workers and result in significant societal
costs. These concerns are even more worrisome within the current digitalization and shared economy
promoted by the European Commission (2016). The social and socio-economic impacts from such
emergent mobility services are still ambivalent and require careful investigations and measurements to
avoid precarious working conditions and ensure a successful transition towards sustainable mobility
alternatives. In the same line, bus drivers, which are also workers in the use phase, can be significantly
affected from the organization practices (service provider), but also from the direct use of the buses.
The recommended impact subcategories in S-LCA for workers by the methodological sheets (Benoît
Norris et al., 2013) derive from the International Labor Organization (ILO) on workers’ conventions.
The ILO (2018) has established a set of conventions that countries have ratified (or not) describing the
areas of concern facing workers in the course of their activities.
Social and socio-economic topics related to workers are in the core of interest of S-LCA method and
have been considered so far in most S-LCA studies (Macombe et al., 2013; Holger et al., 2017; Zanchi
et al., 2020). However, these studies merely consider the workers in the manufacturing stages and up to
149
date no previous study has considered workers in the use phase within mobility S-LCA studies. This
raises a real methodological issue; to distinguish between both workers in the manufacturing stages and
workers in the use phase (that can also be considered as secondary users).
2.2. Social and socio-economic impacts on local communities
Local communities can be defined as a group of people that are organized around a common value and
living in a common region. These people are thus likely to be directly affected by the activities of the
organization providing the product or service under investigation. Organizations involved in the entire
value chain are therefore expected to ensure that the rights of these local communities are respected,
mainly through the improvement of their living conditions: job creation, willingness of the organizations
to take their concerns into account when making decisions, etc. Hence, it is of utmost importance to
identify, analyze and measure the magnitude of potential negative and positive social and socio-
economic impacts related to the system under investigation.
Within the transportation value chain, the local population is highly susceptible of being affected by the
extraction and manufacturing activities. Automotive materials’ extraction is a major source of soil and
water pollution (e.g., toxic liquid discharges due to the use of acid in metal processing) and air
pollution threatening the quality of local resources and in consequence the safety and health
conditions of the population. Moreover, access to local resources, particularly for water resources,
may be restricted in the event of conflict between the organization and the local community. Such
conflicts may be the result of a disagreement over ownership of the resources or of material or immaterial
damage caused by the activity. In fact, serious concerns and challenges have been pointed out at the
international level due to the observed conflict issues in countries such as Congo, Peru or Chile for the
four main primary material supplies for automotive batteries (lithium, cobalt, nickel and copper)
(International Energy Agency, 2019).
A large share of the refining of automotive primary materials takes place in China, i.e., more than 50%
for lithium refining, 40% for copper, 60% for cobalt and 30% for nickel (International Energy Agency,
2019). In addition, since the financial crisis of 2008, the contrast between the decline of vehicle
manufacturing in the United States, Europe and Japan, and the rapid growth of emerging markets,
particularly in Asia, has become even more striking (Pardi, 2017). Such reversal of the geopolitical and
economic balance has more significant consequences at a local scale. The mutation of the automotive
market can be responsible of workers’ delocalization and migration, thus, undermining the social and
economic balance of the local population that should be strictly organized.
The emergence of vehicle manufacturing in non-OECD countries can be seen as an opportunity for local
employment, which is of significant added value for the economic development of local communities.
On the other hand, the decline of automotive manufacturing activities in the OECD countries is of
significant concern due to low employment security. For example, in France, about 65,000 jobs are
expected to be at risk by 2030 due to the expanding market of electric transportation, which is 25% less
150
demanding in terms of employment than conventional transportation(Soula, 2021). The employment

security has also been identified as one of the main factors for societal resistance deriving from the fear
of job loss associated with future transportation schemes (L’Hostis et al., 2016). Hence, social
acceptability should be considered carefully to measure local communities’ ability to adopt emergent
mobility solutions. Community engagement is therefore increasingly encouraged to include the local
population concerns and potential societal resistance within the decision-making process (i.e.,
opening/operation of a mine, installation of a nuclear power plant/charging infrastructure).
It is also to note that 50% of global Cobalt demand derives from the automotive sector and particularly
for batteries production (International Energy Agency, 2019). Despite the current production surplus,
cobalt demand—as well as for other minerals—is expected to rise in the coming years within the growth
of EV market. It is therefore important to ensure that the environmental benefits from EV technologies
due to low direct emissions in the use phase does not undermine decent living conditions of local
communities in other parts of the world.
2.3. Social and socio-economic Impact on the users
In this study the term “users” refers to “consumers,” “customers,” or “passengers.” The users can be
significantly affected and in various ways, i.e., by the use of conventional and electric technologies, by
the different mobility services but also by the regulation and taxation of fuel or electricity consumption.
It is to note that, two categories of users can be distinguished; primary users are the passengers and
represent the entities for which the product utility has been described, and secondary users, which
represent the workers (i.e., bus drivers, taxi drivers).
A major issue for mobility solutions during the use phase is related to passengers’ safety. Special
attention should indeed be paid to road accidents. Personal transportation is the mode of travel most
frequently involved in road accidents, which amounted in 2018 to 50% of total number of road
accidents in France (ONISR, 2019). Electric vehicle technologies also recorded accidents related to their
quietness, resulting in casualties among road users, such as impaired people and cyclists, but also among
domestic animals sheltering under the cars. To resolve this issue, the acoustic vehicle alerting system
(AVAS) has been introduced by the European Commission in 2019 (Electric and Hybrid Cars: New
Rules on Noise Emitting to Protect Vulnerable Road Users, 2019).
Users’ safety can also be associated to harassment and sexual assaults, which are of major concern
in public transportation. In fact, nearly one in five robberies took place in public transport in 2019 on
the French territory (Interstat, 2021). Such acts affect women and men differently: 56% of women are
victims of nonviolent theft and 95% for sexual-based violence while 63% of men are victims of
intentional assault and 85% for violence against public officials (Interstat, 2021). In general, women
tend to take more public transport, walking and cycling than men, which increases their risk to suffer
gender-based harassment (European Commission. Joint Research Centre., 2019). The new trends in the
transport sector regarding the innovative digital solutions for mobility usher new challenges in terms of
151
potential threats for users of shared mobility. It is therefore important to account for users’ needs and
especially for women’s safety risks when developing new mobility services (ITF, 2018).
One of the key drivers of users’ mobility choices is the travel comfort (İmre & Çelebi, 2017). Despite
the lack of a standardized definition of comfort, it has been recognized as a quality indicator for mobility
services and especially for public transportation (Shen et al., 2016). It has also been covered by some
International standards such as the EN 13,816 (AFNOR, 2002) for public transportation quality of
service and ISO 2631-1 (2010) which is generally included in the design phase of the buses, relative to
vibrations and shocks.
Comfort is an aspect that can relate to the health of users and their well-being but other social topics,
such as urban congestion, are also significant in dense urban areas and can result in substantial social
and economic externalities (Levy et al., 2010). Traffic congestion not only increases pollutant
emissions, fuel consumption and travel costs, but also has a direct impact on travel time, speed, delay,
and affects consequently the quality of the mobility service (ATC, 2017). When conducting social
assessment studies of mobility scenarios, it is important to account for the various health aspects
related to users, i.e., comfort, congestion, noise, etc. These can involve negative effects, but positive
effects can also be identified, especially when investigating the benefits of walking and cycling as
alternative transportation solutions. The French Active Mobility Plan, established by the French
Environmental Agency (ADEME, 2020), has the ambitious objective of achieving 24% of cycling modal
share by 2030 in accordance with the WHO recommendations. Although most studies are mainly based
on economic indicators to measure the benefits of walking and cycling for the society (Rutter et al.,
2013), a review by Kelly et al. (2014) showed how all 21 analyzed studies demonstrated that walking
and cycling tend to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality.
To guarantee a sustainable mobility in the future, inclusiveness has been targeted as one of the most
priority goals at the European level ensuring equal access for everyone to transportation alternatives
(Gallez & Motte-Baumvol, 2017). In addition, target 11.2 of the sustainable development goals (DGDs)
(World Bank, 2015) highlights the need to provide, by 2030, safe, affordable, accessible, and sustainable
transport systems for all citizens. The Orienting Mobility Law introduced by the French government
(Loi-Mobilités-Présentation du projet de loi d’orientation des mobilités, 2018) set inclusiveness as a
key factor for achieving sustainable future mobility schemes. In fact, accessibility to transportation is a
human basic right giving each person the ability to move geographically and thus extending job
opportunities (Holzwarth, 2015). Accessibility can be measured through the availability of the
transportation services, interoperability of infrastructures, but also through the affordability of the
transportation vehicles and the services to guarantee the inclusiveness of all people, especially with
those in vulnerable situations, i.e., women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons.
In the context of personal mobility, the ownership of a car sometimes involves a cost exceeding the
average purchase power in the country. This can affect the affordability of the vehicle’s transportation
152
and to mobility services. In order to encourage the conversion towards electric transport technologies,
measures such as conversion incentives, battery leasing systems, etc. have been introduced in France.
On the other hand, other measures are being adopted to change users’ behavior, such as carbon taxation
or emission reduction zones that can affect accessibility to transportation solutions, especially in rural
areas.
In the previous paragraphs, the discussed social and socio-economic topics are related to the direct use
of mobility services and transportation technologies either conventional or electric ones. However, there
is also a wide range of social impacts that can derive from organizations’ practices, either vehicle
manufacturers or mobility service operators. Western users are becoming increasingly aware of the
social and socio-economic impacts associated with their daily mobility choices. Transportation value
chain actors are therefore expected to enhance their social management system and provide more
transparent information on their social performance.
The communication system plays here an important role allowing the users to make informed and
unbiased choices and can even improve the quality of the mobility service (Limon et al., 2018). In fact,
an effective communication system is a key factor for public and shared mobility services allowing
passengers to explore, for example, all the possible combinations to reach their destination and to access
information related to their journey (timetables, points served, etc.). Most of the digital mobility
platforms promoted within the growing “mobility as a service” (Kostiainen & Tuominen, 2019) rely on
these communication tools to facilitate the accessibility of end-users to variable transportation
alternatives. In addition, several mobility platforms have been developed to allow an effective
communication on warranty systems, insurance and product return policies, but also to allow users’
feedback to be taken into account so as to improve the ability of such platform to respond to their needs
(Silva et al., 2018). With respect to the ongoing digitalization in the transport sector, several challenges
need to be highlighted and considered carefully to avoid a rebound effect.
One of the main concerns associated with such communication tools is the users’ data privacy. This
subject is getting particular attention at the European level due to non-compliance with users’ rights and
the abuse of personal data use for commercial purposes. A French person spends an average of 7 hours
per week traveling, mainly by personal car (ADEME, 2019). In the case of connected vehicle use, the
personal data privacy raises more concerns regarding the significant amount of information that goes
through mobile applications. A “connected vehicle” compliance pack was launched in 2016 by the
National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties (CNIL), in consultation with
stakeholders in the automotive industry and public authorities, to propose a sector-based reference
framework for the responsible use of personal data of transport users (CNIL, 2016). The aim is to
integrate the privacy dimension in the design phase and to define measures for handling personal data
in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (RGPD | CNIL, 2018).
153
The social risks related to passenger data use also applies to shared transport as it requires access to
users’ personal data for its operation, including their identifiers, personal addresses, journeys made, etc.
In 2018, a penalty of €400,000 following a breach of user data safety was imposed to the company
UBER (CNIL, 2018). The conducted investigation revealed the lack of security of personal data that led
to the breach of 57 million users, 1.4 million of whom are located in France (CNIL, 2018).
Within S-LCA studies, users are the less considered among the other stakeholder categories. Several
studies (Petti et al., 2016; Zanchi et al., 2018; Gompf et al., 2020; Osorio-Tejada et al., 2020b) have also
confirmed this statement. Four potential reasons for the insufficient representation of users’
stakeholder group were identified from the literature review:
a. The product system does not have a direct relationship with the clients/consumers or users’ category
and it could be evaluated only through the organization performance (Osorio-Tejada et al., 2020b).
b. The consumer category is not correlated with the most frequent activity variable used “working
hours”.
c. There is a lack of data or accessibility issues, and inventory indicators for users and consumers are
still not covered by generic databases such as PSILCA (Eisfeldt et al., 2017; Maister et al., 2020).
d. The use phase is underrepresented or excluded from the system boundaries (Blom & Solmar, 2009;
Foolmaun & Ramjeeawon, 2013; Mancini & Sala, 2018; Petti et al., 2016).
Social performance of a transportation option depends, not only on the technology, but also the type of
use (personal, shared, and public transportation). As stated by Gompf et al. (2020) in their work, the use
phase is elementary for the assessment of mobility services. They have therefore defined a core set of
indicators to evaluate mobility services including all stakeholder groups. In this thesis, users’
stakeholder category is carefully considered to allow a thorough evaluation of the social and socio-
economic impacts within S-LCA method. Based on the identified key potential social and socio-
economic impacts on users, a set of social indicators have been defined and evaluated. A specific
analysis for mobility services is therefore introduced within the global S-LCA framework developed in
this work and presented in the next sections.
2.4. Social and socio-economic impacts on value chain actors
Manufacturers, suppliers, partners and all the actors involved in the extraction, manufacturing,
distribution, repair, or recycling processes are today held responsible for their environmental and social
management policies. Organizations are thus expected to consider the potential impacts or unintended
consequences of their purchasing and procurement decisions on other organizations and to be careful to
avoid or minimize any negative impact (ISO26000, 2010).
Transportation supply chains generate direct and indirect impacts on users (through the products or
services they offer), on workers (through the industrial activity itself), on local communities (through
their interaction with local resources) and on society in general, when we consider the contribution in a
broader sense to socio-economic, cultural, technological and sustainable development.
154
In the automotive sector, there are various aspects linked to the strongly competitive after-sale market:
increase in the price of individual repair services for users leading to a direct impact on public health
and the environment (poorly maintained cars), dominance of car manufacturers on the aftersales
market (repairers approved by the manufacturers) limiting the offers for suppliers of materials and
components as well as independent repairers.
The attractive prices offered by some suppliers could override the quality of the environmental and
social conditions under which these materials, components, goods, or services have been designed.
Another aspect related to the lack of communication between the manufacturer and its suppliers could
undermine the trust between both parties and lead to unfair decisions.
Impact subcategories for value chain actors were poorly assessed within previous S-LCA of mobility
scenarios (Gompf et al., 2020). This can be explained by the lack of data accessibility, which here can
include very sensitive information.
2.5. Social and socio-economic impacts on society
The social issues described here illustrate global aspects that can relate to mobility scenarios with a
special focus on electric mobility. This category of stakeholders includes governmental institutions, non-
governmental organizations, and all entities that could be affected by the impacts of the transportation
sector in a global scale.
In France, transport is a very important sector in terms of employment, with 1.4 million employees,
excluding temporary workers (CGDD, 2021), but also in terms of income, since it generates 386 billion
euros which is equivalent to 17.3% of gross domestic product (INSEE, 2017). The penetration of the
electric fleet in the transport market will consequently have impacts on job creation (or their
suppression), education and training and public investments, both for the deployment of services and
development of charging stations and infrastructure and for the contribution to the development of
research in the field. The need for more sustainable mobility alternatives paves the way for developing
more carpooling, car sharing and other shared mobility services that interest users due to the
technological ease they offer. Such emergent mobility alternatives foster the technological
development, which in turn enhances mobility users’ comfort and also optimizes the use through
maximization of the functionalities.
Due to the opposing financial interests of different organizations, the integrity of the economic system
should be questioned. In fact, the price of minerals more than doubled on average between 2000 and
2009 and continues to grow (Soula, 2021). The minerals’ booming demand has been supported by new
emergent powers such as China and India where most of the refining activities are located (International
Energy Agency, 2019). The energy transition in its “sustainable” perspective requires the consideration
of the potential evolution of geopolitical situations (or conflicts) and economic markets related to
heavy metals (or rare earths) in order to foresee the imbalance that this transition could generate (Pardi,
155
2021). It is therefore important to ensure that the organization and the entire value chain of a product
are not involved in the creation of a conflict and, instead, they make efforts to prevent it.
3. Development of S-LCA methodological framework with two novel features

With the aim of contributing to an operational S-LCA method, the present thesis focuses on two
innovative features and their consistent integration to S-LCA method. A step-by-step S-LCA framework
is therefore proposed based on the four main iterative phases as defined in the guidelines (UNEP, 2020)
and in consistency with ISO 14,040 (Finkbeiner et al. 2006). Such framework is presented in Figure 26
and emphasizes the novel steps that are introduced in the main phases recommended in the S-LCA
guidelines, together with the interactions between steps.
The first feature introduced by this thesis consists of developing a systematic participatory approach for
the selection of relevant impact subcategories within the goal and scope phase, as shown in Figure 26.
The impact subcategories that were perceived as the most relevant by the different stakeholders are used
to perform the evaluation phase and thus contribute to a comprehensive analysis of results. The designed
participatory approach enables S-LCA practitioners to account for stakeholders’ perceptions in order to
select the most relevant social and socio-economic subcategories as suggested by the updated version
of S-LCA guidelines (UNEP, 2020).
The second feature focuses on improving the evaluation phase by introducing a user perspective to S-
LCA to analyze mobility services. As previously stated within the identification of key social topics, the
analysis of mobility services is key to ensure a comprehensive social assessment of mobility scenarios.
In this regard, the present thesis focuses on addressing this issue by introducing a user-centric social
impact assessment. Hence, the evaluation phase is conducted in two steps through RS S-LCIA: (1)
generic assessment for transportation technologies and (2) specific assessment with a user-centric social
impact assessment for mobility services. Such specific analysis is based on a set of identified user-
related impact subcategories for which performance indicators, performance scales and calculation
methods are defined.
The coming subsections entail the methodological description of the four phases of S-LCA by including
these two features. The required guidance and steps to be conducted are explained to enable the
implementation of the suggested framework to other product systems and sectors. It is worth to note that
such novel participatory approach applied to transportation technologies has been already published into
the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Two boxes are presented to help S-LCA
practitioners with box (1) the design of the consultation process and box (2) the implementation of a
specific social impact assessment within S-LCA. Section 4 entails the application of the proposed S-
LCA comprehensive framework to the three mobility scenarios considered within this thesis: covering
both electric and conventional technologies as well as mobility services, i.e., personal use, public
transport use and shared use.
156
Figure 26 Step-by-step comprehensive S-LCA framework within this thesis adapted from Bouillass et al. (2021)
157
3.1.Goal and scope definition

The first phase of S-LCA defines the purpose of the study, the intended use, the system boundaries, as
well as the considered stakeholders and social impact subcategories. It describes the main
methodological pathways adopted such as the functional unit, the cut-off criteria and the impact
assessment method (UNEP, 2020). In this study, elementary flows and process activities are used to
identify directly and indirectly related stakeholders. The listed stakeholder categories can be then
prioritized following different criteria, i.e., legitimacy, impact and completeness (UNEP, 2020).
As shown in Figure 26, one of the key features provided by this work is the introduction of specific steps
in the first phase of S-LCA for the identification and prioritization of social and socio-economic impact
subcategories. This approach can be used to select the most relevant topics for the evaluation and
interpretation phases. It is generic enough to be applied to different product systems and sectors.
3.1.1. Design of a participatory approach for the selection of impact categories
Within the definition of the goal and scope of the study, the impact categories to be analyzed should be
defined. There is a broad range of studies that aimed to define subcategories and their relative social
indicators (Kühnen & Hahn, 2017; Mancini & Sala, 2018; Sureau et al., 2018; Gompf et al., 2020). Such
studies have focused on the literature review to identify relevant impact categories and indicators.
To this end, S-LCA studies introduce a selection step to choose among the recommended subcategories
in the UNEP Guidelines those who should be considered. Such selection often lacks transparency and
solely use the literature review. Moreover, studies tend to choose the “easiest” impact subcategories for
which data is available and impact assessment models are known. Hence, there is a significant imbalance
within the different impact categories and stakeholder groups that were analyzed in previous S-LCA
studies, e.g., workers and local communities’ subcategories are often analyzed while users, value chain
actors and society are often let out of the scope (Petti et al., 2016; Gompf et al., 2020). In addition, this
selection introduces a value choice that needs to be transparent.
The selection of impact subcategories is a critical step in S-LCA and can substantially affect the results
of the assessment and thus, the decisions made on that basis. It is therefore highly recommended to duly
justify the use of impact subcategories to prevent a partial representation of the impacts on stakeholders.
The UNEP guidelines (2020) suggest the use of materiality assessment within S-LCA to focus on
significant impact categories. The concept of materiality, illustrated in Figure 27, has also been included
in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2016) and ISO standards (ISO 26000, 2010) to allow the
selection of material topics that are of importance and interest for the organization’s business and can
be of significant impacts on stakeholders. However, such process can be limited for three main reasons:
i) not systematically covering a life cycle perspective, ii) not covering the needs and expectations of all
the affected and involved stakeholders, iii) lacks transparency as no clear selection criteria and guidance
are provided for its implementation.
158
Figure 27 Materiality Assessment based on the importance for the organization’s business and according to external
stakeholders (GRI 2014).
Social significance of the impact subcategories can substantially vary depending on the perspective of
the considered actor. The organization and the other concerned stakeholders involved in a given sector
(here the mobility sector) through complex networks are likely to have different interests, concerns, and
influence on the decision-making. To date, studies have mainly focused on the perceptions of designers
and companies while other stakeholders’ perceptions are still not integrated into the evaluation methods
(Zanchi et al. 2018).
The need to extend the scope of materiality assessments by involving all concerned stakeholders when
prioritizing and evaluating social impact subcategories was also pointed by Karlewski et al. (2019).
Following S-LCA guidelines (UNEP, 2020), participatory approaches can be used to select the final set
of indicators according to stakeholders’ values, thus contributing to legitimate the assessment and justify
the chosen impact subcategories for the evaluation.
The proposed participatory approach, illustrated in Figure 28, covers two main stages: stage (1)
identification of social and socio-economic impact subcategories through a sectorial risk analysis and
stage (2) prioritization of the impact subcategories following a multi-actor consultation process. Such
approach can help duly justify the need of the used indicators in S-LCIA phase and increase the local
relevance of S-LCA results. Moreover, embedding the perception of all concerned stakeholders, as
introduced by this approach, for the selection of relevant impact subcategories is expected to improve
their representativeness and inclusiveness, compared to a materiality assessment that solely reflects the
perception of designers and companies.
This part of the work has been published to the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. The
submitted paper explains step-by-step how the proposed S-LCA framework can be adapted to other
product systems for the selection of impact subcategories.
159
Figure 28 Main steps of the defined participatory approach for the selection of impact subcategories within S-LCA, adapted
from (Bouillass et al. 2021)
Stage 1: Identification of sector-specific impact subcategories through a sectorial risk analysis
This step is conducted with respect to the first phase of S-LCA, the goal and scope of the study. The
definition of impact subcategories is performed with respect to the considered system boundaries, main
process activities and their related geographical locations.
The recommended stakeholder groups and their related impact subcategories in S-LCA guidelines
(UNEP, 2020) — list 0 in Figure 28 Main steps of the defined participatory approach for the selection of impact
subcategories within S-LCA, adapted from (Bouillass et al. 2021) — are adapted with regard to the sector under
investigation. To do so, S-LCA studies, together with external social assessment reports, regulations,
and normative references can be used to identify topics of interest to the defined product system.
Stage 2: Prioritization of impact subcategories through a multi-actor consultation process
The established list 1 from the identification stage, as represented in Figure 28, is here used for the
prioritization stage. To allow a full representation of stakeholders, the design of the consultation process
should start by defining the actors that can be consulted to collect their perception on the social
significance of each impact subcategory. Following the definition of actors to be consulted, the surveys
are to be designed to serve the objective of the consultation and the targeted stakeholders.
The design of the survey can be tested by third parties to validate its practical implementation. According
to this step, adjustments can be made before proceeding the survey. Finally, the collected answers should
160
be processed in transparent manner to analyze the perspective of the different involved actors. To enable
the design of a multi-consultation process, this thesis proposes the following box 1 with the main
features that should be considered.
BOX 1: DESIGN OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
The design of the consultation process should include the actors to be consulted, survey tools, the type
of questions, and the data collection.
a. What actors to be consulted?
Directly affected and involved stakeholders whenever they can be consulted and external concerned
stakeholders for all other cases. The external concerned stakeholders do not have a direct relation with
the product system but can provide relevant information on the social significance of impact
subcategories. The relevance of stakeholders can be determined based on their level of concern,
likeliness of representativeness of affected and or involved stakeholder interests, awareness, and level
of influence on decision-making.
For example, it can be difficult to access information from some of the directly affected and involved
stakeholders, i.e., workers in the extraction, local communities, suppliers, etc. As a solution, other
external concerned stakeholders can be consulted depending on their relevance to the product system.
b. What are the available tools?
There are many different tools that can be used to conduct the survey either, through online semi-
structured surveys or individual interviews, focus groups, etc. The choice is to be made based on the
specific needs and the goal of the study. Sometimes it can be relevant to use different tools as they are
often in complementarity. In fact, individual interviews can be very beneficial for collecting qualitative
information while online semi-structured surveys are easier in terms of the logistics and allow gathering
greater information for the specific need of the study.
For example, the prioritization of impact subcategories in this work is conducted based on the outcome
of the identification step. In this regard, the consulted actors are asked to rank a suggested list of impact
subcategories. Online semi-structured surveys are here the most adequate to enable such exercise.
However, the online survey was complemented whenever it was possible with individual interviews
allowing to gather information on how the respondents understood and analyzed each question.
c. Type of questions?
Once the data collection method has been chosen, the step after consists of defining the questions and
the most
- The questionnaires should address the different impact subcategories that have been identified. To
perform the prioritization, online surveys can be useful to order the list of impact subcategories
according to the importance assigned by each stakeholder.
- It can be helpful to consider distinctive characteristics of life cycle stages and the corresponding
geographical areas in the questions to analyze the variability of the perceived importance.
d. What adjustments should be made?
The adjustments can be made to cover special features of the product system under investigation. It is
recommended to validate the surveys after a first trial of the consultation. Supplementary adjustments
can be made to custom-made the surveys following the stakeholders needs. However, it should be noted
that, such configuration can affect the duration of the consultation step.
161
The above established participatory approach is implemented subsequently to select the impact
subcategories intended to the analysis in S-LCIA phase. A set of specifications was included to allow
its application to the defined scenarios in this thesis; personal, public and shared mobility. These
specifications are explained in section 4, which entails the implementation of the defined S-LCA
comprehensive framework.
The three considered scenarios are analyzed following a user perspective which allows to focus the
social assessment on the most relevant impact subcategories. Results from the prioritization enable the
selection of impact subcategories, but also the comparison of the perceived importance variability per
each considered mobility use scenario.
3.2. Definition and structure of the Social Life Cycle Inventory (S-LCI)
This phase aims at collecting generic and specific data to perform the evaluation phase. Modeling
product systems from an S-LCA perspective requires the use of multiple data sources that could be either
generic or specific. Primary data is needed to determine amounts of input flows, social inventory
indicators and corresponding risk or opportunities levels and finally the activity variables that allow
interlinking data for various product systems.
Generic databases can be used to gather information on the evaluated product system. In this study, the
Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database is used to allow the modeling of the
input and output flows of the different vehicle technologies by covering four different stakeholder
groups. The use of the database is explained in section 4.2. and implemented to the considered vehicle
technologies in this study as was illustrated in Figure 26.
Although site-specific data accessibility is often a limiting factor when conducting the S-LCI phase, it
is highly recommended in this phase (UNEP, 2020) to cover social and socio-economic aspects related
to a specific production site or a case study that cannot be fully measured with generic databases.
Specific data is therefore needed to complete the results of generic databases and thus enhance their
representativeness.
In this research, specific data is collected to feed the prioritization stage of the proposed participatory
approach as illustrated in Figure 26. It should be noted that the use of the participatory approach has
been classified by the UNEP (2020) S-LCA guidelines as an “evidence-based” method for collecting
data, which ensures a higher reliability of statements compared to “emotionally convincing” methods
(i.e., anecdotal evidence, case studies, photo and video documentation).
The S-LCI phase is considered as a preparatory stage for S-LCIA phase. In the case of using generic
databases, these provide predetermined reference scales and performance reference points (PRP). To
ensure specific assessment of users’, the impact subcategories should be prior established. With this
162
regard, specific data is also collected to enable the analysis of the defined users’ impact subcategories.
Various data sources can be used depending on the geographical and political contexts. This phase is
implemented for the whole set of impact subcategories that were defined within this thesis and are
further analyzed in the S-LCIA phase. The following toolbox (box 2) is providing the main key features
to be considered when conducting a specific social impact assessment.
BOX 2: SPECIFIC SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
To allow the specific impact assessment to define impact subcategories, the following questions are
suggested:
a. What is measurable?
This first question seeks to identify which aspects are measurable for each of the impact subcategories.
For example, for affordability, the price, purchasing power, user perception, incentives, and taxation
seem all to have a direct relationship with this subcategory.
b. What are the main references?

This question addresses whether the topic in question is subject to any regulatory requirement in the
considered geographical context. If so, the regulatory thresholds are identified and used to feed the
definition of the reference scales and the PRPs.
c. What if no regulatory thresholds are identified for a given impact subcategory?

Among the various identified subcategories, there may be some that do not benefit from a specific
regulatory structure. In this case, the focus lies on identifying existing voluntary standards, statistical
studies, case studies, etc. For example, affordability is not subject to specific regulations. However, there
are some regulatory measures, such as carbon taxation, and some incentives, such as the conversion
incentive for the purchase of electric vehicles, that can be used to inform the analysis.
d. What are the reference scales used in other social impact assessment studies?
The aim here is to identify the reference scales used for other social impact analysis references such as
the PSIA Handbook (Goedkoop et al., 2020a, 2020b). For example, the PSIA handbook proposes five
reference scales to analyze the affordability that can be adjusted to the considered product system.
e. What data is needed?

Based on the identified measurable aspects and the reference scales to be used, the type of data to be
collected is determined, i.e., quantitative, semi-quantitative or qualitative as well as performance
indicators. The methodological sheets (Benoît Norris et al., 2013) and the PSIA handbook (Goedkoop
et al., 2020b) can be used for this purpose.
3.3.Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (S-LCIA) definition

Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (S-LCIA) aims at calculating, understanding and analyzing the
magnitude of social impacts for the defined impact subcategories along the life cycle of the product
system (UNEP, 2020). The S-LCIA phase is conducted in this study according to “Type I” impact
163
assessment approaches, namely “Reference Scale-based Social Impact Assessment” (RS S-LCIA). In
fact, the current development of characterization models within the “Impact Pathway Social Life Cycle
Impact Assessment” (IP SLCIA) is limited to potential social and socio-economic impacts for a single
stakeholder category, the workers, and for a very restricted number of impact subcategories. RS S-LCIA
approaches enable the assessment of all stakeholder groups and their related impact subcategories, which
makes them more compatible with the multi-actor perspective introduced in this work. Moreover, the
main S-LCA databases are in line with RS S-LCIA, which is also a key support for this study. Indeed,
S-LCA generic databases measure social risks at country and sector data levels. Besides the
methodological sheets, the handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) (Fontes et al., 2016;
Goedkoop et al., 2020a, 2020b) is an important basis for Type I assessment approaches.
Reference scales established within the inventory phase are used in the S-LCIA phase to perform the
calculation of social and socio-economic impacts. These describe for each inventory indicator ordinal
scales that comprise a set of PRP corresponding to different levels of social performance or social risks.
For example, the employed reference scales in PSILCA database distinguish risk levels that vary from
“very low risk” to “very high risk,” and opportunities levels that vary from “low opportunity” to “high
opportunity” that allow S-LCA practitioners to account for the positive aspects. Within each impact
subcategory, social and opportunity levels are translated in a quantitative metric through an impact factor
(Maister et al., 2020). All subcategories and their corresponding inventory indicators, together with the
equivalencies between quantitative metrics and risk levels can be found in PSILCA database
documentation (Maister et al., 2020).
Performance Reference Points (PRP) are also determined to allow estimating social risk or performance
levels based on context-dependent references, i.e., international standards, local legislations, and
organizations best practices. According to the framework defined in this work, social and socio-
economic impact subcategories that are perceived as the most relevant following the prioritization are
used to perform the S-LCIA phase. Social inventory indicators, performance scales and PRP are
attributed to the selected social and socio-economic subcategories. The calculation is performed
following the characterization method chosen for the study. We further explain how this phase was
conducted using PSILCA generic database with an application to transportation technologies.
3.3.1. Introducing a user-centric perspective to S-LCA
Since users’ impact subcategories are not covered in the existing S-LCA databases, the reference scales
for impact assessment should be defined as well as the inventory indicators and their related PRP. The
inclusion of these specific impact categories is intended to complement the evaluation of the scenarios
by providing insight into the mobility services for a local use case in France. This will enable a
comparison of the three considered scenarios based on a user-centric approach with respect to the
objective of this thesis.
164
Figure 29 Representation of S-LCIA phase through a specific analysis following the establishment of reference scales and the
collected inventory data, adapted from UNEP 2020 S-LCA guidelines with the introduction of the participatory approach.
The establishment of reference scales is conducted following the suggested steps in UNEP (2020)
guidelines. Figure 29 illustrates the adjustments that are brought to the process by integrating the results
of the participatory approach, notably the identified and the selected impacts subcategories by users
following the consultation. The representation of S-LCIA process presented in Figure 29 requires the
selection of the impact subcategories to be considered in the assessment, the definition of reference
scales (either performance, risk scales, opportunity scales, etc.), the Performance Reference Points
(PRP) determining the reference values of performance indicators and inventory data collection. These
can be qualified as preparatory steps for S-LCIA phase and are illustrated in Figure 29 as step 0, 1 and
step 2. The assessment entails the association of the inventory data to each of the reference scales, thus
linking steps 1 and 2 for each of the selected impact subcategories in step 0. In step 4, the results are
expressed in risk or performance levels.
The S-LCIA phase can also include an aggregation or weighting step and can be introduced at different
states of the advancement of the process. Weighting consists of attributing weights that rely on value
choices to indicators, to impact subcategories, or to stakeholder groups.
In the current work, the assessment of inventory data is aggregated by each stakeholder group and impact
subcategory. An implicit equal weighting is performed as no specific weighting factors are applied to
S-LCIA results. Impact assessment results are thus considered individually equal for each impact
subcategory. However, it is important to mention that the focus is made on the prioritized impact
165
subcategories from the participatory approach. Hence, the approach uses explicit weighting in the
upstream process and involves all concerned stakeholders.
There is a wide range of weighting techniques, i.e., equal weighting, most robust indicators prioritized,
expert or stakeholder values and worst performance prioritized. The description of these techniques and
their integration to S-LCA is explained in S-LCA guidelines (UNEP, 2020). It is important to note that,
the ISO standards do not support the use of weighting for publishing comparative assertions in LCA
(Roesch et al., 2020). The UNEP guidelines (2020) have also highlighted the need of transparency when
using a weighting technique to avoid confusion and questioning of the interpretation of S-LCIA results.
The participatory approach introduced in this thesis provides an opportunity to integrate stakeholders’
opinions to determine the relative importance of impact subcategories escaping from a simple implicit
weighting approach. However, the determined relative importance is only used to focus the assessment
on some impact subcategories that are perceived as relevant and does not apply the relative importance
values to the assessment results. The assessment of the other impact subcategories and their relative
indicators are provided to support a more in-depth analysis.
The implementation of the established steps of S-LCIA to users’ impact subcategories is explained in
section 4 within the implementation of the overall S-LCA framework defined in this work to analyze
electric mobility scenarios.
3.4. A comprehensive analysis for Social Life Cycle interpretation
To ensure a comprehensiveness analysis of the results, this study integrates a participatory approach to
Social Life Cycle Interpretation (see Figure 26). Involving variously affected and concerned stakeholders
should help to enhance the materiality assessment by extending the scope to fully consider the
divergence of interests and objectives that can occur between the various stakeholders. Such work
should improve the representativeness of the materiality assessment that usually reflects solely the
organization’s perspective and does not take into consideration the points of view of other stakeholders
about the economic, environmental, and social topics that could substantially affect them.
Throughout this study, we aim at overcoming this limitation by using a qualitative ranking to prioritize
social and socio-economic impact subcategories according to various actors’ perceptions. Results from
the consultation process could therefore be used to discuss the social significance of the social and socio-
economic impact subcategories and to compare the different points of view. Such approach enables to
extend the scope of the interpretation phase and consider stakeholders’ expectations and their increasing
concern on social and socio-economic topics. Moreover, the S-LCIA is complemented by a specific
analysis of mobility services by considering the impact subcategories that were perceived as the most
relevant.
166
4. Application of the developed S-LCA methodological framework to electric

mobility scenarios.
4.1.Goal and Scope definition
The goal of the implementation of the S-LCA framework in this work is to evaluate the social risks
associated with three mobility scenarios corresponding to personal, collective and shared transport use,
with a special focus on electric vehicle technologies. The function of the evaluated system is to ensure
the transport of passengers in France for a midsize vehicle. This study considers USD 1 output of the
product system for the input processes modeling. The system boundaries in this study are illustrated in
Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable. 30. The analyzed impact subcategories are related to the
manufacturing, distribution, use and end of life of the vehicles. For both electric and conventional
vehicles, the main components and raw materials are identified (e.g., batteries production and
powertrains) together with the raw materials and their corresponding geographical location (e.g.,
Lithium, Cobalt, Steel, etc.) from previous sustainability assessment studies (Bobba et al., 2018;
Hosseinijou et al., 2014; Mancini et al., 2019). In addition, two energy production pathways are assessed
in this study for the vehicles’ power sources, namely electricity and fuel production in France. In fact,
the analysis of transport energy sources is increasingly required to complete environmental and
economic assessments due to high use of fossil fuels and their associated risks on resources depletion
and as a result the degradation of safe and healthy living conditions (Hoque et al., 2020). The use phase
entails three mobility use scenarios, corresponding to personal use, public transport use and shared use.
Figure 30 System boundaries of the study according to a “cradle to grave”, including mobility use scenarios, e.g., three
mobility services, and energy production systems; conventional and electric transportation technologies
167
The defined life cycle stages are assessed following the sector/country social risks; therefore, the input-
output flows are identified to reflect the share of each process activity into the final product output rather
than physical flows connections, as done in environmental LCA. Geographical locations of each process
activity are identified to allow a representative coverage of the associated impact subcategories
considered in the assessment.
For the identification of stakeholders, the UNEP (2020) revised S-LCA guidelines were considered.
However, the children stakeholder category is excluded from this work as no mature definitions are
currently available for the subcategories suggested in the guidelines and are still not covered in existing
S-LCA databases. In this regard, this study focused on five stakeholder categories, namely, workers,
consumers, local communities, value chain actors, society.
Mobility-related stakeholders are identified through the analysis of several studies that targeted
stakeholders’ identification and mapping in mobility (Dobrzyński et al., 2015; Garrido Fernández, 2018;
Harrington et al., 2016; Imre Keseru et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2015; Le Pira et al., 2016; Mancini & Sala,
2018; Zambre, 2015). These have addressed direct relations occurring between stakeholders and the
studied product system and indirect relations resulting from interactions with other related sectors such
as mineral extraction (Mancini & Sala, 2018; OECD, 2021), manufacturing activities, use phase
(Eskerod & Huemann, 2013; Spickermann et al., 2014; Lindenau & Böhler-Baedeker, 2014; Kostiainen
& Tuominen, 2019; Esztergár-Kiss & Tettamanti, 2019; Kougias et al., 2020; Ludovico et al., 2020;
Bjørgen et al., 2021) and final disposal of transportation technologies as defined within the system
boundaries. The list of identified stakeholders, their definition together with the type of the occurring
interaction is provided table 6.
Table 6 Identified stakeholders, sub-stakeholders, their definition and the nature of their relationship with the product system
Stakeholders’ Sub-Stakeholders Definition Type of the relation
categories
Workers Employees All employees (males and Affected by the organization
females) in the extraction of raw practices and decisions.
materials (minerals’ extraction)
and manufacturing of components
(batteries, powertrains, etc.) and
final products (internal
combustion engine vehicles and
electric vehicles)
Migrant employees The share of migrant Affected by the organization
employees/total number of practices and decisions.
employees in the sector
Changes following the regulatory
context
Child laborers The share of child labor in the Affected by the organization
sector (males and females) practices and decisions.
Changes following the regulatory
context
Worker unions Representative entities for Concerned about the social and
employees in the organization and socio-economic risks generated by
or the sector. specific activities on the workers.
Could influence the decision-
168
making to protect workers’ rights in

the organization.
Value Chain Manufacturer Designer of and developer of the Directly involved in the decision-
Actors final product/technology making process
Suppliers/Creditors Industrial actors and private Involved in the decision-making
and Contractors entities that are linked to the process/supply chain of the
supply chain of the product/technology
product/technology
Shareholders Particular partner, who is an Directly involved in the decision-
investor in capital, the owner of a making process and could have
given share of the activity that significant influence/control
gives him the prerogatives in the
functioning of the company and its
decisions.
Society Government Define regulation and Concerned by the environmental
transportation/manufacturing and social and socio-economic
policies on the national scale performance of organizations. And
have great influence on the
decision-making process.
NGOs Local organization for Concerned by the environmental
environmental protection/air and social and socio-economic
quality and a local scale/noise, performance of organizations. And
biodiversity, etc. data privacy of have great influence on the
users, etc. decision-making process.
Local Local Authority Local authorities that define the Concerned by the environmental
Community local politics and regulations to be and social and socio-economic
respected by the organizations performance of available
products/technologies in the
market. Define local actions and
plans to manage
products/organization’s impacts on
a local scale.
Local community Local residents at a given Directly and indirectly affected by
geographical area where the products/technologies and
extraction/manufacturing activities related to the
activities take place manufacturing
Workers Workers Employees in the distribution and Affected by the organization
purchase stages (male and female) practices/local/national
transportation policies
Users Users Person or group of people that Directly affected by
would buy the vehicle technology
Society Governments Actors’ decision makers at the Directly involved in the decision-
national level for mobility policy making: subvention policies for
and regulations and objectives EV/Incentive taxes related to
(reduction of GHG emissions) petroleum products
Users Users Primary users of transportation Directly affected by the product
technologies (Bikes, EV, Buses) (vehicle technology and mobility
and mobility services (personal, services) and practices of the:
public, and shared transport) Operators of the mobility
service/providers of the technology
and insurance and other mobility
services/also affected by the
local/national policies (ZER)
Local Local community Local residents at a given Affected by environmental, social
community geographical area characterized by and socio-economic aspects related
x types of transportation to technologies/mobility services
vehicles/and y mobility services/z (noise, local air quality, local
mobility infrastructures employment, accessibility to
169
mobility services and infrastructure

for EV)
Society Government’s decision makers at the national Directly involved in the decision-
level for mobility policy and making: subvention policies for
regulations and objectives EV/Incentive taxes related to
(reduction of GHG emissions) petroleum products
NGOs Local organization for Concerned by the environmental
environmental protection/air and social and socio-economic
quality and a local scale/noise, performance of organizations. And
biodiversity, etc. data privacy of have great influence on the
users, etc. decision-making process.
Value chain Constructors Road’s infrastructures, charging Involved in the decision-making
actors infrastructures and other mobility and concerned by the local and
infrastructures national mobility policies—
subventions for charging
infrastructures
Insurance Providers of insurance services to Involved in the decision-making
the different users (primary and process (private actors) could have
secondary: workers) directly affected on users
Service operators Providers of mobility platforms Involved in the decision-making
(MaaS)/mobility services process. Could have direct impacts
providers on users. Concerned by the
national/local mobility policies.
Workers Workers Independent repairmen or those Affected by the organization’s
(secondary affiliated to the producers’ practices and local and national
users) organizations. Bus drivers, taxi regulatory context
drivers, and other workers in the
operating stage of the vehicle
(deliveries included)
Value Chain Batteries Actors involved in the secondary Involved in the decision-making
Actors Collectors use/application of the battery. process. Concerned by the local and
national
Other materials Actors involved in the recycling of Involved in the supply chain,
collectors the vehicles concerned by the national/local
regulatory context
Manufacturer Actors involved in the recycling of Involved in the supply chain,
vehicles and related components concerned by the national/local
and raw materials. “Filière REP” regulatory context
User Users of the Users of second life of vehicles, Affected by the
secondary products batteries for energy storage technology/component and
local/national regulations
Local Local Authority Local regulations and actions for Involved in the decision-making
Community the final disposal of vehicle process, promotion of circular
technologies and components economy of the materials and
circularity. vehicles components at the local
scale
Society NGOs Local organization for Concerned by the local policies
environmental protection/air and impacts on the various
quality and a local scale/noise, stakeholders
biodiversity, etc.
As explained above, users’ stakeholder category is the least represented stakeholder category in S-LCA
studies related to mobility sector (Osorio-Tejada et al., 2020a; Petti et al., 2016), as social risks are
usually evaluated directly through organization’s performance. In this study, the users are considered as
a key stakeholder due to their significant impact on social acceptability of the final transportation
170
technology (Chalkia et al., 2017; L’Hostis et al., 2016). A new set of social and socio-economic impact
subcategories is therefore proposed related to users’ stakeholder category particularly suitable for the
mobility sector. The users’ perception is also introduced in the prioritization stage to identify relevant
impact subcategories and thus their expectations and concerns in terms of sustainable mobility
alternatives. However, the evaluation of user-related social inventory indicators was not possible
through the generic database as no correlation can be made with the activity variable and no social
inventory indicators are available in generic databases (Goedkoop et al., 2020b).
In this thesis, a set of social and socio-economic indicators to evaluate the social performance of the
mobility services with a user-centric perspective is presented in this thesis. This add-on imposes the
adaptation of the different S-LCA phases notably, the S-LCI phase to enable specific data collection and
S-LCIA phase to perform the assessment of social and socio-economic impacts through a specific
analysis. In order to identify relevant impact subcategories, the designed participatory approach—
described in section 3.1.—is applied here to the mobility scenarios considered within this thesis.
Stage 1: Identification of impact subcategories following a sectorial social risk analysis applied to
mobility scenarios
To perform the identification stage, UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets (Benoît Norris et al., 2013)
and the PSIA handbook (Goedkoop et al., 2020b) were used as a basis. As explained in section 3.1, the
first step involves analyzing the considered product system, the main process activities and their
corresponding geographical locations to focus the social risk analysis on specific processes or countries
and to generate a first draft of the major risks. A thorough literature review was conducted within studies
on social externalities, transportation regulations and standards to identify potential social and socio-
economic topics as well as scientific publications dealing with these issues. The scope of the review
covered 68 scientific publications addressing social and socio-economic impacts of mobility-related
supply chains and underlined the different life cycle stages and stakeholders. These publications
addressed two scales; micro level covering different technologies, materials, and components such as
batteries and powertrains production (Leurent & Windisch, 2015; Lopez-Arboleda et al., 2019; Noel et
al., 2018; Omahne et al., 2021; N. C. Onat, Kucukvar, Tatari, & Egilmez, 2016; Patil & Khairnar, 2021;
Smaragdakis et al., 2020) and macro level addressing global social impacts of market electrification, of
policies, and other sectors that are related to transport (Azapagic, 2004; Aznar-Sánchez et al., 2019;
Kamenopoulos et al., 2016; Litmanen et al., 2016; Mancini & Sala, 2018; Orozco, 2018; Pastor et al.,
2018; Schlör et al., 2018; Zambrano-Gutiérrez et al., 2018; A. Zhang et al., 2015; Zimmer et al., 2017).
Moreover, 155 social assessment reports, transportation regulations and standards were collected from
the International Labor Office (ILO), OECD, World Bank and the JRC reports, etc. An iterative
approach was followed to identify stakeholders and the associated social and socio-economic topics
171
covered by these studies. The scope was extended to cover raw materials extraction and mining activities
(OECD, 2016, 2019b, 2019a, 2021), World Bank (World Bank, 2006, 2010, 2015, 2020).
Among 91 different ILO studies, 46 didn’t concern the scope of our research (e.g., railway transport,
aviation, etc.). The selected 45 studies focused on “road transport” and “transport equipment
manufacturing” (International Labour Office, 2010, 2015b, 2015a, 2016, 2018, 2020; Turnbull, 2013),
“road infrastructures” (Johannessen, 2009; World Bank, 2010), “basic metals production” (International
Labour Office, 2001, 2005), “oil and gas industry” (Graham, 2010; International Labour Office, 2015c),
“mining activities” (Coderre-Proulx et al., 2016; Hilson & Maconachie, 2020; ILO, 2002; International
Labour Office, 2019a, 2019b, 2021; Loayza & Rigolini, 2016; McQuilken & Perks, 2021; Walle, 2001).
These studies were analyzed to identify relevant positive and negative social and socio-economic topics
for transport. The most discussed social and socio-economic issues were identified, such as “health and
safety,” “decent working conditions,” “employment,” “child labor,” “gender equity—women’s
employment,” and “migrant workers.” These described mostly topics related to workers and local
communities. Furthermore, Russo-Spena et al. (2018) study was used to analyze the most discussed
social and socio-economic topics in 19 different automotive CSR reports.
To cover user-related social and socio-economic impact subcategories, we have considered the UNEP
(2020) guidelines list of impact subcategories. However, this list does not cover all the social and socio-
economic topics that are related to transport technologies, mobility services and transport
infrastructures. A set of new mobility-related impact subcategories for users’ stakeholder were defined.
The key social hotspots for mobility in section 2.3 were used to inform this step. In order to produce this
analysis, normative references and regulations at the European scale were gathered for different social
transport topics (CNIL, 2016; CNIL, 2018; European Commission, 2019; RGPD | CNIL, 2018) as well
as 27 different scientific publications that focused mainly on users’ stakeholder category. Moreover, a
project from the European commission (European Commission, 2020c) came up with the definition of
a core set of 14 different sustainable urban mobility indicators for users. These indicators were used to
support the definition of users’ impact subcategories allowing the comparison of the defined mobility
scenarios and more representativeness of the actual social and socio-economic impacts. Table 7 presents
the core set of impact subcategories, their definitions and the main social and socio-economic aspects
that can be measured. These include safety issues (e.g., road accidents, sexual harassment, and insecurity
feelings), health and comfort (e.g., vibrations, noises, thermal comfort), users’ privacy (consumers
personal data uses and privacy management by vehicles’ manufacturers and mobility operators),
communication system (including transparency, end of life responsibility, mobility service information
quality, etc.), availability and interoperability of infrastructures (e.g., geographical coverage of
transportation infrastructures such as collective transport station and charging infrastructures, etc.), and
affordability (e.g., economic accessibility to the vehicle technology or mobility service).
172
Table 7 Definition of user’s impact subcategories to feed up the S-LCIA phase of mobility scenarios
Subcategories Definition Attributed social and Sources
socio-economic
aspects
Safety Covers social risks associated to different Road accidents and (Bondaz et al.,
types of transportation technologies as security of 2014; CGDD,
well as mobility services. Beside the infrastructures and 2020b; Newman,
transport equipment 2015; ONISR,
traffic accidents that are largely covered
2019)
by social transport externalities studies,
Sexual harassment (CIVITAS, 2010;
other aspects, such as security of and insecurity. INSEE-ONDRP-
infrastructures, insecurity and sexual SSMSI, 2019;
harassment are also covered by this Noble, 2015)
impact subcategory.
Health and Includes various social aspects to Comfort (vibration) (Brand et al., 2015;
comfort transportation technologies or mobility Goedkoop et al.,
services that could affect the health of the 2020b)
users.
Privacy Covers social aspects related to web Users’ data privacy (Benoît Norris et
services and mobility platforms related to vehicle al., 2013; EU, 2020;
(personal, shared, public transportation) technologies and Goedkoop et al.,
mobility online 2020a; Ostojski,
in which users’ personal data could be
platforms 2018; le règlement
affected. Mobility services’ operators are général sur la
expected to respect the OECD privacy protection des
guidelines and regulations related to data données — RGPD |
privacy (RGPD in Europe) CNIL, 2018)
Communication Regroups different types of End of life (Benoît Norris et
system communication relations that could occur responsibility al., 2013; Véhicules
between users and organizations. Quality hors d’usage :
Directive 2000/53/
of mobility services is significantly
CE, 2000)
dependent on the efficiency and the
Performance of (CIVITAS, 2010;
strength of the communication system. communication Goedkoop et al.,
Aspects such as the end-of-life system (technologies 2020a; Peron,
responsibility and transparency related to and mobility services) 2010)
environmental a social performance of an
Transparency (social (ISO 26,000 2010;
organization is also covered by this and environmental UNEP 2018)
impact subcategory. responsibility)
Feedback mechanism (Benoît Norris et
al., 2013; Silva et
al., 2018)
Availability and Covers social aspects related to Accessibility: (Folcher & Lompré,
interoperability accessibility of users to mobility services geographical coverage 2012; Gompf et al.,
of through the evaluation of public 2020)
infrastructures Interoperability of (OIE, 2017; RTE,
transportation coverage, affordability or
infrastructures 2015, 2019)
the ability of purchase and access to a
mobility service, as well as the charging
infrastructures in case of a massive
development of electric mobility.
173
Affordability Measures the economic accessibility of Affordability of (Tseng et al., 2013)

vehicle technologies and mobility mobility services and
services. The affordability can be transportation
technologies
evaluated through actual supported costs
by users related to the operation of
technologies and services, as well as tax
incentives and mobility grants such as
conversion incentives.
Stage 2: Actors’ consultation process for the prioritization of relevant impact subcategories applied to
mobility scenarios—comprise the data collection method (S-LCA iterative aspect)
According to the designed participatory approach in this work, three sets of surveys were developed
according to three different types of consulted actors: users (survey 1), worker unions (survey 2) and
industrial, academic, and public actors (survey 3). Table 8 presents the consulted actors and the affected
and/or involved stakeholders for which impact subcategories describe the positive and negative potential
social topics to prioritize. As stated before, multiple adjustments might be required to the designed
consultation process. In the current case study, a focus was made on potential social and socio-economic
impacts related to the electro-mobility shift (i.e., “In the context of an electric mobility transition, what
would be the social and socio-economic issues that you are most concerned about?”). The questions
mainly addressed three different aspects, which can also be considered as part of the assumptions fixed
in this work:
- The geographical location: two cases for the geographical location were considered, namely,
outside Europe and inside France.
- Transportation technologies: both electric and conventional transportation technologies were
considered to allow the comparison of social significance of impact subcategories in both cases.
- The type of mobility service: survey 1 distinguishes between personal, shared mobility and public
transportation use. Indeed, users were asked to prioritize social and socio-economic topics following
these three types of transportation modes enabling to cover mobility services from a user-centric
vision.
All the asked questions in the three online surveys are available in the Appendix 4. A total number of
70 different respondents were consulted in France to gather the information on impact subcategories
prioritization. Survey (1) covered in total eight questions that addressed three main elements according
to a user perspective: (1) identification of the most relevant impact subcategories affecting users directly
by both electric and conventional transportation technologies, (2) identification of the most relevant
impact subcategories for each mobility service (personal, collective and shared transportation use), (3)
identification of the most important impact subcategories related to workers and local communities’
stakeholder categories in the manufacturing stage. The aim was to understand potential effects of social
174
and socio-economic topics on their choices in terms of mobility and their concern related to social
sustainability aspects of emergent electric vehicles technologies and mobility services.
Survey (2) described potential impact subcategories for workers according to worker union’s
perspective. Direct consultation of workers appeared to be quite challenging; worker unions were
therefore selected regarding their relevancy for representing the workers’ stakeholder category. They
represented three types of entities, namely, worker unions in the vehicle’s production sites in France,
worker unions from VTC (the French abbreviation for chauffeur-driven private cars) and worker unions
from public transportation services in France. These actors were asked to prioritize the direct social and
socio-economic topics associated to workers in France through online survey and were complemented
through individual interviews. The survey covered seven main questions. They were also asked to
describe, for each subcategory, the risk level according to the geographical area where the activity is
located.
Survey (3) was addressed to public authorities, academic and industrial actors according to their roles,
respectively as decision makers, researchers, experts, and developers of products and technologies. The
online survey entailed thirteen questions describing social and socio-economic topics associated to all
involved and/or affected stakeholders (users, workers, local communities, value chain actors, and
society). The aim was to understand how each impact subcategory was perceived in terms of its
significance in the assessment, relevance to business and its importance in the decision-making process.
Table 8 The designed multi-actor consultation process for the electric mobility case study and the defined actors
Consulted actors (affected and/or involved stakeholders + external

concerned stakeholders)
Involved and/or Users Worker Public Industrial Academic
affected stakeholders unions actors actors actors
(recommended by
UNEP guidelines)
Users X X X X
Workers X X X X X
Local communities X X X X
Value chain actors X X X
Society X X X
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3
The prioritization was performed by computing an importance score, “S”, for each impact subcategory,
“x”. Such score was determined based on the position that the actors assigned for a given impact
subcategory within the proposed lists of impact subcategories. For a total number “P” of participants,
175
“I” representing the number of impact subcategories considered by each stakeholder, and “i” rank that
was attributed by the consulted actors for each impact subcategory. The importance score “Si” for each
impact subcategory “x” can be obtained as:
𝑆(𝑥) = ∑𝑃𝑖=0 𝑆𝑖 [1]
With 𝑆𝑖 = (𝐼 + 1) − 𝑖𝑥 [2]
To perform the analysis of results and data treatment, Python programming language was used. Results
of the prioritized social and socio-economic impact subcategories for five stakeholder categories are
discussed in the following paragraphs from two different actors’ perspectives.
The following paragraphs present the obtained results of the consultation process, accounting for both
industrial actors’ and users’ perspectives. The prioritization is discussed for each stakeholder group:
- Workers’ impact subcategories: in Figure 31
- Figure 31 Relative importance of workers’ impact subcategories from users (b) and other consulted actors (a) (public,
industrial and academic) perspectives.(a) and (b), results of the prioritization from both industrial and user
perceptions for workers subcategories outside Europe show that “Child labor,” “forced labor,”
“health and safety of workers” are perceived by the consulted actors as the most relevant ones. These
prioritized impact subcategories were assessed using the PSILCA database.
176
Figure 31 Relative importance of workers’ impact subcategories from users (b) and other consulted actors (a) (public,
industrial and academic) perspectives.
For workers’ impact subcategories in France, the prioritization reveals that “working hours,” “fair
salary,” “health and safety living conditions” and “freedom of association and collective bargaining”
are classified with the highest priority by the consulted actors, including industrial actors, users, and
worker unions. As an initial observation, such prioritization highlights the influence of the geographical
context on the point of view of the consulted actors. Indeed, these actors showed more concern for
certain aspects or others depending on the considered geographical location. Given the regulation
context in France, no social risk is perceived for “child labor” or “forced labor” and the subcategories
are, consequently, not relevant for the evaluation of subcategories for workers’ in France compared to
other impact subcategories such as “fair salary” or “worker hours.” The conducted individual interviews
confirm this statement as several respondents justify their answers by referring to “the pyramid of needs”
allowing them to rank the different impact subcategories according to the likely presence of social risks
and the level of development and performance of the associated regulations in each country.
- Local communities’ impact subcategories: the relevance of impact subcategories is perceived
differently depending on the consulted actors, as shown in Figure 32 Relative importance of local
177
community’s impact subcategories according to different consulted actors (c) (public, industrial, and academic) and users
(d) perspectives. (c) and (d).
Figure 32 Relative importance of local community’s impact subcategories according to different consulted actors (c) (public,
industrial, and academic) and users (d) perspectives.
The industrial actors consider “safe and healthy living conditions,” “community engagement,” and
“delocalization and migration” as the most relevant impact subcategories for the evaluation. On the other
hand, as represented in Figure 32 (d), “safe and healthy living conditions,” “access to immaterial
resources” and “local employment” are perceived as the most relevant by users. Following these results,
the most prioritized impact subcategories by all the consulted actors were selected to perform the S-
LCIA phase. They can be listed as follows: “safe and healthy living conditions,” “local employment,”
and “delocalization and migration”. Table 10 (later presented) lists the selected impact subcategories
from the prioritization and the attributed indicators for their assessment. The consulted industrial actors
and users emphasized the importance of the considered scope when ranking the different impact
subcategories, given the variable regulatory context. Thus, the most relevant impact subcategories for
local communities outside Europe are different from those located in France.
- Users’ impact subcategories: Figure 33 (e) and (f) show results of the prioritization of impact
subcategories for users’ stakeholder category according to industrial actors’ and users’ perceptions.
178
Figure 33 Relative importance of users’ impact subcategories according to different consulted actors (e) (public, industrial
and academic) and users (f) perspectives.
The impact subcategories “health,” “safety,” and “accessibility and affordability” are the most relevant
impact subcategories from the industrial actors’ point of view, while the results from the consulted users
show that “safety,” “health” and “transparency” are the most important. According to industrial actors,
“transparency” appears in the fifth position after “the availability and operability of infrastructures.”
The observed difference in ranking “transparency” confirms the uprising concern of users about the
delivered information on social and environmental performance of organizations related to
transportation technologies. This should be analyzed in depth in future assessments.
The second feature that was investigated within users’ impact subcategories is the relative
importance of social and socio-economic impacts for each of the considered mobility services
namely, public, personal and shared transport use. In fact, users were asked to rank the impact
subcategories depending on a given type of mobility service in order to verify the variability of the
results. The score of the relative importance was therefore calculated as shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Calculated relative importance of users’ impact subcategories per each mobility service
Public Personal Shared
transport transport mobility
Transparency 108 116 100
179
Health 107 121 111

User data privacy 63 64 97
Performance of the communication System 71 84 83
Safety and security 132 146 147
Availability and interoperability of infrastructures 130 91 67
Accessibility and affordability 113 92 115
Feedback mechanism 68 78 72
Figure 34 Comparison of the relative importance assigned by users to the different impact subcategories per each type of
mobility service
Figure 34 illustrates the results comparing the three types of mobility services. The importance of
the impact subcategories was perceived differently according to the users. As shown by figure 34,
“the availability and interoperability of infrastructures” is perceived as the most important for public
transportation, followed by “safety and security” and “accessibility and affordability”. Shared
transportation shows the higher relative importance score of “users’ data privacy” compared to the
other considered mobility services. This impact subcategory is followed by “safety and health and
“accessibility and affordability”. Finally, personal transportation use shows the higher share of
relative importance score related to “health and comfort”. Based on these results, it is worth noting
the variable nature of the relative importance of impacts subcategories even when the assessment is
conducted from the same perspective. It is thus important to split up the investigated system in order
to get the most out of the information on the social relevance of the impact subcategories.
- Value chain actors’ impact subcategories: results illustrated in figure 35 show that “promotion of
social responsibility” is the most relevant considering the consulted actors’ perspectives, followed
by “fair competition” and “respect of intellectual property rights” and finally “supplier
relationships”.
180
Figure 35 Prioritized impact subcategories for value chain actors according to the consulted actors
To perform S-LCIA phase, both “promotion of social responsibility” and “fair competition” are
analyzed. These have been selected to perform the S-LCIA phase as PSILCA database did not cover
other impact subcategories that were prioritized.
- Society’s impact subcategories: results, presented in figure 36,, show that “corruption”,
“contribution to socio-economic development”, “technology development”, and, finally,
“prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts” are perceived as the most relevant for the evaluation
of electric and conventional technologies.
Figure 36 Prioritized impact subcategories for society according to the consulted actors
The provided indicators in PSILCA database only account for two impact subcategories “contribution
to economic development” and “health and safety”. The “contribution to economic development” was
therefore analyzed in the S-LCIA phase as it represents the priority impact subcategory for the different
consulted actor while “health and safety” impact subcategory was excluded from the prioritization step.
Comparison of the social relevance of impact subcategories for EV and ICEV technologies
In a second step, the consulted actors were asked to compare the relevance of the different social and
socio-economic impact subcategories depending on the type of the transportation technology:
181
conventional or electric vehicles. As an outcome, relevant impact subcategories were identified when
comparing electric and conventional mobility. Figures 37, 38 and 39 Erreur ! Source du renvoi
introuvable.show the results for users, workers, and local communities from the different consulted
actors. Some of the impact subcategories appear to be more important in case of electric mobility
evaluation compared to conventional technologies evaluation.
subcategories for users
Figure 37 demonstrates that for users’ impact subcategories, “accessibility and affordability”,
“availability and interoperability of infrastructures” and “end of life responsibility” are perceived
particularly important in the case of electric technologies. These results are consistent with the identified
social hotspots related to the current development of electro-mobility such as the management of the
batteries’ end of life (Bobba et al., 2018), high initial costs of electric vehicles technologies and complex
grid capacity management in case of a mass-market uptake (Tietge et al., 2016).
subcategories for workers.
182
For workers-related impact subcategories, presented in figure 38, “delocalization and migration” and
“work security” are prioritized for electric mobility and ranked as more relevant than in the case of
conventional one which can highlight the need of a consequential assessment of social and socio-
economic aspects related to a massive development of electro-mobility. It is also important to note that
individual interviews with worker unions have emphasized that electro-mobility requires 25% less
workforce and it is therefore crucial to account for the work security-related indicators.
A study from the European Climate Foundation (2018), analyzed several social and socio-economic
indicators for mobility prospective scenarios in 2030 and 2050. Such assessment revealed that
employment in the automotive manufacturing sector is expected to decrease in Europe, regardless of the
low-carbon transition. This is explained by the fact that Battery Electric Vehicles are less labor intensive
compared to conventional vehicles, meanwhile Hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are expected
to be more labor intensive (ECF, 2018). On the other hand, a net increase in employment is expected
for the electricity production, hydrogen-related supply chain.
Figure 39 Comparison of electric and conventional vehicle technologies according to the consulted actors: Impact
subcategories for local communities
Figure 39 shows the obtained results for the comparison of local communities’ subcategories relevance
between electric and conventional technologies. According to the consulted actors, there is no significant
difference in terms of the importance of subcategories between EV and ICEV. However, it can be
observed that subcategories “access to material resources” and “community engagement” were slightly
more ranked than the other subcategories.
Despite the potential of this approach, the consultation process was time-consuming and restricted to a
limited number of relevant impact subcategories. This could be a potential limitation for its practical
application and should be further developed in future studies. As no similar study has been conducted
before, to the best of our knowledge, the sample size used might be questioned, yet the analysis of our
results shows that the sample is homogeneous and sufficiently representative for the consulted actors
183
and the considered transportation technologies. It is recommended, for future studies, to broaden the
sample size, if possible, and confirm its consistency to enhance results representativeness.
4.2.Definition and structure of the Social Life Cycle Inventory (S-LCI) for electric mobility
scenarios
4.2.1. Generic data collection through PSILCA database
In this study, PSILCA database was used to obtain data on social inventory indicators. PSILCA database
uses a Multi-Regional Input/Output (MRIO) (Mattila, 2018) model from the EORA database (Lenzen
et al., 2013). EORA covers economy of global supply chains on an industrial sector basis and uses
monetary flows to link different sectors and processes. PSILCA is a Country-Specific Sector (CSS)
database. It covers 189 different countries for which a wide range of sectors are attributed (around
15,000 different sectors in total). Both inputs (materials and products provided by other sectors) and
outputs (generated products) of a CSS are expressed in USD (Maister et al., 2020). The version 2 of
PSILCA database, used in this work, provides 65 qualitative and quantitative social indicators that
address a set of 19 impact subcategories classified into four stakeholders, namely, workers, value chain
actors, local communities, and society. The selected impact categories and their relative indicators are
listed in Table 10.
In this study, inputs of each evaluated process were identified based on the defined system boundaries.
To do so, the entailed processes in PSILCA corresponding to the vehicle life cycle stages were
investigated as defined in Figure 30. Input materials of the evaluated products and their amounts were
collected from ecoinvent database (Del Duce et al., 2016b) and GREET_2: vehicle_Inputs (Keoleian et
al., 2012). The input processes were connected through monetary values (in USD) corresponding to their
contributions into the output of the evaluated product system. In case of lacking data, amounts of input
process activities were estimated through other similar existing processes in PSILCA database.
The activity variable used in this study to measure process output and reflect the impact share (relative
significance) of each unit process related to the product system was “working time”. Worker hours are
related to USD 1 of process (or sector) output and are calculated in PSILCA through the following
equations [3] and [4] (Maister et al., 2020):
Unit labor costs
[3] Worker hours = Mean hourly labor cost (per employee)
With:
Compensation of employees (in USD per country−specific sector and year)
[4] Unit labor costs =
Gross output (in USD per country−sector and year)
However, the provided values of the worker hours were calculated for PSILCA database and cannot be
sourced on external published references. The numbers of worker hours have been selected for
corresponding processes used in this study to calculate the working time activity variable, following
equation [5], for both evaluated transportation technologies:
[5] working time = worker hours per USD 1 product output ∗ total price of the product ∗ share of labor costs
184
Vehicles labor costs are uncertain and dependent on the considered technology. Hybrid Electric Vehicles
(HEV) seem to have higher labor costs than Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV), while no clear distinctions
between BEV and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEV) are found. A share of labor costs of
10% of the total cost of vehicles manufacturing was used based on König et al. (2021). Total prices of
vehicles were taken for the most adopted urban Electric Vehicles (EV) and ICEV technologies in France,
corresponding respectively to USD 39,120.99 (Renault, 2020) and USD 19,229.92 (Peugeot, 2020). The
worker hours for USD 1 product output provided for “manufacture of motor vehicles” in France by
PSILCA is 0.002481 hours/USD. This value was used to perform the calculation of the working time.
Hence, the working time for both scenarios is 9.71 hours for EV and 4.77 hours for ICEV.
These values are attributed to each of the selected social inventory indicators in the S-LCIA phase. The
working time activity variable originally refers to the workers’ stakeholder category group and is less
compatible with other stakeholder groups. Other activity variables, such as the value added that consists
of the amount of the added value created in each process activity, and other paths allowing direct
quantification of inventory indicators without need of activity variables are currently under development
to cover the various stakeholder groups (Ciroth et al., 2019).
Table 10 Inventory indicators from PSILCA database aggregated by impact subcategories and stakeholders’ groups.
Stakeholder Selected Inventory indicators used through Definition of the indicators and
categories impact PSILCA database units of measurement
subcategories
Workers Child labor Children employment, total Percentage of all children ages 7–14
[CE medium risk h]
Forced labor Goods produced by forced labor Number of goods produced by
[GFL medium risk h] forced labor in the sector
Health and Rate of fatal accidents at workplace Number of fatal accidents per
safety [FA medium risk h] 100,000 employees and year
Rate of non-fatal accidents at Number of non-fatal accidents per
workplace [NFA medium risk h] 100,000 employees and year
Local Safe and Drinking water coverage Percentage of the population with
communities healthy living [DW medium risk h] access to drinking water
conditions Pollution level of the country Pollution Index based on
[P medium risk h] perceptions
Local Unemployment rate in the country Percentage of the population
employment [LC medium risk h]
Delocalization Net migration rate Difference between the number of
and migration [NM medium risk h] emigrants and immigrants during a
given year per 1,000 inhabitants
Value chain Promotion of Membership in an initiative that number of companies involved in
actors social promotes social responsibility along CSR along the supply chain.
responsibility the supply chain
[PSR medium risk h]
Fair Anti-competitive behavior or Number of violations per 10,000
competition violation of anti-trust and monopoly employees in the sector
legislation
[AC medium risk h]
185
Society Contribution to Contribution of the sector to the Shares of breakdown of GDP/Value

economic economic development Added at current prices in percent;
development [CED medium risk h] if value is derived from the Mining
contribution index, it expresses the
Metallic mineral and coal
production value 2014 (as % of
GDP).
4.2.2. Specific data collection for the participatory approach and specific analysis of impacts
In this study, with respect to the iterative nature of S-LCA method, specific data was introduced since
the first phase of the definition of the Goal and Scope. In fact, the identification and prioritization stages
as suggested by the participatory approach call for specific data collection through different tools. The
gathered information is covering a specific sector and geographical context. This was described in the
previous section 4.1. by presenting the data collection methods and tools that were used.
To perform the specific analysis as suggested by the proposed S-LCA framework, section 3.2. entails
methodological information that was used to gather information on the defined users’ impact
subcategories. This includes, the reference scales, performance indicators, the PRPs, and available data
sources. Figure 40 illustrates the main elements to be defined within the S-LCI phase for each of the
impact subcategories by covering, the reference scales, the performance indicators and the PRPs to
estimate the level of social performance or social risk.
Figure 40 Simplified representation of the main elements of the assessment including, impact subcategory, measured aspect,
performance indicators and PRPs as well as the reference scales, e.g., safety of users.
Table 11 summarizes the core set of impact subcategories and their related performance indicators and
the identified data sources to enable the assessment of potential social and socio-economic impacts.
186
Table 11 The suggested performance indicators for each of the defined users’ impact subcategories
Aspects Performance indicators Data Sources
Road accident Accident rates (fatalities and injuries) in the qnt (ONISR,
rates region/by technology and by transport mode 2019)
Evolution of accident rates (fatalities or injuries) qnt (Bondaz et al.,
per year (effectiveness of road safety measures) 2014; ONISR,
2019)
Infrastructure Total number of accidents related to qnt (ONISR,
security transportation equipment or infrastructure 2019)
degradation (lack of lighting, lack of dedicated
Safety and Security
bike lanes, etc.)

Existence of a system to improve the safety of s-qnt
the infrastructure (bicycle paths, technical
controls, etc.)
Feeling of The rate of sexual assault casualties par year. qnt (Noble, 2015;
personal Evolution of casualty rate per year (effectiveness qnt INSEE-
insecurity of policy response) ONDRP-
Existence of a system for the control and s-qnt SSMSI, 2019)
prevention of aggressions and the improvement
of the security of transport users.
Existence of a platform for handling cases of s-qnt.
harassment and aggression and studies on
women’s accessibility to public and shared
transport
Noise Compliance with AVAS EU 2019 + EU s-qnt (Fortino et al.,
Directive 2002/49/EC associated with the 2016;
assessment and management of noise—the EC 2019;
Environmental Noise Directive (END) EEA, 2021)
Health and Comfort
Congestion and Duration of commute to and from work or an SUMI

delays educational establishment, using any types of indicators
modes. (European
Delays in road traffic and in public transport Commission,
during peak hours compared to off-peak travel 2020c)
(private road traffic) and optimal public transport
travel time (public transport).
Contribution to Existence of a mechanism to take into account s-qnt PSIA
the the adequacy of the facilities (delimited area for handbook
improvement of shared mobility services, bus station shade, etc.), (Goedkoop et
user comfort indoor air quality, thermal comfort, etc. al., 2020b)
Service/technol Number of complaints associated with abuse of qnt PSIA
transportation users’ personal data
Users’ data privacy
ogy: handbook
management of (Goedkoop et
users’ personal al., 2020b)
data Compliance with the general regulations on s-qnt (RGPD |
personal data protection RGPD- EU & CNIL CNIL, 2018)
Number of passenger data breaches per service qnt PSIA
handbook
(Goedkoop et
al., 2020b)
Feedback Existence of a system for considering user s-qnt (Silva et al.,
Communicat
ion system
Mechanism: feedback to improve the quality of the 2018)

After Sales service/technology
Services Percentage of complaints handled (+ presence of qnt Meth. Sheets
a protocol to track complaints) (Benoît Norris
et al., 2013)
187
Environmental Publication of an annual report, accessible by all s-qnt Meth. Sheets

and social users, on environmental and social impact (Benoît Norris
responsibility studies. et al., 2013) &
and Display of impacts by passenger (up to PSIA
transparency date)/mode of transport handbook
Existence of certificates for environmental and s-qnt Meth. Sheets
social performance (ISO14001, ISO14040/44, (Benoît Norris
ISO26000, ISO50001 standards, social et al., 2013)
responsibility labels, etc.)
Information Availability of functional and efficient tools for s-qnt (CIVITAS,
related to the direct and real-time communication with users: 2010)
movement of communication platform (application)
people—quality Information related to the movement of people
of the service Percentage of users with access to a central qnt
communication platform
Frequency of updates and responsiveness to
unexpected incidents.
Information Availability of information (eco-driving guide, s-qnt
related to training in new electric vehicle technologies)
technologies Presence of an effective system for repair s-qnt
instructions accessible to users and independent
repairers and availability of spare parts (also for
maintenance and service)
End of life Support for end-of-life management of s-qnt Meth. Sheets
responsibility technology (Benoît Norris
Establishment of a system for the reuse of s-qnt et al., 2013)
technologies (batteries) in other possible
applications in second life
Presence of label, certificate on the respect of the s-qnt
management of the end of life
Affordability Technology price/purchasing power comparison qnt SUMI
Share of population with appropriate access to qnt indicators
Accessibility and Affordability
mobility services (public transport) (European

Existence of an incentive system for the use of s-qnt Commission,
low environmental footprint transport solutions 2020c)
(economic)
Percentage of people who do not have access to qnt
transportation due to economic cost
Accessibility Accessibility of public transport for mobility- SUMI
impaired groups with visual and audible indicators
impairments and those with physical restrictions, (European
such as pregnant women, users of wheelchairs Commission,
and mobility devices, the elderly, parents and 2020c)
caregivers using buggies, and people with
temporary injuries.
Mobility Geographical coverage of points served by qnt (Gompf et al.,
services transportation mode: Number of stations or 2020)
points served/km².
interoperability of
Accessibility and
Urban planning and urban travel plans adapted to s-qnt

infrastructures
public transport modes

Development of the road network and qnt
organization of the traffic lanes of the various
modes of transport: km of road network/mode of
transport
The perceived satisfaction of public spaces. qlt (European
SUMI indicators Commission,
2020c)
188
4.3. Social Life Cycle Impact assessment (S-LCIA) of electric mobility scenarios:
The S-LCIA phase has been carried out at two levels. The first level involves a generic assessment of
vehicles by covering both electric and conventional transportation technologies. The second level of the
S-LCIA phase is conducted through a specific assessment and focuses on users’ impact subcategories
by analyzing three mobility services, namely personal use, public transport and shared transport.
The generic assessment was performed using OpenLCA software (1.9) and version 2 of PSILCA
database. A cut-off criterion of 1 E-5 was applied for the definition of the product systems, according to
the features of the used version of the PSILCA database. The assessment method implemented in
PSILCA database is the “Social Impacts Weighting method”. Social risks related to all involved
processes in the life cycle of the product system are aggregated by price (inputs), working time (activity
variable) and various impact factors (characterization factors), which enables to express social
assessment results in [medium risk hours].
The considered life cycle stages and their corresponding process activities selected from PSILCA
database for both electric and conventional transportation technologies are presented in Table 12. Such
table presents the existing process activities that cover vehicles production, batteries and powertrains
production, raw material manufacturing, electricity, and fuel production and those related to recycling.
For some process activities, multiple locations were identified and used to allow the comparison of
social and socio-economic topics and the identification of social hotspots depending on the geographical
context. Energy processes linked to vehicles operation in France were also analyzed for both electricity
and fuel production for the French context.
Table 12 Process activities considered from PSILCA database for the different vehicle technologies analyzed
Object Identified process Activity in PSILCA (sectors) Countries
Battery production Electric Accumulator & Battery Thailand (TH)
Batteries Japan (JP)
Primary battery USA (US)
Vehicles and semi-trailer Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers, and semi-trailers France (FR)
production, and related Manufacture of electrical machinery France (FR)
main components Trade, maintenance and repair services of motor vehicles France (FR)
and motorcycles; retail sale of automotive fuel
Recycling France (FR)
Electricity Production and Electrical energy, gas, steam, and hot water France (FR)
related activities Mining of uranium and thorium ores France (FR)
Fuel production Coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel France (FR)
Crude petroleum and natural gas France (FR)
- Specific analysis of mobility services:
Within the specific analysis of mobility services, a scoring system is required to translate the raw data
into social performance levels (very low, low, medium, high, very high). The rating system adopted in
189
this work was initially proposed by the PSIA Handbook (2016, 2018, 2020) and now is entailed in the
updated S-LCA guidelines (UNEP, 2020). Five performance levels of social and socio-economic
performance are proposed accounting both for positive (+2) and negative (-2) social performance. Social
performance assessment measures thus, the effectiveness of practices, actions and measures as well as
the social management system efficiency of organizations (in this study, mobility services’ providers
and car manufacturers).
This scoring system was adapted to the considered mobility scenarios by using sector-specific
regulations, normative references and national statistical studies in France and in the European context
in case national/regional data was missing. In addition, several sustainability and social responsibility
assessment references, as well as the main references for Social Life Cycle Assessment (Benoît Norris
et al., 2013; Goedkoop et al., 2020a; UNEP, 2020) were used to define the reference scales.
The defined core set of performance indicators in section 4.2, Table 11 was assigned to the reference
scales for each of the impact subcategories for users’ stakeholder group.
To perform the evaluation, the data collected for the defined performance indicators is compared to
national and international references, in order to estimate the performance of each scenario according to
the transportation mode/technology. The results of the assessment of each of the mobility services are
provided in section 4.4.5.
4.4.Social Life Cycle Interpretation of results
In this phase, results of the prioritization of impact subcategories and those selected for S-LCIA
evaluation phase are analyzed. The selected impact subcategories and the inventory indicators are used
from PSILCA database for the evaluation. In this study, users-related impact subcategories for mobility
scenarios are defined and prioritized following the proposed participatory approach. In addition, social
risks associated with electric and conventional vehicles supply chains are analyzed for four stakeholder
categories workers, local communities, value chain actors and society through a generic assessment. A
total number of nine impact subcategories and 11 social inventory indicators are discussed.
The S-LCIA phase is conducted for the prioritized social and socio-economic impact subcategories
selected from the prioritization stage. Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable. lists the selected impact
subcategories and the inventory indicators used from PSILCA database for their evaluation.
4.4.1. S-LCIA results for workers
The results for workers’ impact subcategories are presented in Figure 41. The figure illustrates impact
subcategories that were perceived as the most relevant following the designed participatory approach,
corresponding to “child labor”, “health and safety of workers”, and “forced labor”. Four inventory
indicators were selected to measure social risks for child labor, total [CL medium risk h], fatal accidents
[FA medium risk h], non-fatal accidents [NFA medium risk h], and goods produced by forced labor
[GFL medium risk h].
190
Child labor: the calculated indicator for total child labor [CL medium risk h] is higher for EV
technologies production than for the conventional (ICEV) transportation technologies. The contribution
analysis shows that for EV technologies, the supply chain of motor vehicles manufactured in France
accounts for 60.10% of the total CL medium risk h, and a share of 35% is linked to batteries production
supply chain in Japan while electricity production in France represents 2% of the obtained results. For
ICEV production, manufacturing of the vehicles took 97.14% of the total amount of CL medium risk h
related mainly to extraction and manufacturing process activities outside Europe. The analysis of battery
production supply chain in Japan reveals that the main contributors for child labor are non-ferrous metals
extraction activities in South Africa (16.34%) and regenerated lead and zinc production in Japan
(11.56%).
Figure 41 Results of the evaluation of social inventory indicators through PSILCA database for workers for both electric
(EV) and conventional (ICEV) transportation technologies
The analysis of the geographical coverage of both EV and ICECV processes allows the identification of
countries that have the highest scores for social risks. We have consequently observed that, for EV
technologies, child labor risks arise mainly from process activities in Russia 42.64% of total CL medium
191
risk h due to mining and quarrying activities for energy production and non-ferrous metals
manufacturing and China with 26.90% of total CL medium risk h related mostly to electric machinery
and equipment, plastics and metal products and communications equipment manufacturing. For ICEV
technologies, China has the highest share of contributor process activities with 44.32% of total CL
medium risk h associated mainly to extraction of raw materials (metal products, plastic products, steel
and iron, electronic elements and devices, and raw chemical materials), followed by manufacturing
supply chain in France (17.45% of total CL medium risk h), Russia presented a share of 11.48%, linked
to metal products and mining and quarrying activities for energy. Process activities in Russia are mainly
associated to the supply chain of batteries’ production in Japan, which may explain the limited
contribution share for ICEV compared to EV technologies and the difference observed in Figure 41 (a)
for this indicator between the two technologies. Recycling activities in France did not present any social
risk related to child labor for both processes.
Forced labor: Figure 41 (b) illustrates the results for goods produced by forced labor [GFL medium
risk h]. ICEV technologies present higher social risk (0.00262 GFL medium risk h) compared to EV
technologies (0.00212 GFL medium risk h). The main process activities that are contributing to forced
labor in the case of EV technologies are motor vehicles manufacturing supply chain in France (75%
share of tot GFL medium risk h), followed by batteries production (12% of total GFL medium risk h)
and finally the electricity production (3.68%). In the case of ICEV technologies, the amount of goods
produced by forced labor is mainly linked to the France vehicles’ manufacturing supply chain (90.50%).
Energy-related services (raw petroleum products extraction, refining and manufacturing) in France
could be a significant factor for such result as the main process contributing associated to ICEV
manufacturing is other business services in France.
Health & safety of workers: Two inventory indicators are calculated to analyze health and safety of
workers and are illustrated in Figure 41 (c) and (d) corresponding to fatal accidents [FA medium risk h]
and non-fatal accidents [NFA medium risk h]. For both indicators ICEV technologies presented a higher
social risk compared to EV technologies. Concerning the latter, motor-vehicle production in France
presented 74.67% of total FA medium risk h, followed by batteries production in Japan by 13.01% FA
mid risk hours. For ICEV, 90.64% of FA medium risk h is related to motor vehicles production in
France. Despite the significant advances in safety regulations at work, France still presents a higher fatal
accidents rate than the European average with 2.74 per 100,000 persons employed in France against
1.77 in Europe (Eurostat, 2020a). The countries that presented the highest social risks for fatal accidents
related to EV technologies are France (vehicles manufacturing process), followed by China (metal
products and raw materials extraction), Japan (batteries production) and finally Spain (vehicles parts
manufacturing supply chain). The analysis of contributing processes to non-fatal accidents reveals that
vehicle production activities, metal products manufacturing and recycling in Spain was responsible for
40.35% of total NFA medium risk h, while it presented 11% in France mostly linked to the construction
192
sector and finally Turkey that presented around 4% of total FA medium risk h; where manufacturing
activities for textiles, basic metal products and motor vehicles are the main contributors. France and
Spain presented the higher incidence rates per 100,000 persons employed in 2018 for non-fatal accidents
in Europe (Eurostat, 2020b). Mining, manufacturing, and construction sectors are the major source of
both fatal and non-fatal accidents in Europe, which also tend to be male-dominated sectors, explaining
the relatively higher number of work-related accidents among men compared to women (Eurostat,
2020c).
4.4.2. S-LCIA results for local communities
Results of the S-LCIA evaluation phase for local communities’ impact subcategories are presented in
Figure 42. It corresponds to those subcategories perceived as the most relevant for the evaluation of
electric and conventional transportation technologies. The calculated indicators from PSILCA database
are (Maister et al., 2020): Drinking Water coverage [DW mid risk h] and DALYs due to indoor and
outdoor air and water pollution [DALY mid risk h] for safe and healthy living conditions, unemployment
rate [U medium risk h] for local employment and finally Net Migration [NM medium risk h] for
migration and delocalization impact subcategories. Figure 42 (a), (b), (c) and (d) shows the results for
the selected social and socio-economic impact subcategories of both electric and conventional
transportation technologies
Healthy and safe living conditions: Results for this indicator are shown in Figure 42 (a) and (b),
obtained for the two calculated indicators within this impact subcategory. EV technologies present
higher social risks for the drinking water coverage [DW medium risk h] and, on the other hand, ICEV
technologies present higher social risks for DALYs due to indoor and outdoor air and water pollution.
To investigate these results, we took a closer look into the contributor processes for each indicator.
Batteries production was found responsible for 65.18% of total DW medium risk hours in the case of
EV technologies due to mineral extraction activities (namely, non-ferrous metals in Russia, lead and
zinc in Japan, and basic metals extraction in Mexico). Motor vehicles manufacturing in France present
28.51% of total DW medium risk hours, followed by electricity supply chain in France with 3%
associated with mining activities for energy and nuclear fuel production. In the case of ICEV
technologies, social risks are mostly related to motor vehicles manufacturing with 98.68% of total DW
medium risk hours associated to mineral extraction and refined petroleum products. These results can
be explained by the significant dependency of mining activities to water consumption which could
decrease the accessibility of local communities to water resources and affect their quality (Northey et
al., 2019). The second indicator that was analyzed within this impact subcategory is the pollution level
of the country [P medium risk h] based on the pollution index by Numbeo (2019) due to water pollution,
air pollution, noise levels, green parks in the city, etc. The contribution analysis demonstrates that for
EV technologies, motor vehicles supply chain in France is responsible for 83.10% of tot P medium risk
h associated with various extraction and production activities that take place in China while 11.41% of
193
tot P medium risk h is generated by batteries production due mostly to non-ferrous metals activities in
Russia. For ICEV technologies, France’s supply chain for motor vehicles is responsible for 96.08% of
pollution-related social risks [P medium risk h] that are linked to the significant number of extraction
and manufacturing processes in China. In fact, the geographical analysis of the various processes showed
that for the two analyzed transportation technologies, the major source of social risks is induced by
activities located in China (52,469% of total P medium risk hours for EV technologies and 61.39% of
total P medium risk hours for ICEV technologies).
Figure 42 Results of the evaluation of inventory indicators for local communities through PSILCA database for both electric
(EV) and conventional (ICEV) transportation
Local employment: Figure 42 (c) shows the obtained results for unemployment indicator [U medium
risk h]. Electric transportation technologies show more significant social risks in terms of the
unemployment rate due to batteries production that gives place to more extraction and manufacturing
processes for non-ferrous metals and other mining activities in South Africa. The major contributor
process activity for both electric and conventional technologies is related to motor vehicles production
in France (50.39% of total U medium risk h) and Spain (31.47% of total U medium risk h) in the case
of EV technologies, which can be explained by the delocalization of mineral extraction processes and
batteries manufacturing in China and South Africa.
194
Migration and delocalization: Results of the net migration indicators [NM medium risk h] calculated
for both EV and ICEV technologies, illustrated in Figure 42 (d), confirm the last assumption made for
unemployment rates results. In fact, following the contribution analysis, motor-vehicle production in
Spain appears to be the major source of social risks related to this impact subcategory accounting for
45.40% of total NM medium risk h in the case of EV technologies and 46.83% of total NM medium risk
h in the case of ICEV technologies.
4.4.3. S-LCIA results for value chain actors
The analysis of S-LCIA results for impact subcategories related to value chain actors’ is conducted for
the “promotion of social responsibility” and “fair competition” that were selected based on the
participatory approach and are presented in Figure 43.
Figure 43 Results of the evaluation of inventory indicators for value chain actors through PSILCA database for
both electric (EV) and conventional (ICEV) transportation
Promotion of social responsibility: The proposed indicator by PSILCA database to evaluate the
promotion of social responsibility, examines the number of companies involved in corporate social
responsibility policy along the supply chain (Maister et al., 2020). Results illustrated in Figure 43 (a)
show that for both EV and ICEV technologies, the main contributing processes to the promotion of
social responsibility (positive effects) are associated to manufacturing activities located in Europe
(France and Spain) which in part can be explained by the European regulatory context and the rise of
ecological awareness related to environmental and social performances of organizations.
Fair competition: The measured indicator for fair competition, anti-competitive behavior of
organizations, demonstrates similar results for both EV and ICEV technologies (0.00848 AC medium
risk h) as illustrated in Figure 43 (b). The contribution analysis allowed identifying the main contributing
process activities for these results. For electric vehicles, motor vehicles manufacturing in France is
responsible for 76.54% of total AC medium risk h associated mainly with refined petroleum products,
195
followed by electricity production and hot water supply in France that presents 17.72% of total AC
medium risk h and finally batteries production in Japan with 3% of total AC medium risk h. The high
identified social risks for AC medium risk that is associated to the use of refined petroleum products
come only from motor vehicles production (without batteries production). On the other hand, motor
vehicles production for ICEV technologies is the main contributor to social risks related to anti-
competitive behavior (97.06%), mostly related to mining and quarrying activities for energy in
Russia 17.38%, Algeria 2.61% and other services incidental to oil and gas extraction in France. All the
identified processes activities for both EV and ICEV related to fair competition impact subcategory
highlight the high likelihood of anti-competitive behavior associated to the energy sector. Achieving
social sustainability in future mobility scenarios, should focus on improving the social performance of
the energy sector on which electric mobility strongly relies.
4.4.4. S-LCIA results for society
Contribution of the sector to economic development: The measured indicator for society’s impact
subcategory is the contribution of the sector to economic development [CED medium risk h]. This
indicator accounts for positive impacts by measuring opportunity levels presented by the evaluated
process activity. Results of this impact subcategory are shown in Figure 44. For both EV and ICEV
technologies, motor vehicles manufacturing presented the higher share of CED medium risk h, mostly
related to research and development activities.
Contribution of the sector to economic

development
0,1
CED med risk hours
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
ICEV EV
Figure 44 Contribution to the sector economic development through the analysis of inventory indicator provided by PSILCA
database
As a general outcome, the S-LCIA evaluation phase is very challenging as very few studies consider a
complete product system in S-LCA (Ciroth & Franze, 2011); they rather focus on one specific process
activities (Pastor et al., 2018; Werker et al., 2019). Modeling transportation technologies requires
considering multiple input processes for which data is often scarce. We extrapolated available data for
similar processes in PSILCA database to model the two considered scenarios. It is therefore important
to note that further work should account for large uncertainties when analyzing the results. Future
enhancement of databases transparency is also recommended to better identify individual contributions
in the S-LCIA phase.
196
4.4.5. S-LCIA results for users’ stakeholder group: Analyzing mobility services with a user-centric
approach
Results from the specific analysis are illustrated in Figure 45. These are obtained following the
assessment of nine different impact subcategories for users as defined in within the participatory
approach. The figure illustrates the results for 10 different indicators as a distinction has been made
between safety of users from road accidents and the insecurity feeling or the sexual-based casualties. In
fact, the analysis of the indicators has demonstrated variable, even contradictory social performance
between these two indicators depending on the service that were evaluated.
The analysis of the obtained results can be very challenging as the three mobility services demonstrate
variable positive and negative performance. The interpretation step imposes here consideration of trade-
offs that occur between the three use scenarios.
The following paragraphs are discussing the results for the impact subcategories that were perceived as
the most relevant according to users, namely safety, health and comfort
Figure 45 S-LCIA Results from the specific assessment of mobility services with a user-centric approach
Users’ safety in terms of road accidents is computed based on the defined performance indicators in
Table 11 namely, the accidents rate per year and the evolution of accidents rate which measures the
efficiency of road accidents prevention measures. This aspect has shown a very low performance in the
case of personal transportation use (-2) as the accidents rate in the region considered for the study is
higher than the French average and the evolution of accidents rate which is the second-measured
indicator is +40% between 2018 and 2019 (ONISR, 2019). On the other hand, users’ safety in terms of
aggression and harassment acts presents a better performance (+1) in the case of personal transportation
use as the most majority of casualties are related to theft and non-violent acts (INSEE-ONDRP-SSMSI,
2019). The indicator measured here victimization rate amounts to 0.80% in the case of personal transport
use against more than 10% for public transportation while for shared transportation the victimization
rate varies between 5 and 10%.
The accessibility and affordability of the mobility service was also perceived as the most important
according to users. This impact subcategory was divided to two different aspects namely the physical
197
accessibility and the affordability of the mobility service. The performance indicators used to perform
the social impact assessment arises from the European Commission SUMI core set or urban
sustainability indicators. The results show a positive performance for both indicators in the case of public
transportation use, i.e. (+2) for the affordability and (+1) for the accessibility. The accessibility
performance was estimated based on the available measures for increasing the inclusiveness of mobility
services to all people.
Transportation infrastructures efficiency and availability was also perceived among the most relevant
impact subcategories to analyze mobility services. In fact, the performance indicators that were used to
perform the analysis calculate the amount of mobility points of service and their geographical coverage.
The analysis was performed by collected specific data from the regional mobility service provider. This
indicator showed a relatively positive performance for shared transportation while for personal and
public transportation use a lower performance was demonstrated. In fact, this impact subcategory was
analyzed by using the total number of transport points in the specific region under consideration. For
public transportation, the collected data was mapped to enable the calculation of this indicator. The ratio
was estimated at 1225 in total for the location. However, to increase representativeness the geographical
scope was narrowed down to urban and suburban areas. In this case, the No of served transport points
amounted to 734 which is equivalent to a positive performance (+1) according to defined reference
scales in (Gompf et al., 2020).
As illustrated in Figure 45, personal transportation use showed a positive performance in terms of
accessibility, health and comfort and the safety of users—sexual-based casualties—it shows a very low
performance for road-accident rate, transportation infrastructures due to public space occupancy and
affordability. By contrast, public transportation use demonstrated a positive performance in terms of
affordability, users’ personal data protection and transparency on the environmental and social
responsibility. Shared transportation shows a positive performance for the feedback mechanism, the
quality and efficiency of the communication system, safety in terms of road accidents and transport
infrastructures.

Throughout this research, a comprehensive methodological framework for S-LCA was developed and a
step-by-step description for its (operational) application is provided. This S-LCA framework was
adapted by considering the four S-LCA phases recommended by ISO 14,040 as a starting point, while
adding two main innovative features to overcome current bottlenecks: (1) a participatory approach to
account for different stakeholders’ perspective for the selection of impact subcategories, (2) a user-
centric social impact assessment to better characterized the effects on this specific stakeholder.
The participatory approach entails two main stages: (1) the identification stage enables the definition of
sectorial-based impact subcategories for each stakeholder group throughout the life cycle of the product,
198
(2) a general consultation process designed to enable the prioritization of the identified impact
subcategories and to consider the most relevant ones from the perspective of all concerned stakeholders.
The selected social and socio-economic impact subcategories were then used to perform the S-LCIA
phase and thus, contribute to a comprehensive analysis in the interpretation phase.
The defined framework explained for each of the iterative phases of S-LCA how to integrate the
proposed features and how to tailor them to fit other product systems and sectors. In addition, the S-
LCIA phase in the current work was carried out through a generic impact assessment using PSILCA
database and completed by a specific assessment of mobility scenarios that include users-dependent
impact subcategories. The user-centric assessment approach is therefore detailed from the definition of
new impact subcategories, the data collection, to the assessment and interpretation of the obtained
results. Yet, in the S-LCIA phase, it was not possible to link the assessment of mobility services to the
analyzed vehicle technologies to be expressed in the same functional unit. This goes back to the missing
correlation with the used activity variable. These issues should be investigated in future studies and
users’ stakeholder category should not be left out of the assessment. The application to different case
studies with new activity variables besides worker hours may allow covering potential social and socio-
economic impact subcategories valid for all stakeholder groups.
The developed step-by-step S-LCA framework was implemented to analyze the three mobility scenarios
considered in the current thesis namely personal, public and shared transportation use with a special
focus on electric and conventional vehicle technologies.
The proposed list of social and socio-economic impact subcategories resulting from its implementation
is a contribution towards harmonized social and socio-economic indicators to the mobility sector.
Moreover, the implementation of the participatory approach demonstrated the interest of stakeholders’
involvement within S-LCA framework. Indeed, social significance of social and socio-economic impact
subcategories has varied significantly according to each of the consulted stakeholders (e.g., users,
industrial actors, public actors, worker unions, etc.). These discrepancies have revealed different
concerns and interests for the considered social topics and confirm their importance to account for within
the evaluation phase avoiding thus a partial representation of significant impacts. The comprehensive
analysis comparing electric and conventional technologies has been performed based on S-LCIA phase
and results from the participatory approach. This phase underlined further the interest of introducing
important information on stakeholders’ perceptions into the interpretation of results.
The main limitations of the proposed participatory approach laid in its duration and sample size. In fact,
the surveys and data collection were time-consuming and should be carefully designed. The sample size
being dimensioned to 70 different consulted stakeholders, might raise questions as no similar study has
been conducted before. It is therefore recommended to broaden the sample size as much as possible.
Specificities may be revealed when consulting the different stakeholders and the design of the surveys
might require to be tailored to each consulted stakeholder and product system.
199
Although the present work did not cover the new proposed stakeholder categories and impact
subcategories by UNEP guidelines, the proposed step-by-step S-LCA framework is fortunately general
enough to integrate these categories. Future research can focus on; (i) adding new impact subcategories
and stakeholder categories but also (ii) to identify other specificities for such other product systems and
sectors, and (iii) to confirm the generality of the approach.
200
6. References
ADEME. (2019). La pollution de l’air en 10 questions— comment respirer un air de meilleure qualité.
ADEME. https://www.ademe.fr/particuliers-eco-citoyens/pollution-lair
ADEME. (2020). Impact économique et potentiel de développement des usages du vélo en France en
2020. ADEME. https://librairie.ademe.fr/mobilite-et-transport/332-impact-economique-et-
potentiel-de-developpement-des-usages-du-velo-en-france-en-2020.html
AFNOR. (2002). Norme Européene EN 13816:2002— Service de transport de voyageurs (X 50-805; p.

36). AFNOR. https://ecolesdemennecy.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/norme-nf-en-13816-
qualitc3a9-service-transport-public-de-voyageurs.pdf
Alix, C. (2017). Devant la justice, l’Urssaf perd face à Uber. Libération.

https://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2017/03/17/devant-la-justice-l-urssaf-perd-face-a-
uber_1556255/
Amnesty International. (2020, May 6). They can’t escape the dust. Amnesty International.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/05/drc-alarming-research-harm-from-cobalt-
mine-abuses/
Amnesty International. (2021). Amnesty International Report 2020/21: The state of the world’s human
rights. Amnesty International Ltd. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/POL1032022021ENGLISH.pdf
ATC. (2017). Lignes directrices pour définir et mesurer la congestion urbaine. Association des
transports du Canada. https://www.tac-atc.ca/sites/default/files/site/doc/Bookstore/prm-dmuc-
f.pdf
Azapagic, A. (2004). Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining
and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(6), 639—662.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00075-1
Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., Velasco-Muñoz, J. F., Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2019).

Innovation and technology for sustainable mining activity: A worldwide research assessment.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 221, 38–54. Scopus.
Benoît Norris, C., Franze, J., Valdivia, S., Traverso, M., Vickery, G., & Siddharth, P. (2013). The
methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (SLCA).
https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/S-
LCA_methodological_sheets_11.11.13.pdf
Bjørgen, A., Fossheim, K., & Macharis, C. (2021). How to build stakeholder participation in
collaborative urban freight planning. Cities, 112, 103,149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103149
Blom, M., & Solmar, C. (2009). How to socially assess biofuels: A case study of the UNEP/SETAC
Code of Practice for social—economical LCA. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:
nbn:se:ltu:diva-46146
201
8_2018-08-28.pdf
Bondaz, M., Panhaleux, J., Helbronner, C., Paquette, O., Miramon, G., Sion, L., Aubert, D., & Bodino,
P. (2014). Evaluation de la politique de sécurité routière : Rapport de diagnostic (Tome1).
https://www.vie-publique.fr/sites/default/files/rapport/pdf/154000563.pdf
Brand, M. J., Schuster, S. F., Bach, T., Fleder, E., Stelz, M., Gläser, S., Müller, J., Sextl, G., & Jossen,
A. (2015). Effects of vibrations and shocks on lithium-ion cells. Journal of Power Sources, 288,
62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.04.107
CGDD, D. (2020). Bilan social annuel du transport routier de voyageurs — Édition 2020 (p. 100).
http://temis.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/docs/Temis/0080/Temis-
0080643/21584_2020.pdf
Chalkia, E., Mueller, B., & L’Hostis, A. (2017). The role of societal resistance in transportation
innovation. 8th International Congress on Transportation Research: Transportation by 2030:
Trends and Perspectives, 12P. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1216917
Ciroth, A., Di Noi, C., & Srocka, M. (2019). Revisiting the activity variable in Social LCA beyond
worker hours. LCA XIX, Tucson. https://www.greendelta.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/2019_LCA_XIX_Revisiting-the-activity-variable-in-SLCA.pdf
Ciroth, A., & Franze, J. (2011). LCA of an ecolabeled notebook: Consideration of social and
environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. GreenDelta. https://www.greendelta.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/LCA_laptop_final.pdf
CIVITAS. (2010). Amélioration de la qualité des services de transport en commun (p. 12p) [Policy
advice notes].
http://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civitas_ii_policy_advice_notes_11_public_transport_quality
_fr.pdf
CNIL. (2016). Pack de conformité : Véhicules connectés et données personnelles.

https://www.cnil.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/pack_vehicules_connectes_web.pdf
Délibération de la formation restreinte n° SAN-2018-011 du 19 décembre 2018 prononçant une sanction

pécuniaire à l’encontre de la société X, Pub. L. No. SAN-2018-011 (2018).
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/cnil/id/CNILTEXT000037830841/#:~:text=La%20formation%
20restreinte%20rappelle%20qu,ne%20puissent%20pas%20%C3%AAtre%20divulgu%C3%A
9s.
Coderre-Proulx, M., Campbell, B., & Mandé, I. (2016). International Migrant Workers in the Mining
Sector [Report]. International Labour Office. Sectoral Policies Dept.; International Labour
Office. Conditions of Work and Equality Dept. http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-
migration/publications/WCMS_538488/lang--en/index.htm
Assessment, 21(9), 1314—1326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0792-4
202
Dobrzyński, M., Dziekoński, K., & Jurczuk, A. (2015). Stakeholders mapping: A case of international
logistics project. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 11(2), 17–26.
ECF. (2018). Low-carbon cars in Europe: Asocial and socio-economic assessment (p. 102) [Final
report]. European Climate Foundation & Cambridge econometrics.
https://europeanclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20-02-2019-low-carbon-cars-in-
europe-a-socioeconomic-assessment-technical-report.pdf
EEA. (2021). Exposure of Europe’s population to environmental noise—European Environment Agency

[Indicator Assessment]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/exposure-to-and-
annoyance-by-2/assessment-4
Eisfeldt, F., Rodriguez, C., & Ciroth, A. (2017). SOCA—A database add-on for Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment. CILCA, by Greendelta, Medellin.
Eskerod, P., & Huemann, M. (2013). Sustainable development and project stakeholder management:
What standards say. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 36–50.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291017
Esztergár-Kiss, D., & Tettamanti, T. (2019). Stakeholder engagement in mobility planning. In

Autonomous vehicles and future mobility (pp. 113–123). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817696-2.00009-3
EU. (2020). Protection des données et respect de la vie privée en ligne. L’Europe est à vous — Citoyens.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-telecoms/data-protection-online-
privacy/index_fr.htm
Véhicules hors d’usage : Directive 2000/53/CE, Pub. L. No. Directive 2000/53/CE du Parlement
européen et du Conseil du 18 septembre 2000 relative aux véhicules hors d’usage-Déclarations
de la Commission (2000). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/FR/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l21225
Electric and hybrid cars: New rules on noise emitting to protect vulnerable road users, (2019).
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/electric-and-hybrid-cars-new-rules-noise-emitting-protect-
vulnerable-road-users_en
European Commission. (2020). Technical support related to sustainable urban mobility indicators
(SUMI) (Harmonisation Guideline Final [Web] Version MOVE/B4/2017-358; p. 25).
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/sumi_wp1_harmonisation_guidelines.pdf
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. (2018). Platform workers in Europe: Evidence from the
COLLEEM survey. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/742789
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. (2019). Women in European transport with a focus on
research and innovation :an overview of women’s issues in transport based on the Transport
Research and Innovation Monitoring and Information System (TRIMIS). Publications Office.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/56299
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. (2016).
The passions and the interests: Unpacking the “sharing economy”. Publications Office.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2791/561134
Eurostat. (2020a). Fatal accidents at work, 2017 and 2018 (incidence rates per 100,000 persons
employed) AAW2020.png—Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
203
explained/index.php?title=File:
Fatal_accidents_at_work,_2017_and_2018_(incidence_rates_per_100_000_persons_employe
d)_AAW2020.png
Eurostat. (2020b). Non-fatal accidents at work, 2017 and 2018 (incidence rates per 100,000 persons
employed) AAW2020.png. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=File:Non-
fatal_accidents_at_work,_2017_and_2018_(incidence_rates_per_100_000_persons_employed
)_AAW2020.png
Eurostat. (2020c, November 16). Non-fatal accidents at work by size of enterprise and economic activity,
EU-27, 2018 (% of non-fatal accidents for each activity) AAW2020.png.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Non-
fatal_accidents_at_work_by_size_of_enterprise_and_economic_activity,_EU-
27,_2018_(%25_of_non-fatal_accidents_for_each_activity)_AAW2020.png
Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14,040 and ISO 14,044. The International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 80—85. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.002
Folcher, V., & Lompré, N. (2012). Accessibilité pour et dans l’usage : Concevoir des situations
d’activité adaptées à tous et à chacun. Le travail humain, Vol. 75(1), 89–120.
https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-travail-humain-2012-1-page-89.htm
Fontes, J., Gaasbeek, A., Goedkoop, M., Contreras, S., & Evitts, S. (2016). Handbook for Product Social
Impact Assessment 3.0. PréSustainability. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23821.74720
Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2013). Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle
assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. The International
Fortino, A., Eckstein, L., Viehöfer, J., & Pampel, J. (2016). Acoustic Vehicle Alerting Systems
(AVAS)—Regulations, Realization and Sound Design Challenges. SAE International Journal
of Passenger Cars—Mechanical Systems, 9(3), 995–1003. https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-
1784
Gallez, C., & Motte-Baumvol, B. (2017). Inclusive Mobility or Inclusive Accessibility? A European
Perspective. Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto, 56, 79. https://doi.org/10.18543/ced-56-
2017pp79-104
Garrido Fernández, A. (2018). Towards transport futures using mobile data analytics: Stakeholder
identification in the city of Stockholm [KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment
(ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering.]. urn: nbn:
se:kth:diva-240604
Collotta, M., Andro, T., Viot, J.-F., & Whatelet, A. (2020a). Product Social Impact Assessment
Handbook 2020. https://product-social-impact-assessment.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/20-01-Handbook-2020_10.pdf
Collotta, M., Andro, T., Viot, J.-F., & Whatelet, A. (2020b). Product Social Impact
204
Assessment—Social Topics Report—2020. https://product-social-impact-assessment.com/wp-

content/uploads/2020/11/Social-Topics-Report-2020_06.pdf
Gompf, K., Traverso, M., & Hetterich, J. (2020). Towards social life cycle assessment of mobility
services: Systematic literature review and the way forward. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 25(10), 1883–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01788-8
Graham, I. (2010). Working Conditions of Contract Workers in the Oil and Gas Industries (Working
Paper Working paper 276). International Labour Office.
http://www.ilo.org/sector/Resources/publications/WCMS_161194/lang--en/index.htm
GRI. (2016). GRI-2016-Consolidated set of GRI sustainability Reporting Standards. Global Reporting
Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/
Harrington, T. S., Singh Srai, J., Kumar, M., & Wohlrab, J. (2016). Identifying design criteria for urban
system “last-mile’solutions—a multi-stakeholder perspective. Production Planning & Control,
27(6), 456–476.
Hilson, G., & Maconachie, R. (2020). Artisanal and small-scale mining and the Sustainable
Development Goals: Opportunities and new directions for sub-Saharan Africa. Geoforum, 111,
125–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.09.006
Holger, S., Petra, Z., Josephine, M., Andrea, S., Sandra, V., & Jürgen-Friedrich, H. (2017). The social
footprint of permanent magnet production based on rare earth elements—a social life cycle
assessment scenario. Energy Procedia, 142, 984–990.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.157
Holzwarth, S. (2015). Analysis of the transport relevance of each of the 17 SDGs (p. 20). UN-Habitat,
UNEP, SLoCaT.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/8656Analysis%20of%20transport%
20relevance%20of%20SDGs.pdf
Hoque, N., Mazhar, I., & Biswas, W. (2020). Application of Life Cycle Assessment for Sustainability
Evaluation of Transportation Fuels. In S. Hashmi & I. A. Choudhury (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Renewable and Sustainable Materials (pp. 359–369). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-803581-8.10792-1
Hosseinijou, S. A., Mansour, S., & Shirazi, M. A. (2014). Social life cycle assessment for material
selection: A case study of building materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle
ILAB. (2020). 2020 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor (p. 104). The Bureau of
International Labor Affairs United States Department of Labor.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor
ILO. (2002). The evolution of employment, working time and training in the mining industry. Report
TMMI/2002. http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/ilo-bookstore/order-
online/books/WCMS_PUBL_9221132234_EN/lang--en/index.htm
Imre Keseru, Thierry Coosemans, Eliza Gagatsi, & Cathy Macharis. (2018). User-centric vision for
mobility in 2030: Participatory evaluation of scenarios by the multi-actor multi-criteria
analysis (MAMCA). https://zenodo.org/record/1483459#.XI-3vbiNyUk
205
İmre, Ş., & Çelebi, D. (2017). Measuring Comfort in Public Transport: A case study for İstanbul.
Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 2441–2449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.261
Ingber, S. (2018, April 10). France Can Bring Criminal Charges Against Uber, Judges Rule. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601317786/france-can-bring-criminal-
charges-against-uber-judges-rule
INSEE. (2017). Tableaux de l’économique française. Institut national de la statistique et des études
économiques. www.insee.fr
INSEE-ONDRP-SSMSI. (2019). Victimation 2018 et perceptions de la sécurité : Résultats de l’enquête

Cadre de vie et Sécurité 2019. Institut National des Hautes Etudes de la Sécurité et de la Justice :
Observatoire National de la Délinquance et des Réponses Pénales.
https://www.ihemi.fr/sites/default/files/publications/files/2019-12/RA_ONDRP_2019.pdf
International Energy Agency. (2019). Global EV Outlook 2019: Scaling-up the transition to electric
mobility. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/35fb60bd-en
International Labour Office. (2001). Safety and health in the non-ferrous metals industries (p. 185)
[Code of practice]. International Labour Office. http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-
health-at-work/normative-instruments/code-of-practice/WCMS_107713/lang--en/index.htm
International Labour Office. (2005). Safety and health in the iron and steel industry—Sectoral Activities
Programme (Code of Practice MEISI/2005/8; p. 117). http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-
and-health-at-work/normative-instruments/code-of-practice/WCMS_112443/lang--
en/index.htm
International Labour Office. (2010). Benefits of improved road access (p. 31) [Report]. International
Labour Organization (ILO).
http://www.ilo.org/jakarta/whatwedo/publications/WCMS_150112/lang--en/index.htm
International Labour Office. (2015a). Impact Assessment Study of Improved Rural Road Maintenance
System under PMGSY (p. 124). Ministry of Rural Development.
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_policy/---
invest/documents/publication/wcms_434255.pdf
International Labour Office. (2015b). Priority safety and health issues in the road transport sector—
Report for discussion at the Tripartite Sectoral Meeting on Safety and Health in the Road
Transport Sector (Meeting Report TSMRTS/2015; p. 76).
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---
sector/documents/publication/wcms_400598.pdf
International Labour Office. (2015c). Occupational safety and health in the oil and gas production and
oil refining sector [Resource list]. http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-
work/industries-sectors/WCMS_219028/lang--en/index.htm
International Labour Office. (2016). Sectoral Studies on Decent Work in Global Supply Chains:
Comparative Analysis of Opportunities and Challenges for Social and Economic Upgrading
(p. 182) [Publication]. International Labour Organization (ILO).
International Labour Office. (2018). Back to the Future: Challenges and opportunities for the future of
work addressed in ILO sectoral meetings since 2010 [Working paper].
206
International Labour Office. (2019a). Occupational safety and health in the mining industry in Ukraine
(p. 54) [Publication]. International Labour Organization (ILO).
http://www.ilo.org/budapest/what-we-do/publications/WCMS_670764/lang--en/index.htm
International Labour Office. (2019b). Convening actors to reduce child labour and improve working
conditions in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (CARING GOLD MINING PROJECT):
Fact sheet (p. 4) [Fact sheet]. International Labour Organization (ILO).
http://www.ilo.org/manila/publications/WCMS_720740/lang--en/index.htm
International Labour Office. (2020). Guidelines on the promotion of decent work and road safety in the
transport sector (p. 84). International Labour Organization (ILO).
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---
sector/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_742633.pdf
International Labour Office. (2021). Challenges and opportunities for productive employment and
decent work in the natural stone mining industry supply chain in Rajasthan (p. 94) [Report].
ILO Country Office for India and Sectoral Policies Department.
Interstat, M. de. (2021). Les vols et violences dans les réseaux de transports en commun en 2019 –
Interstats Analyse n°31. Service statistique ministériel de la sécurité intérieure.
http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Interstats/Actualites/Les-vols-et-violences-dans-les-reseaux-de-
transports-en-commun-en-2019-Interstats-Analyse-n-31
ISO 2631-1. (2010). ISO 2631-1:1997/Amd 1:2010 Vibrations et chocs mécaniques—Évaluation de

l’exposition des individus à des vibrations globales du corps—Partie 1 : Spécifications
générales—Amendement 1. ISO.
ISO26000. (2010). ISO 26000:2010 (en), Guidance on social responsibility.

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-1:v1: en
ITF. (2018). Women’s Safety and Security: A Public Transport Priority (p. 45). International Transport
Forum, OECD Publishing. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/womens-safety-
security_0.pdf
Johannessen, B. (2009). Building rural roads. International Labour Office.

http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/ilo-bookstore/order-
online/books/WCMS_111496/lang--en/index.htm
Jones, S., Tefe, M., & Appiah-Opoku, S. (2015). Incorporating stakeholder input into transport project
selection—A step towards urban prosperity in developing countries? Habitat International, 45,
20–28.
Kamenopoulos, S. N., Agioutantis, Z., & Komnitsas, K. (2016). Framework for Sustainable Mining of
Rare Earth Elements. In Rare Earths Industry (pp. 111–120). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802328-0.00007-3
Karlewski, H., Lehmann, A., Ruhland, K., & Finkbeiner, M. (2019). A Practical Approach for Social
Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry. Resources, 8(3), 146.
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030146
Kelly, P., Kahlmeier, S., Götschi, T., Orsini, N., Richards, J., Roberts, N., Scarborough, P., & Foster, C.
(2014). Systematic review and meta-analysis of reduction in all-cause mortality from walking
207
and cycling and shape of dose response relationship. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-014-0132-x
Keoleian, G. A., Miller, S., De Kleine, R. D., & Mosley, J. (2012). Life Cycle Material Data Update for
GREET Model (No. CSS12-12; p. 214). Center for Sustainable Systems—University of
Michigan. http://css.snre.umich.edu/
König, A., Nicoletti, L., Schröder, D., Wolff, S., Waclaw, A., & Lienkamp, M. (2021). An Overview of
Parameter and Cost for Battery Electric Vehicles. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12(1), 21.
https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010021
Kostiainen, J., & Tuominen, A. (2019). Mobility as a Service—Stakeholders” Challenges and Potential
Implications. In B. Müller & G. Meyer (Eds.), Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe:
Challenges, Solutions and Collaborations (pp. 239–254). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99756-8_16
Kougias, I., Nikitas, A., Thiel, C., & Szabó, S. (2020). Clean energy and transport pathways for islands:
A stakeholder analysis using Q method. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 78, 102,180.
Kühnen, M., & Hahn, R. (2017). Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of Frameworks,
Theories, and Empirical Experience: Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 21(6), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12663
Le Pira, M., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Pluchino, A., & Rapisarda, A. (2016). Modelling stakeholder
participation in transport planning. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4(3), 230–238.
Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., & Geschke, A. (2013). Building Eora: A Global Multi-Region
Input—Output Database at High Country and Sector Resolution. Economic Systems Research,
25(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2013.769938
Leurent, F., & Windisch, E. (2015). Benefits and costs of electric vehicles for the public finances: An
integrated valuation model based on input—output analysis, with application to France.
Research in Transportation Economics, 50, 51–62.
Levy, J. I., Buonocore, J. J., & von Stackelberg, K. (2010). Evaluation of the public health impacts of
traffic congestion: A health risk assessment. Environmental Health, 9, 65.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-65
L’Hostis, A., MULLER, B., meyer, G., BRUCKNER, A., FOLDESI, E., Dablanc, L., Blanquart, C.,
TUOMINEN, A., KOSTIAINEN, J., POU, C., URBAN, M., KESERU, I., COOSEMANS, T.,
DE LA CRUZ, M. T., VAL, S., Golfetti, A., Napoletano, L., SKOOGBERG, J., HOLLEY-
MOORE, G., … LANGHEIM, J. (2016). MOBILITY4EU—D2.1—Societal needs and
requirements for future transportation and mobility as well as opportunities and challenges of
current solutions (p. 85p.) [Research Report]. IFSTTAR — Institut Français des Sciences et
Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement et des Réseaux. https://hal.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-01486783
Limon, T., Estines, S., Gavaud, O., & Pochez, R. (2018). Management de la mobilité : Synthèse
bibliographique, cadre et définitions, outils et études de cas (p. 117). Bureau des études
économiques énérales : service de l’Administration Générale de la stratégie.
solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/161109_Maitrise%20de%20la%20demande_Rapport%20C
OP%2022.pdf
208
Lindenau, M., & Böhler-Baedeker, S. (2014). Citizen and stakeholder involvement: A precondition for
sustainable urban mobility. Transportation Research Procedia, 4, 347–360.
Litmanen, T., Jartti, T., & Rantala, E. (2016). Refining the preconditions of a social licence to operate
(SLO): Reflections on citizens’ attitudes towards mining in two Finnish regions. The Extractive
Industries and Society, 3(3), 782–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.04.003
Loayza, N., & Rigolini, J. (2016). The Local Impact of Mining on Poverty and Inequality: Evidence
from the Commodity Boom in Peru. World Development, 84, 219—234.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.005
Lopez-Arboleda, E., Sarmiento, A. T., & Cardenas, L. M. (2019). Systematic review of integrated
sustainable transportation models for electric passenger vehicle diffusion. Sustainability, 11(9),
2513.
Ludovico, N., Dessi, F., & Bonaiuto, M. (2020). Stakeholders Mapping for Sustainable Biofuels: An
Innovative Procedure Based on Computational Text Analysis and Social Network Analysis.
Sustainability, 12(24), 10,317.
Macombe, C., Leskinen, P., Feschet, P., & Antikainen, R. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of
biodiesel production at three levels: A literature review and development needs. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 52, 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.026
(PSILCA) Database v.3 Documentation (Databse Documentation version 1.0; p. 124).
GreenDelta. https://www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PSILCA_V3_manual.pdf
Mancini, L., Eynard, U., Eisfeldt, F., Ciroth, A., Blengini, G., & Pennington, D. (2019). Social
assessment of raw materials supply chains. A life-cycle-based analysis.
https://doi.org/10.2760/470881
Mancini, L., & Sala, S. (2018). Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison
of indicators frameworks. Resources Policy, 57, 98–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.02.002
Mattila, T. J. (2018). Use of Input—Output Analysis in LCA. In M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, &

S. I. Olsen (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment (pp. 349–372). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_14
McQuilken, J., & Perks, R. (2021). 2020 State of the Artisanal and Small Scale Mining Sector.
International Labour Organization (ILO). https://delvedatabase.org/resources/2020-state-of-
the-artisanal-and-small-scale-mining-sector

Newman, W. (2015). Health and safety concerns about the increasing use of mobility scooters on New
Zealand roads (RCA Forum Research and Guidelines Steering Group Report, No. 2).
https://rcaforum.org.nz/sites/public_files/images/Mobility%20Scooters-
Health%20and%20Safety%20Concerns%20.pdf
Noble, J. (2015). L’insécurité personnelle dans les transports en commun. Deviance et Societe, Vol.
39(3), 343–364. https://www.cairn.info/revue-deviance-et-societe-2015-3-page-343.htm
209
Noel, L., De Rubens, G. Z., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Optimizing innovation, carbon and health in
transport: Assessing socially optimal electric mobility and vehicle-to-grid pathways in
Denmark. Energy, 153, 628–637.
Northey, S. A., Mudd, G. M., Werner, T. T., Haque, N., & Yellishetty, M. (2019). Sustainable water
management and improved corporate reporting in mining. Water Resources and Industry, 21,
100,104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.100104
Numbeo. (2019). Pollution Index by Country 2019.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2019
OECD. (2016). OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from
Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas: Third Edition. OECD.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252479-en
OECD. (2019a). Interconnected supply chains: A comprehensive look at due diligence challenges and
opportunities sourcing cobalt and copper from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. OECD.
https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/Interconnected-supply-chains-a-comprehensive-look-at-due-
diligence-challenges-and-opportunities-sourcing-cobalt-and-copper-from-the-DRC.pdf
OECD. (2019b). OECD Reference Note on Environmental and Social Considerations in Quality
Infrastructure (p. 23). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/g20/summits/osaka/OECD-Reference-
Note-on-Environmental-and-Social-Considerations.pdf
OECD. (2021). Trends in Stakeholder Reporting: Mineral Supply Chains (p. 39). OECD.
https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/trends-in-stakeholder-reporting-mineral-supply-chains.pdf
OIE. (2017). Les enjeux de l’intégration des véhicules électriques dans le système électrique [Fiche
pédagogique]. OIE est le portail économique et statistique de l’Union Française de l’Électricité.
https://observatoire-electricite.fr/IMG/pdf/oie_-_fiche_pedago_mobilite_sept_2017.pdf
Omahne, V., Knez, M., & Obrecht, M. (2021). Social Aspects of Electric Vehicles Research—Trends
and Relations to Sustainable Development Goals. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12(1), 15.
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., & Egilmez, G. (2016). Integration of system dynamics approach
toward deepening and broadening the life cycle sustainability assessment framework: A case
for electric vehicles. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(7), 1009–1034.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1070-4
ONISR. (2019). La sécurité routière en France : Bilan de l’accidentalité de l’année 2018. Observatoire
national interministériel de sécurité routière. http://www.onisr.securite-
routiere.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2019-
09/Bilan%20de%20l%20accidentalit%C3%A9%20routi%C3%A8re%20de%20l%20ann%C3
%A9e%202018.pdf
Orozco, C. G. (2018). The Global Mining Cluster and Decoding Sustainable Mining. Journal of
Historical Archaeology & Anthropological Sciences, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.15406/jhaas.2018.03.00074
Osorio-Tejada, J. L., Llera-Sastresa, E., Scarpellini, S., & Hashim, A. H. (2020a). An integrated social
Assessment, 25(6), 1088—1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01692-w
210
Osorio-Tejada, J. L., Llera-Sastresa, E., Scarpellini, S., & Hashim, A. H. (2020b). An integrated social
Assessment, 25(6), 1088–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01692-w
Ostojski, L. (2018). Données collectées par le véhicule, un nouvel Eldorado ?

https://www.argusdelassurance.com/dossier-ja/donnees-collectees-par-le-vehicule-un-nouvel-
eldorado.129970
Pardi, T. (2017). L’avenir du travail dans le secteur automobile : Les enjeux de la déglobalisation —
Synthèse (p. 16). https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---
inst/documents/publication/wcms_551604.pdf
Pardi, T. (2021). Prospects and contradictions of the electrification of the European automotive industry:
The role of European Union policy. International Journal of Automotive Technology and
Management. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03102947
Pastor, M. M., Schatz, T., Traverso, M., Wagner, V., & Hinrichsen, O. (2018). Social aspects of water
consumption: Risk of access to unimproved drinking water and to unimproved sanitation
facilities—an example from the automobile industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Patil, L. N., & Khairnar, H. P. (2021). Investigation of Human Safety Based on Pedestrian Perceptions
Associated to Silent Nature of Electric Vehicle. 8. https://doi.org/10.5109/4480704
Peron, M. (2010). La communication dans les transports publics interurbains de voyageurs [Ecole
Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées]. https://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00523273/document
Petti, L., Serreli, M., & Di Cesare, S. (2016). Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4
Peugeot. (2020). Configurateur Peugeot 208 | Votre citadine sur-mesure. https://www.peugeot.fr/nos-

vehicules/e-208/configurez.html/finitions
Renault. (2020). RENAULT ZOE E-TECH ELECTRIQUE. https://www.renault.fr/vehicules-

electriques/zoe.html
Roesch, A., Sala, S., & Jungbluth, N. (2020). Normalization and weighting: The open challenge in LCA.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(9), 1859—1865.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01790-0
RTE. (2015). Valorisation socio-économique des réseaux électriques intelligents-Méthodologie et

premiers résultats (p. 232) [Rapport d’étude]. Réseau de transport d’électricité-ademe.
https://www.rte-france.com/sites/default/files/rei_bd_1.pdf
RTE. (2019). Enjeux du développement de l’électromobilité pour le système électrique (p. 82)
[Principaux résultats]. https://www.rte-
france.com/sites/default/files/electromobilite_synthese_9.pdf
Russo-Spena, T., Tregua, M., & De Chiara, A. (2018). Trends and Drivers in CSR Disclosure: A Focus
on Reporting Practices in the Automotive Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 (2), 563–
578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3235-2
211
Rutter, H., Cavill, N., Racioppi, F., Dinsdale, H., Oja, P., & Kahlmeier, S. (2013). Economic impact of
reduced mortality due to increased cycling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(1),
89—92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.053
Schlör, H., Venghaus, S., Zapp, P., Marx, J., Schreiber, A., & Hake, J.-Fr. (2018). The energy-mineral-
society nexus—A social LCA model. Applied Energy, 228, 999–1008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.048
Shen, X., Feng, S., Li, Z., & Hu, B. (2016). Analysis of bus passenger comfort perception based on
passenger load factor and in-vehicle time. SpringerPlus, 5, 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-
016-1694-7
Silva, M., Vieira, E., Signoretti, G., Silva, I., Silva, D., & Ferrari, P. (2018). A Customer Feedback
Platform for Vehicle Manufacturing Compliant with Industry 4.0 Vision. Sensors (Basel,
Switzerland), 18(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/s18103298
Smaragdakis, A., Kamenopoulos, S., & Tsoutsos, T. (2020). How risky is the introduction of fuel cell
electric vehicles in a Mediterranean town? International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(35),
18075–18088.
Soula, C. (2021, April 24). Le boom de la voiture électrique en France met 65 000 emplois en danger.
L’Obs. https://www.nouvelobs.com/economie/20210424.OBS43217/le-boom-de-la-voiture-
electrique-en-france-met-65-000-emplois-en-danger.html
Spickermann, A., Grienitz, V., & Heiko, A. (2014). Heading towards a multimodal city of the future?:
Multi-stakeholder scenarios for urban mobility. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
89, 201–221.
Sureau, S., Mazijn, B., Garrido, S. R., & Achten, W. M. J. (2018). Social life-cycle assessment
frameworks: A review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic
impacts. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(4), 904–920.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1336-5
Tietge, U., Mock, P., Lutsey, N., & Campestrini, A. (2016). Comparison of leading electric vehicle
policy and deployment in Europe (p. 88) [White paper]. International Council for Clean
Transportation. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EVpolicies-Europe-
201605.pdf
Tseng, H.-K., Wu, J. S., & Liu, X. (2013). Affordability of electric vehicles for a sustainable transport
system: An economic and environmental analysis. Energy Policy, 61, 441–447.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.026
Turnbull, P. (2013). Promoting the employment of women in the transport sector obstacles and policy
options (Working Paper No. 298; p. 57). International Labour Organization (ILO).
/docman/rosasec/efe474/16711.pdf
Le règlement général sur la protection des données—RGPD | CNIL, no. Règlement (UE) 2016/679 du
Parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 avril 2016, relatif à la protection des personnes
physiques à l’égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de
ces données, et abrogeant la directive 95/46/CE (règlement général sur la protection des
données). (2018). https://www.cnil.fr/fr/reglement-europeen-protection-donnees#
UNEP. (2018). Shout it Out: Communicating Products’ Social Impacts—A white paper of the one planet
network consumer information programme.
212
http://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/white_paper_-
_communicating_products_social_impacts_ci-scp_2018.pdf
UNEP. (2020). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations (C. Benoît
Norris, M. Traverso, S. Neugebauer, E. Ekener, T. Schaubroeck, S. Russo Garrido, M. Berger,
S. Valdivia, A. Lehmann, M. Finkbeiner, & G. Arcesse, Eds.). United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP). https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products-and-
Organizations-2020-sml.pdf
Walle, M. (2001). Safety & health in small-scale surface mines, a handbook. International Labour
Office. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---
sector/documents/publication/wcms_162738.pdf
Werker, J., Wulf, C., Zapp, P., Schreiber, A., & Marx, J. (2019). Social LCA for rare earth NdFeB
permanent magnets. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 19, 257–269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.07.006
World Bank. (2006). Social Analysis in Transport Projects: Guidelines for Incorporating Social
Dimensions into Bank-Supported Projects (p. 54). Wold Bank—Social Development
Department. https://www.ssatp.org/sites/ssatp/files/publications/HTML/Gender-
RG/Source%20%20documents/Tool%20Kits%20&%20Guides/Social%20Analysis/SA_Trans
port_wb.pdf
World Bank. (2010). Social development and infrastructure—Making Transport Work for Women and
Men Tools for Task Teams (No. 68,750). Wold Bank—Social Development Department.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/12555/687500ESW0P1100ng0
Transport0WorkFor.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
World Bank. (2015). The Next Step for Transport in the SDGs: Devising the Right Indicators Shaping
Transport’s SDG Impact [Text/HTML]. World Bank.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/transport/brief/the-next-step-for-transport-in-the-sdgs-
devising-the-right-indicators-shaping-transports-sdg-impact
World Bank. (2020). Violence Against Women and Girls in Public Transport: Policy Recommendations
for Mexico City. World Bank,.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/35015/Violence-Against-
Women-and-Girls-in-Public-Transport-Policy-Recommendations-for-Mexico-
City.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Zamagni, A., Pesonen, H.-L., & Swarr, T. (2013). From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment:
Concept, practice and future directions. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
18(9), 1637—1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0648-3
Zambrano-Gutiérrez, J. C., Nicholson-Crotty, S., Carley, S., & Siddiki, S. (2018). The Role of Public
Policy in Technology Diffusion: The Case of Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Environmental Science
& Technology, 52(19), 10914–10922. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01149
Zambre, A. (2015). Stakeholder’s perspectives on integrating sustainability in project management

[Dublin Business School]. https://esource.dbs.ie/handle/10788/2838
Zanchi, L., Delogu, M., Zamagni, A., & Pierini, M. (2018). Analysis of the main elements affecting
social LCA applications: Challenges for the automotive sector. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 519—535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1176-8
213
Zanchi, L., Zamagni, A., Maltese, S., Riccomagno, R., & Delogu, M. (2020). Social Assessment in the
Design Phase of Automotive Component Using the Product Social Impact Assessment Method.
In M. Traverso, L. Petti, & A. Zamagni (Eds.), Perspectives on Social LCA: Contributions from
the 6th International Conference (pp. 105–117). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01508-4_10
Zhang, A., Moffat, K., Lacey, J., Wang, J., González, R., Uribe, K., Cui, L., & Dai, Y. (2015).
Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: A comparative study
of Australia, China and Chile. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1063–1072.
Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., Breun, P., & Schultmann, F. (2017). Assessing social risks of global supply
chains: A quantitative analytical approach and its application to supplier selection in the German
automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 96–109.
214
Appendix 4
Survey 1 (was addressed to users)
List of questions: 7 questions
1st part: Social and socio-economic issues related to users (passengers) in mobility
1- I am mainly user of:
a. Personal transportation
b. Public transportation
c. Shared transportation
d. Combination of personal and collective
e. Combination of shared and Public
f. Combination of shared and personal
2- Public transportation: What are the social and socio-economic issues that you consider
critical concerning this transportation mode?
3- Personal transportation: What are the social and socio-economic issues that you consider
4- Shared transportation: What are the social and socio-economic issues that you consider
5- In the context of an electric mobility transition, what would be the social and socio-
economic issues that you are most concerned about?
a. Transparency
b. Health
c. Consumer privacy
d. Performance of the communication System
e. Safety (accidents, insecurity feeling, aggression, and harassment)
f. End of life responsibility
g. Availability and interoperability of infrastructures
h. Accessibility and affordability
i. Feedback mechanism
6- Do you have any comments or other suggestions for social and economic issues that have
not been identified?
2nd part: Social and socio-economic issues related to workers (question 7) and local communities
(question 8) for which users are concerned.
According to you, what is the order of importance of the information provided by
manufacturers on the social and socio-economic issues associated with workers in the production
phase (outside Europe)?
a. Health and safety of workers
215
b. Child labor
c. Forced labor
d. Gender equity
e. Working hours
f. Freedom of association and collective bargaining
g. Fair salary
h. Equal opportunities/discrimination
i. Social benefits/social security
7- According to you, what is the order of importance of the information provided by the
manufacturers on the social and socio-economic issues associated with the local
communities in the production phase (outside Europe)?
a. Local employment
b. Delocalization and migration
c. Safe and healthy living conditions
d. Access to immaterial resources
e. Access to material resources
f. Community engagement
Survey 2 (was addressed to worker unions)

List of questions: 7 questions
1- Which category of workers do you represent?
a. Auto workers’ unions—manufacturing, recycling, repair
b. Urban Transport Unions
c. VTC Drivers’ Unions
2- How would you rate the following social and socio-economic issues for your category of
workers?
Matrix performance levels (very low, low, positive, very positive, I don’t know)/Social
and socio-economic issues
3- In which order of priority do you attribute the social and socio-economic issues (positive
or negative) associated with your category of workers?
b. Child labor
c. Forced labor
d. Gender equity
216
e. Working hours
g. Fair salary
h. Equal opportunities / discrimination
i. Social benefits / social security
4- As part of the shift to electric mobility, is/will your category of worker be directly
affected?
a. Yes
b. No
5- If yes in question (4):
6- In your opinion, which type of mobility (electric or conventional) presents the highest
risk to your category of workers with regard to each of the following issues?
b. Child labor
c. Forced labor
d. Gender equity
e. Working hours
g. Fair salary
7- Do you have any comments or other suggestions for social and economic issues that have
not been identified?
Survey 3: Industrial, academic, and public actors —

11 questions and 5 parts corresponding to the five stakeholder
categories
1- Which category of actors do you represent?
a. Industrial actors
b. Public actors
c. Academic actors
1st part: social and socio-economic issues related to users in mobility
2- According to you, what are the most significant social and socio-economic issues associated
with users to consider for the development of sustainable mobility? Please move the
thumbnails according to the order of preference/importance you assign to each of the following
issues
3- Users: how do you compare the importance of these issues depending on the type of mobility
(electric or conventional)?
217
a. Transparency
b. Health
c. Consumer privacy
d. Performance of the communication System
e. Safety (accidents, insecurity feeling, aggression, and harassment)
f. End of life responsibility
g. Availability and interoperability of infrastructures
h. Accessibility and affordability
i. Feedback mechanism
2nd part: social and socio-economic issues related to workers
with workers in the extraction, production and transport phases? Please move the thumbnails
according to the order of preference/importance you assign to each of the following issues
with workers in the use phase—drivers, infrastructure workers, service managers, etc.?
(France)? Please move the thumbnails according to the order of preference/importance you
assign to each of the following issues
6- Workers: how do you compare the importance of these issues depending on the type of
mobility (electric or conventional)?
b. Child labor
c. Forced labor
d. Gender equity
e. Working hours
g. Fair salary
3rd part: social and socio-economic issues related to local communities
7- What is the order of importance you attribute to the social and socio-economic issues
associated with local communities (extraction-manufacturing phase and end of life)? Please
move the thumbnails according to the order of preference/importance you assign to each of the
following issues
8- What do you think are the most significant social and socio-economic issues for local
communities to consider when developing urban mobility plans (France)? Please move the
thumbnails according to the order of preference/importance you assign to each of the following
issues
9- Local communities: how do you compare the importance of these issues depending on the
type of mobility (electric or conventional)?
a. Local employment
b. Delocalization and migration
c. Safe and healthy living conditions
d. Access to immaterial resources
e. Access to material resources
f. Community engagement
4th part: social and socio-economic issues related to value chain actors
10- What is the order of priority you assign to the social and socio-economic issues associated
with the value chain actors? Please move the thumbnails according to the order of
preference/importance you assign to each of the following issues
11- Value chain actors: how do you compare the importance of these issues according to the type
of mobility (electric or conventional)?
218
a. Promotion of social responsibility

b. Fair competition
c. Supplier relationships
d. Respect of intellectual property rights
5th part: social and socio-economic issues for society
12- What are the most significant social and socio-economic issues for the development of
sustainable electric mobility services? Please move the thumbnails according to the order of
preference/importance you assign to each of the following issues
13- Society: how do you compare the importance of these issues according to the type of mobility
(electric or conventional)?
a. Corruption
b. Contribution to socio-economic development
c. Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts
d. Technology development
219
Chapter V: Life Cycle Costing: a systematic approach for an economic evaluation of electric mobility scenarios
Chapter V: Life Cycle Costing: a

systematic approach for an economic
evaluation of electric mobility scenarios
Summary (V)
The aim of this chapter is to assess the economic dimension through life cycle costing (LCC)
of three electric mobility scenarios by analyzing both transportation technologies and mobility
services.
The chapter starts by introducing in section 2 the main elements commonly introduced by LCC
studies. In section 3, a literature review is conducted, covering a large scope of mobility
scenarios: transportation systems, infrastructures, and the main transportation components. The
main limitations related to the methodological development of LCC are highlighted, together
with the main challenges linked to its implementation within a sustainability framework.
Section 4 sets up the key stages for conducting a conventional LCC for mobility scenarios in
compliance with ISO standards for LCA. Four phases are identified enabling the definition of
a core set of elements to be covered within the economic assessment of mobility scenarios.
Section 5 entails the application of conventional LCC to the considered mobility scenarios
which complies with the proposed systematic approach. A focus is made on the users’
perspective, in accordance with the objective of this thesis, to analyze the cost effectiveness of
the three scenarios. Hence, the Life Cycle Costs Assessment (phase 3) is conducted both for (i)
the analysis of vehicle technologies and (ii) the analysis of mobility services.
The obtained result from this chapter is to be used in chapter 6 conjointly with those obtained
from the analysis of the environmental and social impacts within LCSA framework proposed
in this thesis.
220
Table of content (V)
Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 220
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 222
2. Life Cycle Costing for mobility scenarios: State of the art ................................................ 223
2.1. A literature review of LCC studies addressing mobility-related costs .......................................... 223
2.2. The main findings from the literature and challenges to overcome considering mobility scenarios
231
3. Towards a coherent LCC approach for mobility scenarios: key steps to be conducted . 232
3.1. Phase 1: Goal and scope of the study ............................................................................................ 232

3.2. Phase 2: Life Cycle Cost Inventory ............................................................................................... 233
3.3. Phase 3: Life Cycle Cost Assessment ........................................................................................... 233
3.4. Phase 4: Life Cycle Costs Interpretation ....................................................................................... 233
4. Economic assessment of electric mobility scenarios with user’s perspective ................... 234
4.1. Goal and scope of the study for electric mobility scenarios .......................................................... 234
4.2. Life Cycle Cost Inventory for electric mobility scenarios ............................................................. 235
4.3. Life Cycle Costs Assessment for electric mobility scenarios ........................................................ 238
4.4. Life Cycle Costs Interpretation for electric mobility scenarios ..................................................... 240
5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 243
6. References .............................................................................................................................. 245
221
1. Introduction
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is commonly recognized as a methodology that enables comparative cost
assessments for products or services throughout their life cycle. It can be used for analyzing both
investment costs and future operational costs by predicting potential infrastructure costs related to a
massive development of electric mobility for example (Schroeder & Traber, 2012). LCC can help
decision makers to identify key pathways to lower the manufacturing and deployment costs through a
better understanding of cost drivers (Gallagher & Nelson, 2014). Figure 46 illustrates the key elements
that are introduced in LCC studies and are explained in the paragraphs below.
Figure 46 Mapping LCC boundaries, the main parameters, cost categories, and the interested parties (adapted from
Hunkeler 2008 and Neugebauer 2016)
- Costs vs. externalities:
LCC can address both direct costs and externalities, namely environmental and societal costs. Direct
costs, as represented in figure 46, can occur from the manufacturing stage, i.e., materials extraction,
components manufacturing and vehicle assembly, or costs from the use phase related to the operation
phase, i.e., vehicle traction energy, road and infrastructure and costs incurred by the final disposal of the
transportation system.
Externalities represent the social and environmental costs for damages that are likely to occur throughout
the life cycle of transportation systems. For instance, the use of fossil energy sources for the operation
of the vehicle can be translated into substantial public health issues linked to noise, air quality damages,
climate change. The treatment of these effects can be very expensive for the public authorities.
- LCC boundaries:
Depending on the objective of the study, the investigated cost categories can include only direct costs
or both direct costs and externalities. Thus, three LCC boundaries are distinguished in the literature,
namely, Conventional LCC, Environmental LCC and Societal LCC (Hunkeler et al., 2008; Neugebauer
222
et al., 2016). Conventional LCC analyzes direct costs while environmental and societal LCC address
respectively environmental and social externalities.
- Categories of actors
The economic assessment of transportation systems can be performed in different ways, depending on
the investigated life cycle stages. In fact, the generated costs and externalities are supported by different
actors of the society. As illustrated in figure 46., suppliers and manufacturers face continuously
increasing society’s expectations that require constantly improving technological performances and
quality of the products they provide to market, thus, involving higher investments costs. LCC can be
used to support the design of products and services by selecting most cost-effective technologies,
materials, and components, but also to anticipate the return on investment by calculating the total cost
of production and the revenues. Policymakers and local authorities can use LCC to choose more
economically viable mobility scenarios within the current fleet electrification and predict the future costs
that are associated to the development of charging infrastructures.
The third category of actors that can be distinguished are the users of vehicle technologies and mobility
services. This category supports the costs incurring from the ownership of the vehicle, from the purchase
to the final disposal. LCC can be used in this case to analyze the costs of ownership and, thus, inform
the users in their purchase decision and guide them to convert their mobility choices into more
sustainable ones (Moon & Lee, 2019).
A broad range of techniques are used to address the economic performance of mobility scenarios through
LCC. However, these are targeting different scopes, cost categories and actors’ perspectives. To analyze
this issue in depth and to identify the most suitable LCC technique to be used in the current thesis a
literature review was conducted. This latter is presented in section 3 for the automotive sector with a
focus on electric vehicles and mobility services.
2. Life Cycle Costing for mobility scenarios: State of the art

2.1. A literature review of LCC studies addressing mobility-related costs
In this thesis, an analysis of the existing LCC studies is performed. The literature review comprises 26
scientific publications addressing the assessment of costs in the automotive industry, presented in
Table 13. The analysis of the identified studies is conducted based on their goal and scope, the used
LCC techniques, together with the considered actor perspective, cost categories and their related
indicators.
The review summarized in Table 1 highlights three main life cycle stages for which the analysis was
performed:
i) Manufacturing-related costs, which are generally assessed from the organization
perspective (i.e., manufacturers, designers of products and services).
223
ii) Operating costs that address users-related costs incurred from the ownership of the vehicle
or costs for decision-makers perspective in the case of public transportation.
iii) End of life costs that address the costs related to the final disposal of the vehicles or
automotive components.
Among the 26 studies, only five addressed the manufacturing stage (Gallagher & Nelson, 2014; G.R.
van Aalst, 2016; Shi et al., 2019), two targeted the end of life (Madlener & Kirmas, 2017), while most
studies only focused on the operation of vehicles. The manufacturing costs include capital costs, material
and energy costs, transport costs and labor costs. The limited number of LCC studies dealing with this
costs category can be explained by the fact that such studies usually require manufacturers data which
sometimes can include sensitive information, i.e., labor costs. In fact, labor costs are generally computed
based on a percentage of the price rather than direct collected data. The used value, generally ranging
from 10 to 15% for passenger vehicles (Ayodele & Mustapa, 2020), is hence, very uncertain as it
depends on the location of the production activity and the organization itself.
The operating costs are most of the time calculated through Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) which
considers every cost associated to the use of the vehicle from a user’s perspective. Several studies have
used this technique to inform users’ purchase decisions by including all the direct and indirect costs
from the ownership of the vehicles (K. Lebeau, Lebeau, Macharis, & Mierlo, 2013; Dumortier et al.,
2015; Moon & Lee, 2019). This entails calculation of costs from the vehicles’ purchase, maintenance,
fuel and/or electricity use, insurance, taxation, etc. All studies that investigated public transportation
costs focused on acquisition and operation costs to support investments decision-making and analyzed
the cost effectiveness of electric buses compared to conventional ones.
Costs that are associated with the end of life of the vehicles were poorly addressed in LCC studies and
rather were addressed separately. Madlener & Kirmas (2017) analyzed the economic profitability and
viability of electric vehicles’ batteries in the case of a second application to energy storage.
In accordance with Hunkeler et al. (2008) model, several studies implemented a conventional LCC by
calculating the direct costs while others aimed at addressing the environmental and societal costs. De
Clerck et al. (2018) used the TCO as a basis for calculating the costs supported by the society, namely
total external costs from the environmental and social damages, i.e., climate change, air pollution, noise,
accidents, congestion. Such technique can be overlapping with the environmental and social LCC which
address the same cost categories. Other studies integrated the willingness to pay to LCA to enable the
calculation of external costs (Istamto et al., 2014; Kochhan & Hörner, 2015; Shi et al., 2019). For
example, Istamto et al. (2014) analyzed the willingness to pay to avoid health risks from road traffic
from air pollution and noise.
In an attempt to extend the scope of LCC from a direct costs’ calculation to the analysis of economic
indicators, several studies added other economic indicators together with the conventional LCC ones,
i.e., value added, net present value, profitability, viability, benefits, etc. These additional indicators are
224
in accordance with the LCC model proposed by Moreau & Weidema (2015) which integrated the value
added to LCC. Manzo & Salling (2016) integrated a cost-benefit analysis to the environmental LCA of
transport infrastructures and vehicles. Such analysis was performed by converting the environmental
impacts into monetary flows to enable their accounting in transportation project costs. However, the
covered cost categories were not addressed with a life cycle perspective. Thoft-Christensen (2012) used
the life cycle cost-benefit analysis to calculate the direct operation costs and benefits related to different
vehicle technologies. Delogu et al., (2018) analyzed the economic viability of lightweight automotive
components by comparing production costs with cost savings during the use phase.
Within Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) – based on LCSA literature review in chapter 2 –
most reviewed studies accounted for the direct cost categories. On the other hand, these studies did not
address LCC from a methodological point of view to ensure its coherence with the overall LCSA
framework. In fact, the integration of LCC to LCSA involves the development of characterization
models of the economic sustainability indicators which can stand for the impact assessment phase
(Neugebauer et al., 2016). An example of such characterization models was developed by Neugebauer
et al. (2016), who selected profitability as an economic impact category enabling an impact pathway
assessment of the economic sustainability of products and services. Profitability and viability indicators
were also analyzed by Madlener & Kirmas (2017) study but not integrated to a life cycle assessment
approach. LCSA can make use in the future of such economic models to expand the assessment scope
to non-monetary economic aspects.
Tarne et al. (2019) integrated the added value for consumers through the introduction of product
sustainability budget to ensure the cost effectiveness within LCSA and improve the decision-making
process. Moreover, in another study targeting automotive components, Tarne, Lehmann, & Finkbeiner
(2019) calculated manufacturing costs to enable the comparison of different scenarios from the
designer’s perspective.
In a study by Neugebauer et al. (2016) introduced an economic life cycle assessment to go beyond a
simple compilation of cost categories and analyze the economic impact of products and services
according to a cause-effect chain as it is the case in LCA. Stark et al. (2017) performed such economic
life cycle assessment within LCSA by considering the value added for the manufacturer through the
calculation of three cost categories, i.e., materials costs, operating costs (by means of labor costs) and
the income from sold products.
Onat et al., (2019) performed a conventional LCC by considering users-related costs incurred over the
operation of the vehicles. Such study used economic parameters such as interest rates, inflation rate, and
vehicle depreciation to perform the analysis, yet no economic impact assessment was performed.
225
Table 13 literature review of LCC studies with a focus on the technique used and the indicators calculated in the automotive sector by covering different scopes, i.e., vehicles and infrastructure
and different perspectives, i.e., users, society and designers supported costs, NA: not available in the study.
Ref Location Technique LCC boundaries Goal Scope Actors’ Cost categories and indicators
Perspective &
C- LCC E-LCC
Life cycle
S-LCC
Stage
1. (Thoft- Denmark Life Cycle X Analysis of costs and Transportation Users Costs
Christensen, Cost-benefit benefits infrastructures Operation Benefits
2012) analysis
2. (Manzo & Denmark Cost-benefit X Integrating LCA into cost- Transport projects: Decision- Net Present Value (NPV)
Salling, 2016) analysis benefit analysis through infrastructures and makers Benefit Cost Ratio
monetarization of vehicles Operation Internal Rate of return
environmental impacts
3. (Hallmark & USA Conventional X Comparative costs Hybrid buses & Decision- Fuel cost (including Fuel
Sperry, 2012) LCC – assessment of two buses conventional buses makers Economy)
Operating costs technologies Operation Electrical cost
Replacement costs
Maintenance costs
4. (K. Lebeau, Brussels LCC – Total X Comparative costs Passenger vehicles: small Users / Periodic costs
Lebeau, Costs of assessment of various city cars (14 segments), consumer- Present Value of the one-time
Macharis, & Ownership vehicles segments from the medium cars (19 oriented costs and the recurring costs
Mierlo, 2013) consumer’s perspective segments) and premium Operation Costs per km
cars (12 segments)
5. (Lajunen, 2014) Finland Cost-benefit X Costs comparison through Five different segments for Decision Capital costs (purchase)
analysis by LCC hybrid and electric city makers – Operating costs,
integrating buses in fleet operation – Operation Costs for energy storage system
LCC Conventional bus replacements.
6. (Gallagher & USA LCC- X Cost drivers for EV Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Designers Material costs
Nelson, 2014) Manufacturing batteries and costs batteries Production Capital costs
costs
226
comparison for different Additional investment costs and

batteries chemistries expenses (launch costs and
working capital)
7. (Freire & NA LCC - X Cost analysis through LCC Vehicle technologies, Decision- Acquisition cost of vehicles
Marques, 2012) Equivalent and compact and subcompact makers and residual value (interest
annual cost passenger cars Production rate 5 & 10 years)
(CAE) – and Operation Operation costs (Price of
energy for a specific year)
8. (Wong et al., Singapore Societal LCC X Analysis of upfront, Electric and conventional Societal and Upfront costs (Open market
2010) and Consumer operation and external vehicles consumer- Value, Excise duty, Goods and
LCC costs of cars oriented costs services tax, Certification of
Operation entitlement fee, Registration
fee, green vehicle rebate
scheme)
Operation costs (electronic
road pricing system)
External costs (environmental
externalities)
9. (Sen et al., 2017) USA Conventional X Comparative costs Heavy-duty trucks 7 Decision- Manufacturing costs
LCC – Hybrid assessment of conventional different powertrains makers Infrastructures costs
IO-LCA and alternative vehicles (CNG, biodiesel, diesel, Manufacturing Operation costs (fuel, battery
hybrid mild, hybrid full, and Operation replacement, tailpipe, etc.)
BEV-270kWh – 400kWh) Air pollution externalities
(exhaust emissions)
10. (Hao et al., 2017) China Cost- X Comparison of Cost- Hybrid electric vehicles Decision- Vehicle and battery costs
effectiveness effectiveness analysis and battery electric makers Maintenance costs
through LCC vehicles Operation Energy costs
11. (Moon & Lee, Korea Total cost of X Develop a consumer-based Electric and conventional Consumers Ownership costs (purchase
2019) ownership optimal electric vehicle vehicles Operation costs, resale price, fuel costs,
(TCO) investment model using insurance, costs, maintenance
TCO and repair cost, taxes, subsidy)
227
12. (Mitropoulos et USA Total Cost of X Cost (direct and indirect) Three different vehicle Decision Direct costs (manufacturer
al., 2017) Ownership analysis of the vehicle life types and tradeoffs makers suggested retail price, shipping
(TCO) cycle on consumer and (sustainable cost -based on average sales tax
society transportation rate 6%-)
planning) Indirect / External costs
Operation (health damage through air
pollution, loss of productivity
through loss of time of users)
13. (Palmer et al., UK, US, Total Cost of X Comparative costs Powertrains, Electric, Users / Initial vehicle costs and
2018) Japan Ownership assessment temporal hybrid, petrol, and diesel Decision- subsidies
(1996-2017) and makers Fuel costs
geographical analysis Operation Maintenance and insurance
costs
Vehicle tax
14. (Dumortier et NA Total Cost of X The role of TCO in Gasoline, conventional Users Fuel economy – savings 5
al., 2015) Ownership supporting users towards hybrid, plug-in hybrid, Operation years-based calculation –
more informed purchase battery electric vehicles Operation cost (purchase,
decision maintenance, fuel, insurance,
registration costs – tax rate 6%)
15. (G.R. van Aalst, NA Total Cost of X Development of LCC Conventional and electric Users and TCO-Acquisition (materials,
2016) Ownership model for the automotive vehicles designers labor, assembly, costs)
sector TCO-Ownership (purchase,
maintenance, fuel consumption,
insurance)
16. (Kochhan & Singapore Costs and X Parameter based model to Electric vehicles Users Influence of parameters on the
Hörner, 2015) Willingness to analyze the differences Operation Willingness to Pay
pay between the costs of
electric cars and users’
willingness to pay
228
17. (Gert NA Manufacturing X Costs analysis and Electric vehicles for Designers Manufacturing costs (material
Berckmans et costs and projections for electric different batteries Manufacturing cost, energy cost, labor cost,
al., 2017) learning curves vehicle batteries technologies overhead and total cost of goods
sold)
Profit margin (manufacturer
profit margin, retailer profit
margin, sales price)
18. (Schroeder & Germany Operation X Economic evaluation Charging infrastructures Decision Capital expenditure (CAPEX)
Traber, 2012) costs and through estimation of (fast chargers for EV) makers Operational expenditures
return on contribution margins and (investment) (OPEX)
investment investment cost Operation Return on investment (annual
net profit/levelized investment
cost)
19. (Macharis et al., Belgium Total Cost of X Comparative cost Logistics: 8 EV and7 Decision- Ownership costs (present value
2013) Ownership assessment through TCO ICEV makers of one-time and the recurring
model – competitiveness of Operation costs)
different technologies Costs per km (PV on total
VLT)
20. (Raustad, 2017) USA LCC- X Development of an LCC Passenger vehicle: electric Users Ownership costs (purchase,
Operation model for automotive vehicles (ICEV, BEV, maintenance, fuel consumption,
costs and vehicles to account for the HEV, PHEV) and power insurance, etc.)
economic operation costs and to option with photovoltaics Economic factors (inflation
factors analysis evaluate photovoltaics as a rate, discount, fuel escalation,
power option battery degradation)
21. (Madlener & Germany Economic X Analysis of profitability Second use batteries from Decision- Input parameters (PV systems
Kirmas, 2017) viability & and viability through a electric vehicles making costs, electricity storage cost,
profitability techno-economic With three different (homeowners, electricity prices)
simulation model scenarios (increase manufacturers Economic model (Cash flow
electricity price, upward & calculation, Revenue
and downward deviation) policymakers) calculation, Net present value)
End of life
229
22. (De Clerck et al., Belgium Total cost for X Analysis of total external Three passenger car Society TCO (present value, costs per
2018) society - costs (TCE) supported by segments (EV and ICEV) Operation km, initial purchase costs,
Societal LCC the society through a with 6 different drivers’ depreciation tax, registration,
persona-based analysis profiles charging fuel, infrastructures,
insurance, road tax)
TCE (climate change costs, air
pollution costs, noise, accidents,
congestion)
23. (Potkany et al., Europe LCC – X Comparative costs Electric and conventional Decision Acquisition cost (discount rate,
2018) Acquisition assessment to support buses makers net Book Value)
and operating decision-making (investments) Operating costs
costs Acquisition & (fuel/electricity costs,
Operation maintenance, tires, discount,
RBF time factor to net present
value)
24. (IFP Energies France TCO X Comparative costs Electric and conventional Investment Acquisition costs
Nouvelles, 2018) assessment through TCO vehicles: passenger Decision-maker Operation costs
vehicles, public support TCO: Calculation of costs per
transportation, heavy-duty Operation km
trucks
25. (Cimerdean et Austria LCC – X X Comparative costs Driving cycles (M.U., JC- Users Operating costs (energy costs)
al., 2019) conventional & assessment based on 08, WTVC, HYZEM, Operation External costs (CO2, NOx, HC,
environmental different driving cycles ARTEMIS) PM emissions)
costs (energy profiles)
26. (Shi et al., 2019) China LCC- X X Combined assessment of Mechanical product: Designers’ Conventional costs (materials
conventional, conventional and heavy-duty truck Mechanical costs, labor, capital, transport,
environmental, environmental costs product energy)
and possible through LCA method and manufacturing Environmental costs (social
costs social willingness to pay willingness to pay)
Possible costs (future damage
costs)
230
2.2. The main findings from the literature and challenges to overcome considering mobility
scenarios
The conducted literature review reveals several limitations and challenges that can be drawn as the
following:
a. LCC studies for mobility scenarios do not systematically overlay with the ISO standards, unless
they are conducted simultaneously to an environmental LCA (Schwab Castella et al., 2009; Shi et
al., 2019). Hence, in this case the cost assessment is conducted as a supplementary step but not
individually addressed from a methodological point of view.
b. There is a strong need for the standardization of LCC to bring together the different used approaches,
especially within LCSA framework.
c. The economic impact assessment is still lacking in most LCC studies, which mainly focus on direct
costs evaluation due to the lack of coherence with the LCIA recommended steps (i.e., classification,
characterization and weighting).
d. Although externalities of transportation systems have been targeted in several studies, impact
conversion into monetary values is still subject to a high level of uncertainty and ethical concerns.
The methodological development of environmental and social LCC can thus rely on impact pathway
analysis as developed by Rabl, Spadaro, et Holland (2014) which enable a more accurate estimation
of impacts and damage costs of transport pollution.
e. When the economic assessment is undertaken as part of a sustainability framework in which
environmental and social LCA are also conducted, environmental and societal LCC cannot be
conducted to avoid a double counting of impacts. In this case, conventional LCC should be selected.
f. Within the analysis of mobility scenarios, studies often target the technologies’ level, yet no study
has addressed either mobility services through LCC or through LCSA.
g. The life cycle perspective is not fully covered, as most studies focus on the operation of the vehicles
through the TCO technique and fail to consider the end-of-life phase
h. mitigation costs associated with modal shift from personal mobility to carpooling or public
transportation are not fully addressed, and calculation methods are still in an exploratory stage
(Criqui, 2021).
This chapter seeks to tackle some of the above-listed challenges by setting the following two targets
✓ In response to the identified challenges (a), (b) and (c), the current chapter sets up the key
steps for the economic assessment of mobility scenarios by adapting ISO standards for
environmental LCA to conventional LCC. In view of the objective of this study to serve the
proposed LCSA framework, external cost categories are not considered. Hence, challenges (d)
and (e) are not addressed, since not applicable given the selected approach.
✓ To address the challenges (f), (g) and (h), this chapter focuses on the analysis of the cost
effectiveness of mobility scenarios from the users’ perspective. In fact, an economic assessment
231
approach is proposed by conducting both a direct cost calculation of vehicle technologies and
also a cost calculation of the mobility services.
3. Towards a coherent LCC approach for mobility scenarios: key steps to be

conducted
The current thesis uses prior published studies and scientific publications as a basis to propose the
key steps that should be followed to perform a comprehensive Conventional LCC. The following
proposed steps are structured according to the four phases for LCA recommended by ISO standards
(ISO 14040-44, 2006) and can be adapted to other scenarios. Section 5 presents a practical
implementation that complies with the proposed steps for mobility scenarios analyzed within this
thesis.
3.1. Phase 1: Goal and scope of the study
1- Goal of the assessment: economic assessment studies can target different goals. For instance, it can
be related to the investigation of users’ purchase decision over the ownership period, an investment
decision for public transportation alternatives comparison, investigation of future infrastructures
costs, as well as return on investment and cost projections for automotive materials supply chain
(Gert Berckmans et al., 2017) and batteries production, as well as the environmental and social
externalities of the product. The goal should also state if the economic assessment is conducted
within a larger sustainability evaluation framework, i.e., LCSA.
The scope of the study covers
- The system boundaries: following the goal of the study, the assessment should focus on a specific
life cycle stage or cover a« cradle to gate » or “cradle to grave” perspective.
- Actor perspective: This step defines which perspective (i.e., users, manufacturers, local authorities)
is considered for the assessment following the goal of the study defined in step 1.
- Products or services to be analyzed: The different technologies analyzed within the study are to
be defined, as well as their main characteristics.
- Techniques of the economic assessment and indicators to be analyzed: Here, the most adequate
technique shall be chosen to perform the economic assessment in a way that can serve the objective
of the study. The cost calculation can thus be performed through a Total Cost of Ownership, a Cost-
Benefit Analysis, or focus on a direct costs’ comparison for a specific stage. The indicators to be
used are also to be defined and explained with respect to the objective of the study.
- LCC boundaries and cost categories: The study can assess direct cost categories, following a
conventional LCC approach, or external cost categories through environmental and/or societal LCC.
In case of monetizing the environmental and social impacts, the study should ensure that double
counting of impacts is avoided.
232
- Assumptions of the study and geographical coverage: discount rate, vehicle lifetime and/or
vehicles ownership period and other specific assumptions in case of regionalization of the
calculation model must be carefully selected and transparently presented. This can be performed by
integrating local input parameters for the geographical scope of the study, i.e., infrastructures costs,
electricity costs, parking, and taxation.
- Input parameters: The calculation of cost categories requires the definition of a set of input
parameters, i.e., energy consumption, fuel price, electricity price, taxation for fuel use, etc. The
identified parameters can be grouped in two categories, namely fixed parameters and variable
parameters, which are subject to a change over time.
3.2. Phase 2: Life Cycle Cost Inventory
Following the definition of the main elements previously presented, the second phase of LCC entails
data collection in order to perform the evaluation phase. Data collection includes all cost indicators and
input parameters defined within the goal and scope and with respect to the system boundaries. As
suggested by Windisch, (2014), specific data is essential to ensure the representativeness of the
conducted assessment and to account for the utmost uncertainties that may be linked to the analyzed
scenarios. To do so, data should account for the specificities of the product market, i.e., current prices
in the market for energy, materials, products, etc. and policies in the geographical area of the study. In
fact, using the most recent cost information is key to guarantee an up-to-date study reflecting the market
trends.
3.3. Phase 3: Life Cycle Cost Assessment
In view of the goal of study, this third phase can be conducted by either following conventional steps
entailed in the ISO standards (ISO14040-44, 2006), i.e., classification and characterization, or through
a direct cost calculation. For example, Shi et al. (2019) study covers costs classification and costs
analysis due to the use of an environmental LCC. In this case, the assessment phase is performed through
environmental-impact analysis in the first place and complemented with an additional step for
converting the impacts results to monetary value. This can also be the case when using economic
sustainability indicators through an impact pathway model, as proposed by Neugebauer et al. (2016).
However, when direct costs are analyzed, only a classification step is performed to facilitate the
interpretation of results as entailed in this study. No characterization models are therefore needed, as the
input and output flows are expressed in same monetary units.
3.4. Phase 4: Life Cycle Costs Interpretation
The purpose of this phase is to explain and analyze the obtained results for the indicators used in the
assessment throughout the life cycle stages of the evaluated scenarios. A contribution analysis can, thus,
be conducted to identify the most significant sources for costs, i.e., process activities, energy sources,
materials, etc. The interpretation of results is expected to determine the cost effectiveness of analyzed
233
products and services and thus support the decision-making process based on the actor perspective
considered within the study.
4. Economic assessment of electric mobility scenarios with user’s perspective

4.1. Goal and scope of the study for electric mobility scenarios
The goal of the present study is to compare the cost effectiveness of three mobility scenarios namely,
personal mobility, public and shared mobility services, with a special focus on electric vehicle
alternatives. The analysis is thus performed based on a common functional unit, which is here defined
as the transportation of users at a specific duration (in common with the different scenarios) within a
geographical are. The analysis is conducted based on a user perspective to enable the definition of most
cost-effective mobility solutions during the use phase.
The economic assessment aims to be included within a comprehensive sustainability analysis conducted
according to the proposed LCSA framework in this thesis. Hence, the selected scope is limited to a
Conventional LCC and does not cover the environmental and social externalities as these are accounted
for in the environmental LCA and S-LCA, respectively. In view of the goal of the study, costs evaluation
is conducted at two levels. First, personal mobility use case is analyzed by calculating the TCO of
different vehicle technologies. In a second level, the costs per kilometer are determined for three
mobility services, namely personal, public and shared transportation. To perform the assessment of
personal mobility, seven different powertrains are analyzed corresponding to conventional vehicles
(ICEV) powered with petrol (ICEV-p) and diesel (ICEV-d) as well as electric vehicles (EV) representing
various electrification levels and powertrains, full hybrid (HEV-d and HEV-p) together with Plug-in
Hybrid EV (PHEV-d and PHEV-p). The vehicle models derive from those analyzed within the
environmental and social dimensions and the driving cycle is defined following the WLTC cycle for
urban area.
To perform the costs assessment, a Total Cost of Ownership is conducted as the most suitable technique
to analyze the costs supported by the users and to investigate the cost effectiveness of mobility
alternatives. An additional step is proposed in complementarity with the TCO model to determine the
costs supported by users when using public transportation and carpooling services. The calculation
methods and the used indicators are explained in sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2.
Description of the geographical area of the study:
The scope of this research focuses on the south region of France, at the “Communauté d’Agglomération
Sophia Antipolis” (CASA). All input parameters are based on the existing values from 2019. The
analyzed travel distance corresponds to a commuting travel from Antibes to Sophia Antipolis, equivalent
to 8 km. The available mobility solutions are thus analyzed with respect to the characteristics of the
geographical area.
234
The ownership period considered in this study is 5 years. In fact, the average value of car ownership
duration varies generally between 3 and 7 years in France (Franfinance & CSA, 2018). Within TCO
calculation, a distinction is to be made between the vehicle lifetime, which can amount to 12 years, and
the ownership duration. This issue has been highlighted by Windisch (2014), where most reviewed LCA
studies analyzed the TCO based on the vehicle lifetime rather than the ownership period, which can
substantially affect the results representativeness. The study entails 4 cost categories, namely acquisition
costs, operating costs (energy), maintenance costs and other operating costs (insurance, taxation). These
are explained further in the coming sections.
A discount rate of 4.5% is applied, based on CGDD (2017) available data for this region. The average
annual traveled distance considered in this study corresponds to 17 000 km in accordance with data used
for the analysis of other sustainability dimensions. To enable the comparison of personal mobility
scenario with other mobility services, i.e., shared and public transportation services, the same
commuting distance is considered, and user-supported costs are determined for this basis. First, the costs
are computed for the total distance traveled per year and then are expressed per km to allow the
comparison. The used input parameters for the cost’s calculation are further explained in section 5.3.2.
4.2. Life Cycle Cost Inventory for electric mobility scenarios
Data was collected for the defined cost categories, namely, acquisition costs, energy-related operation
costs, maintenance costs and other operation costs (non-energy related). The required input parameters
were also defined to allow the calculation of each cost category below explained.
Within all studies that have been reviewed in section 3, there is a significant divergence in the used
approaches to compute the TCO calculation. Even though the goal and scope of the analyses are similar,
the cost categories are different. For example, Windisch (2014) distinguished between initial fixed costs
(i.e. investment) and continuous use costs. Such model allows increasing the representativeness of the
assumptions and input parameters through the introduction of regional specific parameters to TCO
calculation model. Lebeau et al. (2013) developed a TCO model that was further adopted by (K. Lebeau
et al 2013; Macharis et al., 2013; P. Lebeau, 2016; De Clerck et al., 2018) by focusing on three cost
categories, namely acquisition costs, traction energy costs and non-energy costs.
The used TCO model derives from the Clean Fleet project co-funded by the European Commission in
2015. Such tool has been adapted to cover the cost categories and input parameters as illustrated in
Figure 47. An aggregation of all costs incurred from the vehicle ownership is performed enabling to
compute the TCO as the following:
TCO = Acquisition costs + Operating costs (energy) + Maintenance costs + Other operating costs
235
Figure 47 Total Cost of Ownership model adopted within this thesis for personal mobility use scenarios analysis
a. Acquisition costs: This cost category comprises all the potential costs for the purchase of the
vehicle, its registration tax and/or the specific subsidies depending on the region or country. Both
have been set up in the context of the energy transition law and the fleet electrification promoted by
the government. Such policy measures can substantially affect the acquisition costs thus, they need
to be accounted for within the TCO model.
▪ Registration tax: In France, to enhance the promotion of electric mobility alternatives, the
registration costs are 100% exempted in all metropolitan regions except for Bretagne and
Centre-Val-de-Loire (50% discount) (MEFR, 2020).On the other hand, registration tax for
conventional vehicles was modified in 2020 and since then, it is only applied to vehicles with a
CO2 threshold exceeding 133gCO2/km (Légifrance 2020).
▪ Battery hiring costs: as illustrated in Figure 47 Total Cost of Ownership model adopted within
this thesis for personal mobility use scenarios analysis users can choose whether to include the
battery in the vehicle purchase contract or not. In the first case, it is up to them to cover the
costs of replacing it at the end of its life. Otherwise, they can choose a battery leasing contract
that involves rental costs throughout the ownership period. In this regard, the battery hiring
cost depends on the purchase contract. In this study, battery costs are included within initial
costs as the battery acquisition makes part of the vehicle purchases contract. Hence, the leasing
scenario is not considered. In fact, although the battery ownership was a key factor for
236
promoting electric vehicles, it appears that since January 2021 Renault ZOE model, which is
the most used in France for BEV, includes no battery leasing in the contracts (Lemaur, 2021).
▪ Subsidies: The integration of subsidies calls for gathering specific data on the policy measures
underway. In France, two main measures are proposed for the promotion of electric mobility,
namely the ecological bonus or penalty (Bonus/Malus) and the conversion bonus. The
ecological bonus is paid by the State for the purchase of an electric vehicle (i.e., car, van, 2 or
3 motorized wheels and bicycles) to promote low-carbon mobility alternatives. The conversion
bonus (or scrappage bonus) is an aid paid by the State when an old and polluting vehicle is
substituted by another one, either new or used, that has lower emissions of pollutants. Since
July 2021, the French government has updated the financial incentives provided for low-
emission vehicles through the modification of the prerequisites related to the conversion prime
and the “Bonus/Malus” incentive, but also reduced the subsidies levels for both BEV and HEV
technologies (Légifrance, 2021). Current values in France are presented in table 14. The
ecological penalty is calculated according to the rate of CO2 emissions per kilometer (km) of
the vehicle based on a WLTC urban driving cycle. A penalty is applied in the case of vehicle
exhaust emissions exceed the threshold of 133gCO2/km which is not the case for both ICEV-p
(petrol powered ICEV) and diesel powered ICEV (ICEV-d)
Table 14 Subsidies in France including Bonus/Malus and conversion primes for BEV, HEV, PHEV and ICEV vehicle
technologies
BEV HEV-p PHEV ICEV-p ICEV-d
Bonus (€) 6000 1000 1000 0 0
Malus (€) 0 0 0 0 0
Conversion prime (€) 2500 2500 2500 0 0
Total (€) 8500 3500 3500 0 0
b. Operating costs or use costs: This cost category covers the costs related to fuel consumption, either
through fossil fuel use (i.e., diesel, petrol) or electricity use. Energy costs are performed based on
an urban WLTC driving cycle in the same way as environmental impacts, according to the driving
profile and the consumed energy. The input parameters used for energy costs calculation are the
energy consumption of the vehicle (kWh/km or L/km) and the fuel (chemical or electricity) price
(€/kWh or €/L) as illustrated in Figure 2.
Clean Fleet tool uses a discount rate for the price of the fuels and electricity and are applied with
respect to the vehicle ownership period. The input values (fuel price and energy consumption values
are presented in Table 16)
c. Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs data have been collected from the information provided by
CGDD (2017) for each vehicle technology (c€/km). These costs do not cover the replacement of the
237
battery as this latter has been considered/included within the acquisition costs. Table 15 presents the
cost categories corresponding to maintenance costs but also insurance and taxation that are presented
in subsequent paragraphs.
d. Other operating costs: This third cost category includes all other use costs that are likely to occur
during the ownership period. These costs can be related to the insurance and infrastructure use costs
(Table 15). Taxation, also included within this cost category, is applied in France for both electricity
use (TICFE: “Taxe intérieure de consommation finale d’électricité”) and petrol-based products’
use (TICPE: “Taxe intérieure de consommation sur les produits énergétiques”). Taxation-related
costs are calculated based on a given ownership period, by considering the possible tax levels over
that period. Both vehicle ownership period (km) and tax level (€ / L or € / Wh) are used together
with the fuel consumption to determine the annual tax value. The Clean Fleet model also integrates
the evolution of fuel prices over the defined period of ownership to improve the representativeness
of the assessment. The calculated values are available in table 16.
Table 15 Cost categories corresponding to maintenance, insurance and taxation (according to CGDD (2017)
Maintenance costs Other Operating costs
Maintenance Maintenance Insurance Taxation
c€ /km € /yr € / yr € /yr
BEV 4,7 804,1 400 65,8
ICEV-d 5,2 892,5 500 120,7
ICEV-p 5,2 892,5 500 149,9
HEV-p 6,3 1071 600 123,9
PHEV-p 6,3 1071 600 13,5
Table 16 Taxation calculation for fuel use, electricity, and petrol-based products (year 2021 and 17 000 km of annual driven
distance)
4.3. Life Cycle Costs Assessment for electric mobility scenarios
Fuel Consumption CO2 emissions TICPE TICFE Carbon costs Tax per
Type WLTC year
ICEV-d 4 L/100km 106 gCO2/km 59,4 c€ /L 0 44,6 €/tCO2 120,76 €
ICEV-p 5,3 L/100km 119 gCO2/km 66,29 c€ /L 0 44,6 €/tCO2 149,95 €
BEV 0,17 kWh/km 0 gCO2/km 0 - 22,5 € / MWh 0 - 65,79 €
HEV-p 4,4 L/100km 98 gCO2/km 66,29 c€ /L 0 44,6 €/tCO2 123,89 €
PHEV-p 1,2 L/100km 28 gCO2/km 66,29 c€ /L 0 44,6 €/tCO2 13,52 €
Life Cycle Costs assessment is performed for the three mobility scenarios considered within this thesis.
This consists of analyzing five different vehicle powertrains for both electric and conventional vehicles,
as well as the mobility services that are considered: personal use, collective use, and shared
transportation use. Such assessment is conducted in accordance with the goal of this research to
investigate the sustainability of the three mobility scenarios according to a user perspective. Hence, a
user-centric approach is herein introduced through two steps of costs evaluation phase: section 5.3.1.
238
entails the analysis and costs calculation for vehicle technologies through TCO and section 5.3.2. aims
at assessing the costs for the three mobility scenarios.
4.3.1. Passenger mobility analysis: a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model per vehicle technology
This first section aims at analyzing the costs involved during the vehicle operation through a Total Cost
of Ownership Model. The cost calculation through TCO is presented in Table 17 Input parameters for TCO
model calculation within the economic assessment of vehicle technologies, Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV), conventional
vehicle powered with petrol (ICEV-p) and diesel (ICEV-d) for five different technologies corresponding to electric
and conventional vehicles. The lease price and battery lease price in gray are not accounted in the model
as the vehicle acquisition system includes direct cost purchase for both the vehicle and battery. The TCO
is determined per each vehicle technology as well as the cost per km as presented in Table 17.
Table 17 Input parameters for TCO model calculation within the economic assessment of vehicle technologies, Battery
Electric Vehicles (BEV), conventional vehicle powered with petrol (ICEV-p) and diesel (ICEV-d)
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Contract length/period of vehicle ownership 5 years
Annual use of a car 12500 years
Discount rate 4,5 %
ACQUISITION COSTS
Values Units Values Units Values Units Values Units Values Units
Name of bidder/vehicle model BEV ICEV-p ICEV-d HEV-p PHEV-p

Purchase price 32300 €/unit 23000 €/unit 20600 €/unit 23750 €/unit 37600 €/unit
(or) Lease price €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year
Costs of Acquisition 32300 € 23000 € 20600 € 23750 € 37600 €
OPERATING COSTS (Energy-related and storage system)
Type of Fuel Electricity Petrol Diesel Petrol Petrol/Electricity
Fuel consumption per vehicle 17,2 kWh/100km 5,3 l/100km 4 l/100km 4,4 l/100km 1,2 l/100km
Fuel price 0,1558 €/kWh 1,57 €/l 1,41 €/l 1,57 €/l 1,57 €/l
Replacement battery price 169 €/unit €/unit €/unit €/unit €/unit
Expected lifetime of battery 10 Years Years Years Years Years
(or) Battery lease price €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year
Operating Costs per vehicle 1927,5117 € 5985,172 € 4056,7684 € 4968,822 € 1355,1333 €
MAINTENANCE COSTS
Estimated annual maintenance costs 804,1 €/unit/year 892,5 €/unit/year 892,5 €/unit/year 1071 €/unit/year 1071 €/unit/year
(or) Annual service agreement €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year €/unit/year
Maintenance costs 3529,9803 € 3918,0542 € 3918,0542 € 4701,6651 € 4701,6651 €
OTHER OPERATING COSTS (Taxes, insurance and subsidies)
Vehicle tax 65,79 €/unit/year 149,96 €/unit/year 120,76 €/unit/year 128,83 €/unit/year 13,85 €/unit/year
Insurance costs 400 €/unit/year 500 €/unit/year 500 €/unit/year 600 €/unit/year 600 €/unit/year
(One off initial subsidy) 8500 € € € 3500 € 3500 €
Taxes, insurance and subsidies -6455,1927 € 2853,3093 € 2725,122 € -300,45325 € -805,21278 €
239
4.3.2. Costs assessment of electric mobility services from a user perspective

Considering the goal of the study which consists of performing costs assessment of both vehicle
technologies and mobility services, this section presents a user-centric approach for computing the costs
calculation within a mobility service use.
As stated in section 2, the literature review revealed that the comparison of mobility services is still
poorly addressed within LCC studies, and few elements were found in the literature. In fact, the
assessment is very complex, given the significant number of costs drivers within each specific mobility
service investigated. It is also important to note that a significant number of uncertainties may
influence/affect the results, due to the variable nature of mobility services. However, to allow a full
representation of these costs, the study also analyzes congestion costs, travel lost costs.
To enable a transparent and coherent comparison, a simplified approach is here carried out. The
approach focuses on the direct costs supported by users from a mobility service. To do so, it is required
to address a specific trip that can be accommodated by the three mobility services. In the present case
study, the commuting travel considered is 8 km from Antibes to Sophia-Antipolis.
Personal mobility costs are determined following the TCO model sketched in figure 47. The TCO and
cost per km are used to perform the comparison with the other mobility services following equation [2]:
€ TCO [€]
[2]: Cost per kilometer for personal mobility [ ] =
km Total annual commuting travel distance [km]
The costs supported by a user in the case of public transportation are computed based on the fees incurred
from the purchase of an annual transportation pass. In CASA, the annual price that covers the
investigated commuting travel distance amounts to 90 € per year. This value is then divided by the total
traveled distance per year to obtain the cost per km, following equation [3]:
€ Total Cost supported by the user per year [€]
[3]: Cost per kilometer for public transportation [ ]=
km Total annual commuting travel distance [km]
Shared mobility-related costs are determined based on generic data for passengers. In fact, carpooling
relies on the share of costs between the driver and the passengers. It is important to note that, it is
forbidden for the driver to make a profit. The price estimation must therefore be fair and is calculated
here based on “Laroueverte” carpooling application which published the cost calculation method for the
drivers and passengers and can thus, be expressed as the following equation [4]. It should be noted that
the traveled distance can include highway tolls that need to be accounted for within the calculation.
€
€ Fuel price [ ] ∗Travel distance[km]
km
[4]: Cost per kilometer for carpooling service [km] = Total number of passengers per travel
4.4. Life Cycle Costs Interpretation for electric mobility scenarios

Figure 48 illustrates the results for personal mobility cost calculated according to a user’s perspective
and assuming a 5-year ownership period. Both the TCO for each vehicle powertrain and the cost per
kilometer are determined, as illustrated in figure 48 (a) and (b).
240
A Total Cost of Ownership for 5 different powertrains (a)

Discount rate of 4,5% and 5 years vehicle ownership duration
50000 Costs of Acquisition Operating Costs per vehicle

Maintenance costs Taxes, insurance and subsidies
40000
Total cost of Ownership €
30000
20000
10000
0
BEV ICEV-p ICEV-d HEV-p PHEV-
p
-10000 Vehicle technologies
Calculation of costs per km of vehicle technologies (b)

0,50 €
0,42 €
0,39 €
Cost per km €/km
0,37 € 0,37 €
BEV ICEV-p ICEV-d HEV-p PHEV-p

Vehicle technologies
Figure 48 Total Cost of Ownership and costs per km for the evaluated vehicle technologies (personal mobility)
BEV technologies and diesel-powered ICEV-d present the lowest TCO among the different evaluated
powertrains. In fact, the BEV although the return in investment is usually expected after 12 years, results
241
demonstrate that within 5 years of ownership the cost is equal to that in case of using diesel-powered
ICEV-d technologies. For BEV, the number of subsidies that are attributed in case of its acquisition is a
significant factor to reduce performed TCO. For, ICEV-d the fuel consumption (compared to a petrol-
powered vehicle ICEV-p) is a determining factor with the acquisition costs.
The highest TCO is obtained for the use of PHEV-p vehicles, mainly associated with the high acquisition
costs and the reduced subsidies compared to those of the BEV technologies. Despite a substantial initial
investment, particularly due to a purchase subsidy limited to current 1000€, the TCO of the plug-in
hybrid vehicle remains close to that of other hybrid vehicles, even with the WLTC procedure which
increases the probability of occurrence of cycles involving the combustion engine.
This result can be explained by the assumption of a 5-year ownership period. In contrast, a study from
ADEME & IFPEN (2018) demonstrated the economic profitability of BEV technologies after a 12,000-
km-ownership duration, which is not accurate, considering the actual real-world values. The obtained
results from the current case study are in accordance with Windisch (2014) statement on the influence
of the discount rate and ownership period on the computed costs.
Finally, and in view of the expected evolutions in the urban environment, especially regarding, on the
one hand, tolls or penalties taxation on polluting vehicles and, on the other hand, parking facilities and
other promotion measures for electric vehicles, it seems that the future of the compact urban vehicle is
promising for the electric vehicle. Nevertheless, given the current trend to increase the size of the battery
to extend the electric vehicle's autonomy, the latter could face strong competition with other hybrid
vehicles. In the future, it may strongly compete with HEV solutions (especially PHEV from an
environmental impact point of view as demonstrated in Chapter III of this thesis) which offer a much
higher range without recharging than the BEV.
Comparison of the three electric mobility scenarios through LCC
Based on the defined calculation methods for costs analysis of mobility services, the obtained results for
costs per km according to a user’s perspective are illustrated in figure 49 for the three mobility services.
Costs supported by users per km (c€ /km)

Annual distance 3200km
40,00 36,83 34,67
Costs per km (c€ /km)
30,00
20,00
10,00 2,81
0,00
Public transport Personal mobility Shared mobility
Mobility services
Cost per km
Figure 49 Mobility services analysis; costs calculation per km for the three mobility services in CASA region in 2020; (8 km
per commuting travel and 200 days of work)
242
Public transportation service is by far the most cost-effective mobility service while personal mobility
presents the highest costs for users, closely followed by shared mobility.
The results from the comparison of mobility services can be quite controversial, as the cost supported
by the user is not the real cost for the development of the transportation solution. In fact, although the
users-supported costs in the case of public transportation are very low, the expenditures for public
transportation development amounted to 11 billion euros (CGDD, 2021) which cannot be overlooked.
It is to note that, the comparison of mobility services can also be conducted with respect to a local
authority’s perspective in order to support investments decisions and promote the most sustainable
alternatives within a specific geographic area. For example, in a study from the French government
(France Stratégie), calculation methods were developed to analyze mitigation costs from a modal shift
scenario (Criqui, 2021).
However as stated before, accounting for all costs from the same perspective is very complex – if not
impossible – and subject to large uncertainties. For these reasons, defining the actor perspective in the
goal and scope, as proposed in this study, should enhance the clarity of the intended use of LCC study,
e.g., either compare operation costs, material costs, infrastructure costs, etc.
The user-centric approach introduced in this work allowed to focus on the use-related cost, which is
coherent with the goal of this thesis to account for the users’ perspective.
Shared transportation service is still considered as a niche market and public authorities are initiating
debates at both the French and the European level, in order to promote further this mobility service
through financial incentives for passengers. In fact, although it is considered a pillar for developing
sustainable mobility alternatives, it is still poorly addressed which has also been proved in the literature
review conducted in the present chapter.
5. Conclusions
Regarding the settled targets, this chapter explored the existing LCC studies for mobility scenarios and
identified the main issues related to the methodology and its practical implementation. A literature
review was therefore conducted to investigate the main techniques used to perform LCC, the targeted
actors and life cycle stages as well as the cost categories.
This work highlighted the variability of the economic assessment techniques and used them as a lever
to progress in the understanding of the economic sustainability dimension. In this regard, the key stages
proposed to carry out an economic assessment through LCC are a contribution towards a harmonized
framework which is currently missing. To enhance the comparability of LCC studies, the proposed
stages comply with ISO recommendations for LCA. This structure may facilitate the apprehension of
the common features between LCA approaches.
With respect to the LCSA framework proposed in this thesis and the consideration of users’ perspective,
this chapter targeted the analysis of both vehicle technologies within a personal mobility use through a
TCO model and mobility services through the comparison of the cost effectiveness of the three mobility
243
scenarios. Public transportation showed a better economic performance based on the costs per km
calculated for each of the three mobility scenarios considered in this thesis. In contrast, individual
mobility showed the highest costs for users followed by shared transportation.
However, the present work did not explore economic indicators other than cost categories because of
the complexity of developing the characterization models. In fact, future research can focus on their
development to properly assess the short- and long-term economic impacts of mobility scenarios.
Moreover, as previously explained in the chapter, other actors’ perspectives can/may be considered to
analyze mobility scenarios. For instance, when considering public authorities’ perspective, LCC can be
very relevant to support the investment decisions and the definition of mobility strategies. This may,
thus, contribute to better inform the decision makers on potential costs incurred from a massive
development of electric mobility and analyze the costs projection of the automotive market to predict
future direct and indirect costs for the society.
The costs assessment performed in this chapter has been conceived in such a way that can serve the
sustainability analysis through the comprehensive LCSA framework proposed in this thesis. Hence, the
obtained results are used in the coming chapter VI, together with the environmental (chapter III) and
social (chapter IV) evaluation results. Within the developed LCSA framework and are analyzed through
an MCDA approach.
244
6. References
Ayodele, B. V., & Mustapa, S. I. (2020). Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Electric Vehicles : A Review
and Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability, 12(6), 2387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062387
CGDD. (2017). Analyse des coûts bénéfices des véhicules électriques : Les voitures (p. 98). CGDD-
Service de l’économie, de l’évaluation de l’intégration du développement durable.
https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma%20-
%20Analyse%20co%C3%BBts%20b%C3%A9n%C3%A9fices%20des%20v%C3%A9hicules
%20%C3%A9lectriques.pdf
Cimerdean, D., Burnete, N., & Iclodean, C. (2019). Assessment of Life Cycle Cost for a Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicle. In N. Burnete & B. O. Varga (Éds.), Proceedings of the 4th International
Congress of Automotive and Transport Engineering (AMMA 2018) (p. 273‑290). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94409-8_32
Criqui, P. (2021). Les coûts d’abattement, partie 2 : Transports. France Stratégie.

https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-2021-rapport-
les_couts_dabattement-_partie_2_transports-juin.pdf
De Clerck, Q., van Lier, T., Messagie, M., Macharis, C., Van Mierlo, J., & Vanhaverbeke, L. (2018).
Total Cost for Society : A persona-based analysis of electric and conventional vehicles.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 64, 90‑110.
Delogu, M., Maltese, S., Del Pero, F., Zanchi, L., Pierini, M., & Bonoli, A. (2018). Challenges for
modelling and integrating environmental performances in concept design : The case of an
automotive component lightweighting. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering,
11(2), 135‑148. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1420110
Dumortier, J., Siddiki, S., Carley, S., Cisney, J., Krause, R. M., Lane, B. W., Rupp, J. A., & Graham, J.
D. (2015). Effects of providing total cost of ownership information on consumers’ intent to
purchase a hybrid or plug-in electric vehicle. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 72, 71‑86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.12.005
Franfinance & CSA. (2018). Les français et leur auto (p. 15). FRANFINANCE & Consumer Science
Aanlytics. https://www.franfinance.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/etude-francais-auto-csa-
franfinance.pdf
Freire, F., & Marques, P. (2012). Electric vehicles in Portugal : An integrated energy, greenhouse gas
and cost life-cycle analysis. 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and
Technology (ISSST). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSST.2012.6227988
Gallagher, K. G., & Nelson, P. A. (2014). 6—Manufacturing Costs of Batteries for Electric Vehicles. In
G. Pistoia (Éd.), Lithium-Ion Batteries (p. 97‑126). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
444-59513-3.00006-6
245
Gert Berckmans, Maarten Messagie, Jelle Smekens, Noshin Omar, Lieselot Vanhaverbeke, & Joeri Van
Mierlo. (2017). Cost Projection of State of the Art Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles
Up to 2030. Energies, 10(9), 1314. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10091314
G.R. van Aalst, R. (2016). Structuring a Whole Life Cost model for the automative-sector.pdf [Thèse de
Master]. University of Twente.
Hallmark, S., & Sperry, R. (2012). Comparison of In-Use Operating Costs of Hybrid-Electric and
Conventional School Buses. Journal of Transportation Technologies, 02(02), 158‑164.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2012.22017
Hao, H., Cheng, X., Liu, Z., & Zhao, F. (2017). Electric vehicles for greenhouse gas reduction in China :
A cost-effectiveness analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
56, 68‑84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.025
Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., & Rebitzer, G. (2008). Environmental Life Cycle Costing. CRC Press.
ENR - Timbres et taxes assimilées—Droits de délivrance de documents et perceptions diverses—

Documents relatifs à la conduite des véhicules à moteur—Taxes additionnelles à la taxe sur les
certificats d’immatriculation des véhicules (ou cartes grises), (2020).
https://bofip.impots.gouv.fr/bofip/2707-PGP.html/identifiant=BOI-ENR-TIM-20-60-30-
20201104


Istamto, T., Houthuijs, D., & Lebret, E. (2014). Willingness to pay to avoid health risks from road-
traffic-related air pollution and noise across five countries. Science of The Total Environment,
497‑498, 420‑429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.110
Kochhan, R., & Hörner, M. (2015). Costs and Willingness-to-Pay for Electric Vehicles. In I. Denbratt,
A. Subic, & J. Wellnitz (Éds.), Sustainable Automotive Technologies 2014 (p. 13‑21). Springer
International Publishing.
Lajunen, A. (2014). Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 38, 1‑15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.008
Lebeau, K., Lebeau, P., Macharis, C., & Mierlo, J. V. (2013). How expensive are electric vehicles ? A
total cost of ownership analysis. 12.
Lebeau, K., Lebeau, P., Macharis, C., & Van Mierlo, J. (2013). How expensive are electric vehicles? A
total cost of ownership analysis. 1‑12. https://doi.org/10.1109/EVS.2013.6914972
Lebeau, P. (2016). Towards the electrification of city logistics? [Université libre de Bruxelles].
http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.1.3527.9768
246
Décret n° 2021-977 du 23 juillet 2021 relatif aux aides à l’acquisition ou à la location de véhicules peu
polluants, TRER2117874D 2021-977 (2021).
Lemaur, F. (2021, janvier 18). Renault ZOE : Arrêt de la location de la batterie ! L’Automobile
Magazine. https://www.automobile-magazine.fr/voitures-electriques/article/28726-la-location-
de-la-batterie-arretee-sur-la-renault-zoe
Macharis, C., Lebeau, P., Mierlo, J. V., & Lebeau, K. (2013). Electric versus conventional vehicles for
logistics : A total cost of ownership. 6, 10.
Madlener, R., & Kirmas, A. (2017). Economic Viability of Second Use Electric Vehicle Batteries for
Energy Storage in Residential Applications. Energy Procedia, 105, 3806‑3815.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.890
Manzo, S., & Salling, K. B. (2016). Integrating Life-cycle Assessment into Transport Cost-benefit
Analysis. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 273‑282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.064
MEFR. (2020). L’impôt sur le revenu par collectivité territoriale—Data.gouv.fr.

https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/l-impot-sur-le-revenu-par-collectivite-territoriale/
Mitropoulos, L. K., Prevedouros, P. D., & Kopelias, P. (2017). Total cost of ownership and externalities
of conventional, hybrid and electric vehicle. Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 267‑274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.117
Moon, S., & Lee, D.-J. (2019). An optimal electric vehicle investment model for consumers using total
cost of ownership : A real option approach. Applied Energy, 253, 113494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113494
Moreau, V., & Weidema, B. P. (2015). The computational structure of environmental life cycle costing.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(10), 1359‑1363.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0952-1
Neugebauer, S., Forin, S., & Finkbeiner, M. (2016). From Life Cycle Costing to Economic Life Cycle
Assessment—Introducing an Economic Impact Pathway. Sustainability, 8(5), 428.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050428
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., Aboushaqrah, N. N. M., & Jabbar, R. (2019). How sustainable is electric
mobility? A comprehensive sustainability assessment approach for the case of Qatar. Applied
Energy, 250, 461‑477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.076
Palmer, K., Tate, J. E., Wadud, Z., & Nellthorp, J. (2018). Total cost of ownership and market share for
hybrid and electric vehicles in the UK, US and Japan. Applied Energy, 209, 108‑119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.089
Potkany, M., Hanzl, J., & Hlatká, M. (2018). Comparison of the Life cycle Cost Structure of Electric
and Diesel Buses. Naše More, 65(4), 270‑275. https://doi.org/10.17818/NM/2018/4SI.20
Rabl, A., Spadaro, J., & Holland, M. (2014). How Much is Clear Air Worth? Calculating the Benefits
of Pollution Control. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337831
Raustad, R. (2017). Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Cost Assessment (Research Study Report FSEC-CR-
1984-14; p. 27). Eletric Vehicle Transportation Center. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov
247
Schroeder, A., & Traber, T. (2012). The economics of fast charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.
Energy Policy, 43, 136‑144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.041
Schwab Castella, P., Blanc, I., Gomez Ferrer, M., Ecabert, B., Wakeman, M., Manson, J.-A., Emery,
D., Han, S.-H., Hong, J., & Jolliet, O. (2009). Integrating life cycle costs and environmental
impacts of composite rail car-bodies for a Korean train. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 14(5), 429‑442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0096-2
Sen, B., Ercan, T., & Tatari, O. (2017). Does a battery-electric truck make a difference? – Life cycle
emissions, costs, and externality analysis of alternative fuel-powered Class 8 heavy-duty trucks
in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 110‑121.
Shi, J., Wang, Y., Fan, S., Ma, Q., & Jin, H. (2019). An integrated environment and cost assessment
method based on LCA and LCC for mechanical product manufacturing. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(1), 64‑77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1497-x
Stark, R., Buchert, T., Neugebauer, S., Bonvoisin, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2017). Benefits and obstacles
of sustainable product development methods : A case study in the field of urban mobility.
Design Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.20
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(3), 530‑542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1468-2
Tarne, P., Lehmann, A., Kantner, M., & Finkbeiner, M. (2019). Introducing a product sustainability
budget at an automotive company—One option to increase the use of LCSA results in decision-
making processes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(8), 1461‑1479.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1576-z
Thoft-Christensen, P. (2012). Infrastructures and life-cycle cost-benefit analysis. Structure and

Infrastructure Engineering, 8(5), 507‑516. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2010.539070
Windisch, E. (2014). Driving electric ? A financial analysis of electric vehicle policies in France
[Statistical finance, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech - Université Paris-Est]. https://tel.archives-
ouvertes.fr/tel-00957749
Wong, Y. S., Lu, W.-F., & Wang, Z. (2010). Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Different Vehicle Technologies
in Singapore. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 4(4), 912‑920.
https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj4040912
248
Chapter VI: Implementation of Conjoint Analysis to LCSA results interpretation: A support for the decision-making process towards
sustainable mobility accounting for users’ perspective
Chapter VI: Implementation of Conjoint Analysis to LCSA results

interpretation: A support for the decision-making process towards
Summary (VI)
This chapter seeks to provide insight on the applicability of the proposed framework coupling MCDA
techniques to LCSA results interpretation. To meet this goal, a case study is designed to test how LCSA
results can be used by public and private actors within the development of sustainable mobility
alternatives, while accounting for users’ needs and expectations. Hence, the conjoint analysis, which
was selected in the thesis as an appropriate MCDA approach to integrate users’ preferences into the
decision-making, is herein implemented. The findings are compared to the results of a large-scale survey
conducted by local authorities. The comparison aims at pinpointing to what extent the method can be
used to guide decision makers.
The chapter starts by defining the objective of the case study. In addition, section 1 reminds the main
stages of the proposed framework, introducing the conjoint analysis to support LCSA results
interpretation. In this regard, sustainability weighting factors are determined through a preference
analysis by applying the choice-based conjoint approach. Section 2 defines the decision scenario
considered in the case study by presenting: (i) the geographical and urban characteristics (ii) the main
sustainability issues related to the area of the study and (iii) the decision makers and key mobility actors,
namely users. Section 3 comprises the definition of sustainability decision criteria by involving mobility
users. A focus group was designed for this purpose leading to two outcomes; (i) the generation of
sustainability criteria and (ii) the ranking of the decision criteria to select the most relevant ones. These
criteria are used subsequently for the implementation of the conjoint analysis, as detailed in section 4.
The application of the conjoint analysis requires defining two elements: (i) the attributes, corresponding
to the selected sustainability decision criteria, and (ii) their relative specifications, which consist of the
sustainability performance. These two enable the definition of the different combinations that reflect all
the possible alternatives users would be faced to. These combinations are subsequently used within the
preference analysis. Finally, section 5 discusses the resulting sustainability weighting factors for each
dimension. Results interpretation is supported by a validation step to check the consistency of the
findings to support the decision makers in the definition of the most sustainable mobility alternatives.
To do so, data is collected from a large-scale survey among 3,642 transportation users are compared to
the findings of the conjoint analysis. Hence, a thorough analysis is conducted to investigate how such a
methodology combining LCSA and MCDA could play in such decision-making process. The
generalization of the proposed LCSA framework is finally discussed to enable the application of such a
methodological proposal to other scenarios while accounting for other actors’ perspectives.
249
Table of content (VI)
Summary (VI) .................................................................................................................................... 249
Table of content (VI) ......................................................................................................................... 250
1. The objective of the case study ............................................................................................. 251
2. Definition of the case study: Decision-making scenario ..................................................... 252
2.1. Characterization of the study area ................................................................................................. 252

2.2. Definition of the actors .................................................................................................................. 253
3. Definition of sustainability decision criteria: involving users through a focus group ..... 254
3.1. Design of the focus group: Materials and methods ....................................................................... 255
3.1.1. Sampling:.............................................................................................................................. 255
3.1.2. Preparation of the semi-structured interview: 2 hours .......................................................... 256
3.2. Design and implementation of the focus group to account for the users’ perspectives ................. 257
3.2.1. Stage 1: Introducing the context & objectives (20 minutes) ................................................. 257
3.2.2. Stage 2: Criteria generation following users’ perspective (40 minutes) ............................... 257
3.2.3. Stage 3: Prioritization and selection of the most significant decision criteria (30 minutes) . 260
4. Application of the conjoint analysis to LCSA results ......................................................... 261
4.1. Definition of sustainability performance scales based on LCSA results normalization ................ 261
4.2. Preference Analysis: Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) .................................................................... 262
5. Results Interpretation ........................................................................................................... 263
5.1. Development of weighting factors and application of LCSA results ............................................ 263
5.2. Validation of the results for the weighting factors ........................................................................ 264
5.2.1. Characterizing the representativeness of the sample ............................................................ 265
5.2.2. Users’ perceptions on the relative importance of the three sustainability dimensions ......... 266
6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 267
7. References .............................................................................................................................. 270
250
1. The objective of the case study

The present chapter aims, through a real-world case study, to demonstrate the applicability of the
proposed framework and pinpoint to what extent it can guide mobility decisions. The objective of the
second research question, presented in Chapter 1 of this thesis, is to support decision makers, both public
and private actors, in the development of more sustainable mobility alternatives, by using LCSA results
and accounting for users’ needs and expectations.
The sustainability analysis was conducted in chapters 3, 4 and 5 for the environmental, social and
economic dimensions, respectively. These chapters have delivered multidimensional results reflecting
significant trade-offs where the three considered mobility scenarios (i.e., personal, public and shared)
computed different performances. As demonstrated in chapter 2, the designed LCSA framework calls
for the use of multicriteria analysis to handle the compromises induced from the three impact assessment
approaches, namely environmental LCA, S-LCA, and LCC. To this end, an MCDA technique was
introduced to support the interpretation of LCSA results and inform the decision makers within the
design process. Figure 50 illustrates the overall framework that has been proposed in chapter 2 covering
LCSA and the introduced MCDA approach, namely the conjoint analysis.
Figure 50 Implementation of the designed framework to a real-world case study from LCSA to the decision-
making: introduction of the Conjoint Analysis to support private and public decision makers within the design of
sustainable mobility alternatives and accounting for users’ preferences.
The conjoint analysis has been selected among other MCDA techniques for its ability to integrate users’
preferences and is therefore experimented in this chapter. In fact, mobility users have been given
particular attention in the present thesis, to integrate their perspective within the design phase of mobility
251
alternatives (i.e., transportation technologies, mobility services, etc.). For this purpose, they are directly
involved in this framework to select the most relevant sustainability decision criteria and to perform the
preference analysis.
To enable the application of the conjoint analysis to investigate thoroughly the different sustainability
aspects, the scope of the case study was narrowed down to a specific commuting travel in Sophia
Antipolis. Three main steps are included in the proposed framework as illustrated in Figure 50. They
are defined and detailed in the following sections: (i) definition of mobility decision scenario (ii)
definition of sustainability decision criteria by the users, and (iii) the application of the conjoint analysis.
LCSA results are herein used to define the sustainability performance scales for the different
sustainability criteria. The applied conjoint analysis allows the integration of users’ preferences to define
the weighting factors for each sustainability decision criterion. The determined weighting factors are
subsequently validated through a large-scale survey. A critical review is therefore conducted to check
the relevance of MCDA techniques to support the interpretation of LCSA results and questions its ability
to guide the decision-making processes.
2. Definition of the case study: Decision-making scenario

2.1. Characterization of the study area
This first section defines the case study that serves as a validation ground for the proposed LCSA
framework in chapter 2. The characterization of the study area allows to narrow down the focus on a
specific geographical location and to investigate the present mobility alternatives, the geographical and
urban characteristics together with the main actors taking place in the decision-making scheme.
a) Geographical zone:
The geographical area targeted by this study is the “Alpes-Maritimes region” in the south of France.
More precisely, “La communauté d’Agglomération Sophia Antipolis” (CASA), which covers a total
area of 482 km² and gathers 24 municipalities, was selected. Three zones are distinguished in CASA
based on their urban density: “Sophia et littoral” where 80% of the population is located and the urban
density amounts to 2900 inhabitants per km², “Moyen pays” with a lower urban density amounting to
480 inhabitants/km², and finally “Le Haut Pays” which is considered as a rural area of about 12
inhabitants/km² of urban density. “Sophia et littoral” is selected for the study in view of its interesting
geographical and urban characteristics. In fact, this work aims to investigate the different mobility
scenarios within an urban geographical context which makes this zone the most suitable. Both Antibes
and Sophia Antipolis are located in “Sophia and littoral” zone. While Antibes gathers the highest share
of population (24,395 inhabitants per km2 in 2019), Sophia Antipolis is the first European technology
park, where 2,500 companies are located. In view of the economic activities (5.6 billion euros in 2019)
in Sophia Antipolis and the high urban density of Antibes, this makes the journey from Antibes to Sophia
Antipolis the most solicited commuting travel compared to leisure journeys.
252
b) Mobility patterns:
The urban nature of the area and its evolution have anchored a reliance on the use of private cars. Hence,
congestion is one of the most problematic issues in the region causing thus frequent and long traffic
jams. In the Alpes-Maritimes region, a working person loses an average of 25 days per year due to
congestion. Moreover, about 82,000 people are exposed to exceeding air quality threshold values for air
pollutants (ADEME-CASA, 2018).
Which is today a major challenge for CASA. In fact, as illustrated in figure 51, private cars are the most
common means of commuting to work in the area, with 71% of total modal share, while the use of
shared public transport amounts to 6%, 1% for cycling and 22% of walking. It is worth to note that
walking is common in city centers of CASA for an average distance of 700 m (ADEME-CASA, 2018),
whereas the commuting travel Antibes-Sophia Antipolis involves a distance of about 8 km. For this
reason, walking has been excluded from the scope of this case study.
These rates are consistent with France is average where, 80% of trips are made by individual car, with
50% of travel not exceeding 5 kilometers (ADEME, 2019). The use of individual transport is mainly
associated with commuting, shopping and leisure. In view of the above sketched reasons, an average
commuting travel between Antibes and Sophia Antipolis is considered in the case study.
Figure 51 Share of transport modes from CASA 2021
2.2. Definition of the actors

Public policies are evolving in favor of an energy transition that affects the transportation sector among
others (Bigo, 2020). Transportation users are in turn increasingly aware of the sustainability issues at
stake and are turning to solutions that are more respectful towards the environment but also towards
social and economic dimensions. Consequently, local authorities and industrial actors are compelled to
253
invest more in the deployment of new sustainable mobility alternatives and technologies while
respecting the needs of users.
To understand the high dependency of users on personal mobility within the investigated region, it is of
utmost importance to understand the key drivers and barriers for adopting other transportation modes.
Several studies have investigated the societal drivers for future transportation alternatives (L’Hostis et
al., 2016; Chalkia et al., 2017; Imre Keseru et al., 2018; Kostiainen & Tuominen, 2019), among which
users-related issues have been considered as key factors. For instance, within the MOBILITY EU project
of the European Commission (L’Hostis et al., 2016), three key drivers have been identified for users
namely, habits, accessibility, technophobia and data protection.
In France, the national personal travel survey conducted by the government in 2019 reveals that a
working person spends an average of 7 hours and 12 minutes per week traveling, all modes of transport
combined. The success of private cars in increasing people's freedom and autonomy is, however, less
appreciated when it comes to the negative issues affecting the quality of life in cities (e.g., increasing
local pollution and urban congestion). Hence, 65% of French people are willing to use public transport
more, 40% consider the alternative of carpooling and 60% would be willing to reduce the use of their
vehicle (ADEME 2019). Three mobility alternatives are investigated in accordance with the three
mobility scenarios analyzed in this thesis.
Alternative 1: personal transportation use – midsize electric vehicle
Alternative 2: public transportation use – natural gas-powered vehicle
Alternative 3: shared transportation use – midsize electric vehicle
3. Definition of sustainability decision criteria: involving users through a focus

group
Different types of consultation processes can be used to select the most appropriate and representative
decision criteria. For example, Lebeau et al. (2012) have used previous studies to define the relevant
attributes to consider through the preference analysis, while Tarne et al. (2019) have identified the most
representative indicators for each dimension and selected those who were better known by companies,
to ease the understanding of sustainability issues during the preference analysis.
The present case study targets transportation users within the considered geographical area, in order to
identify sustainability decision criteria according to their perspectives. To do so, the proposed
framework in this thesis recommends the involvement of users from this stage, to enable the definition
of the criteria that are significant and those who can influence their mobility daily choices. Hence,
sustainability attributes considered within the conjoint analysis should reflect the needs and expectations
of users and thus contribute to better inform decision makers (i.e., public authorities and private mobility
actors) in the design of more sustainable mobility alternatives.
254
A focus group was chosen as a consultation approach because of its effectiveness in a short duration. In
fact, the focus group method aims to gather a group of individuals to discuss on a set of proposed themes.
The interactions between participants provide relevant qualitative information in a limited time duration.
Such technique may be very useful to directly interview a group of people. It makes use of the
interactions that are likely to occur between them to stimulate the debate and observe the process of
collective sense making (Wilkinson, 1998). However, this social character can also be criticized due to
the risk of enforced consensus and, thus, it may not fully account for individuals’ authentic points of
view (Grudens-Schuck et al., 2004).
In this study, the focus group has been chosen as an alternative to individual interviews, to collect
qualitative information form the user’s perspective. Moreover, conducting a focus group offers the
opportunity to explore an alternative to online surveys, which were already used in chapter 4 for the
definition of relevant social impact subcategories. The focus group was guided by an animator and
monitored to ensure that the participants could freely express themselves. To improve the consistency
of the focus group, a semi-structured consultation was organized for data collection. Hence, the designed
focus group includes three main steps as presented in figure and aims to define the sustainability decision
criteria to be integrated in the MCDA framework. The proposed procedure is explained in section 3.1,
covering from the design to the execution of the focus group as well as the results analysis.
3.1. Design of the focus group: Materials and methods
The steps followed to enable the consultation of transportation users within the focus group are described
below:
3.1.1. Sampling:
Transportation users are selected according to the objectives of the study and targeted within the
considered geographical area. Several sources of recruitment can enrich the sample, depending on the
issue to be studied and the objectives. To ensure the representativeness of the sample, three criteria
should be met when selecting the users:
- Diversity: makes it possible to capture the reality and to explore the widest possible spectrum of
opinions in order to bring out all the views on the subject.
- Neutrality: it is preferred that participants know neither each other nor the topic of the meeting in
detail, to prevent them from doing research on it beforehand. The reason is that the aim of a focus
group is to explore the spontaneous reactions and personal experiences of the participants.
- Validity: the sample conditions the validity of the findings and should be characterized during the
results analysis
Ideally, the number of participants is six to eight people, all volunteers. A minimum number of 4 people
is essential to ensure a dynamic group. A maximum of 12 people is recommended to ensure that
everyone has the chance to express themselves and to be able to moderate the group (Grudens-Schuck
255
et al., 2004). It is also suggested to over-recruit participants by 30% to ensure that there is a suitable
number of participants for the focus group, in case some people fail to attend (Plummer-D’Amato,
2008).
3.1.2. Preparation of the semi-structured interview: 2 hours
It is important to define the scenario and the complete planning of the focus group in advance, to ensure
the fulfillment of the precise goals of the session. The planning can be reproduced and adapted if
multiple sessions are planned to enhance the quality of the outcome. With respect to the objective of the
case study, the focus group design should entail the definition of adequate data collection methods. In
the present study, the focus group was supported by both qualitative and semi-qualitative approaches.
To enable the definition of sustainability decision criteria, two stages are settled based on Vernette
(1987) method:
- Generation phase: seeking to obtain an extensive list of potentially determining attributes. This step
is conducted through a direct citation method to generate the maximum number of decision criteria
for each sustainability dimension.
Two main rounds of 10 minutes each were proposed: the first round was dedicated to the
environmental dimension, the second to social and economic dimension. Open-ended questions
were therefore used in this step: “What are the key environmental criteria guiding your choices for
your daily commute?” and “What are the key social and economic criteria guiding your choices for
your daily commute?”. To enable the exercise, an online tool was chosen to facilitate the interactions
with users. This step also included a discussion between all the participants, animated by the
moderator, to understand the mindsets and obtain the information needed for the results’ analysis.
Other methods can be used instead of the focus group such as in-depth interviews, group interviews,
observation methods, verbal protocols, etc.
- Selection phase: this second step aims to draw a restricted list in which only the really
determining attributes are retained. To do so, a prioritization of the previously generated
criteria is proposed. Users are asked to individually rank through an online platform the
criteria by each dimension (i.e., environmental, social and economic). Hence, the ranking
enables the selection of the attributes that are perceived as the most influencing and guiding
for their daily mobility choices. Here again, several methods can be used: dual questionnaire
and self-evaluation, joint measurements, information tables, Delphi method, regression
coefficients, relevance index. The same online tool used in the generation step is
recommended, to allow the prioritization. A duration of 30 minutes is dedicated to
performing this step. To help select the decision-making criteria, four qualities should be
fulfilled by the attributes (Guillot-Soulez & Soulez, 2011):
✓ attributes should be decisive, namely important and discriminating, which easily can be
distinguished between each other.
256
✓ attributes should be independent, that is, non-redundant, no confusion can be entailed,

✓ attributes should completely describe the attributes,
✓ attributes should have the possibility to be manipulated, i.e., calculated, processed in next
steps.
3.2. Design and implementation of the focus group to account for the users’ perspectives
The focus group was held on February 10, 2021, through an online workshop entitled “What are the
sustainability factors that influence your daily travel choices Antibes - Sophia Antipolis?”. A total
number of 13 transportation users took part of the workshop. Participants were mainly affiliated to
MINES ParisTech. The focus group was supported by the French Environmental Agency (ADEME),
who was present in the workshop. It was carried out following three stages as illustrated in Figure 52
and detailed in the paragraphs below:
Stage 3: (30 min)

Stage 1: (20 min) Prioritization and selection
Introducing the context and of sustainability decision
the objectives criteria
Stage 2: (40 min)

Criteria generation for each
sustainability dimension
according to users
Figure 52 Main stages conducted within the focus group for the definition of sustainability decision criteria
3.2.1. Stage 1: Introducing the context & objectives (20 minutes)
This stage comprised an introduction to the study, including the moderator and the participants. A
presentation of the main objectives of the focus group is presented, as well as the state of knowledge on
mobility sustainability aspects and the main issues related to the geographical area of the study in Sophia
Antipolis. The "rules of the game" were clearly stated, assuring the participants of the anonymity of the
data, and emphasizing the importance of individual participation, as the goal is to gather a range of
divergent ideas. At the end of this first stage, users were asked if all the needed information were clear
to proceed to the generation step and the prioritization step later.
3.2.2. Stage 2: Criteria generation following users’ perspective (40 minutes)

In accordance with the designed semi-structured group interview, users were asked to generate the maximum
number of attributes by each dimension by using mentimenter tool (https://www.mentimeter.com/). Figure
53 illustrates a snapshot of all the generated criteria, which are grouped in three categories, corresponding to
the three sustainability dimensions. Within the environmental dimension, a total number of 22 criteria were
generated and mainly concerned the following categories:
257
(i) climate change (CO2 emissions, GHG emissions, Carbone footprint),

(ii) air quality, for which several environmental indicators were identified (i.e., air quality, NOx
emissions, Particular Matter, pollution levels, air quality index, etc.) and,
(iii) noise emissions and other environmental criteria were identified, such as the land use for roads and
infrastructure, the effects on the landscape and the olfactive pollution, which are associated to
impacts from the use of mobility alternatives.
Users also identified some environmental criteria that can guide their purchase decision – in case of personal
vehicles use – such as the vehicle powertrain, the energy consumption of the vehicle and its quietness.
In the second round, dedicated to social sustainability dimension, a higher number of 42 social and socio-
economic criteria were generated by transportation users. This reflects the increasing awareness and concerns
of users about the social and socio-economic impacts associated with the different mobility alternatives,
including both technologies and mobility services. The generated criteria were grouped into four main
categories:
(i) health and safety, mostly related to insecurity feeling, road accidents and health issues from covid-
19 sanitary situation,
(ii) availability and accessibility of mobility offer: the users highlighted the importance of the travel
duration, the adaptability of mobility offers more particularly within a public transportation scenario,
the ability to meet specific users’ needs, inclusiveness for all groups of people and the geographical
coverage of mobility services,
(iii) provided facilities, which include the simplicity of the service acquisition, on-board comfort,
responsiveness to incidents (linked to the efficiency of the communication system), and the
possibility to do other activities during the trip.
(iv) local engagement, which was emphasized by the users to analyze the contribution to the local
economy and overlaying principles of decision makers with a fair and social economy model. The
generated criteria also reflected the awareness of the users about the need for transparency on the
environmental and social performance of the mobility alternatives provided in the market. Other
generated criteria highlighted the importance of community engagement, local actions to limit the
gentrification, fight against the use of private cars and promote more sustainable mobility
alternatives through incentives and subventions for cycling, walking and shared mobility.
Finally, for the economic dimension, the five criteria identified by users concerned mostly the costs
related to the mobility technologies (acquisition and operation costs) and the affordability of the mobility
services as well as the monthly budget supported in each of the mobility scenarios.
258
Chapter VI: Implementation of Conjoint Analysis to LCSA results interpretation: A support for the decision-making process towards sustainable mobility accounting for users’ perspective
Figure 53 Mapping of the 69 generated mobility decision criteria by each sustainability dimension following the stage 2 of the focus group conducted with transportation users
in Sophia Antipolis
259
3.2.3. Stage 3: Prioritization and selection of the most significant decision criteria (30 minutes)
After the generation stage of the environmental, social and economic criteria, users were asked during
a second round of the focus group to prioritize the most important criteria for their daily mobility
choices. This stage of the focus group was conducted in three steps corresponding to each of the
sustainability dimensions. The users were therefore asked, through the same online tool, to rank the list
of generated criteria from the previous step.
Climate change and air quality indicators took the first positions within the environmental dimension
followed by noise levels, and other categories such as the land use and the landscape. On the other hand,
accessibility and availability of mobility alternatives took the first position in the ranking of social
aspects, followed by health and safety and comfort. Finally, for the economic dimension, the monthly
budget cost was chosen as the most representative indicator to facilitate the implementation of the
conjoint analysis later on. In fact, the cost criteria were all describing different indicators for users’
supported costs. During the focus group, the participants expressed that the ranking was challenging and
reflecting their own personal experiences related to the travel characteristics. This issue may reveal a
limitation, given the limited number of the sample, and will be subsequently discussed in the coming
sections.
In order to enable the application of the conjoint analysis, the attributes should be selected among those
who were deemed as the most important in this prioritization step. The definition of the number of
criteria (i.e. attributes) to be considered is a key step, as it not only affects the applicability of the conjoint
analysis, but also the representativeness of the results (Wittink et al., 1990). When a sustainability
decision-making scenario is investigated, implicitly three dimensions are to be covered. Thus, a
minimum number of three attributes is to be considered. This was the case in Tarne et al. (2019) study
where three attributes were defined to each dimension. However, reducing the number of attributes can
be limited to address all LCSA impact categories that were analyzed. Moreover, such selection can be
problematic due to value choice introduction which calls for
- discriminating the attributes that do not meet the quality levels as explained in the selection
phase, or
- calculating a unique performance score of the different considered attributes.
In this research, the attributes that were most prioritized by users were chosen. Such procedure
addresses the above-mentioned issues by introducing user’s value choices to the selection process.
However, it was necessary to limit the number of the considered attributes to five in order to enable the
implementation of the conjoint analysis. In fact, a high number of attributes lead to a very substantial
number of combinations to be proceeded, which makes it difficult to collect data on the actors’
preferences (highly time-consuming and difficult survey process for the consulted actors). Moreover,
the five criteria fixed in this case study should increase the relevancy of the outcomes compared to other
260
studies that only consider one criterion per each sustainability dimension. Hence, following the
prioritization step, two different attributes for the environmental (climate change and air quality) and
social (accessibility and travel duration) dimensions and one criterion for the economic dimension (i.e.,
monthly costs supported by users).
4. Application of the conjoint analysis to LCSA results

4.1. Definition of sustainability performance scales based on LCSA results normalization
Once the main elements that are required for any MCDA technique, regardless of the applied method,
were defined, the first step to specifically apply the conjoint analysis consists of preparing the attributes
for the preference analysis and their relative specifications. To this end, the sustainability decision
criteria selected by users are herein used together with results from LCSA of the analyzed mobility
scenarios. In fact, the impact categories from environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC are linked to
selected attributes referring to the same effect, to allow the subsequent definition of the different
combinations. Table 18 Selected sustainability decision criteria by users (participants of the focus group)
and their corresponding impact categories lists the criteria selected by users and their corresponding
impact categories from LCA approaches. Thus, in the coming section, the focus is made on the five
selected criteria, to analyze the different mobility scenarios from a sustainability perspective.
Table 18 Selected sustainability decision criteria by users (participants of the focus group) and their
corresponding impact categories
Sustainability Sustainability decision criteria Equivalent impact categories /
dimension selected by users in the focus group subcategories / cost categories
Environmental Climate change Global Warming Potential (CO2 eq/km)
Air quality NOx and Particular Matter
Social Accessibility and availability Geographical coverage of the service and

corresponding infrastructures (unit)
Travel duration Travel duration (unit)
Economic Costs TCO and service costs calculation (€/km)
To enable the application of the conjoint analysis method, normalization of LCSA results was
conducted. Indeed, the application of the conjoint analysis requires two main elements:
(i) attributes, which correspond to sustainability criteria, in our case, and

(ii) their relative specifications, for which 3 levels of performance scale were defined, ranging from
favorable performance to unfavorable performance. Various regulations, normalizations were
used as a basis in this step (ADEME 2018). Table 19 presents the attributes (i.e., sustainability
261
decision criteria) and their specifications (i.e., sustainability performance scales). To determine
each of the performance levels, the largest variability should be accounted for between the low
performance and high-performance levels. For the environmental dimension, the average value
of the selected impact categories is computed for France for both the contribution to climate
change (kgCO2 eq/p.km) and the air quality emissions.
Table 19 Definition of the combinations and the performance scales for the preference analysis
Performance scales
Selected criteria Unfavorable Average performance Favorable
performance performance
Travel duration More than 1 hour Between 30 minutes Less than 30 minutes
and 1 hour
Adaptability and Geographical coverage Geographical Geographical
accessibility stations/km² very low coverage, Number of coverage, Number of
and frequency very low stations/km² average stations/km² higher
in Fr, Frequency than average in Fr
average (+20 min) high frequency <10
min
Emissions CO2: labeled CO2 emissions CO2 emissions CO2 emissions lower
values exceeding regulatory equivalent to than the threshold.
thresholds regulatory thresholds
Air quality (NOX, PM): NOx and PM levels NOx and PM levels NOx and PM levels
labeled values (Data from above EURO6 limits equal to EURO6 above EURO6 limits
ADEME, Euro standards) limits
TCO: monthly costs More than 50 euros per Between 20 and 50 Less than 20 euros
month euros / month /month
4.2. Preference Analysis: Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC)

Mobility users’ preferences are analyzed in this step for the three sustainability dimensions and within
the decision scenarios that have been considered in the study. Based on the defined attributes and
specifications in the prioritization step, the preference analysis can be conducted following two different
techniques: preferences ranking or choice-based models.
The choice-based conjoint (CBC) approach uses discrete choice models to collect users’ preferences.
The respondents are expected to select the combination of specifications that fits the most of their needs
and expectations among a set of other combinations. The interest in using such an approach compared
to full-profile preference ranking is the ability of CBC to reduce the number of combinations by
simulating the most realistic options and scenarios. In fact, the number of combinations that are
generated is proportionally dependent on the number of criteria and their relative performance scales.
For instance, in the present case study, five attributes and three specification levels are defined, which
makes the number of combinations rise to 125 (=53) in case of using a full-profile preference ranking
model. Instead, CBC allows the total number of combinations to be reduced by eliminating the
262
combinations that do not comply with realistic scenarios, i.e., all attributes present low performance
scales. The preference analysis was conducted using the online tool ProQuestion, which allows the
conjoint analysis to be performed according to CBC approach. Following the consultation of the users,
the relative importance of the attributes which correspond to the weighting factors of each sustainability
decision criteria. The relative importance (Rimpi) is calculated as :
𝑹𝒊
𝑹𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒊 =
∑𝒎
𝒊=𝟏 𝑹𝒊
With: 𝑹𝒊 = 𝐦𝐚𝐱(𝒖𝒊𝒋 ) − 𝐦𝐢𝐧(𝒖𝒊𝒌 )
- uij: part-worth contribution (i.e., the utility of level per each attribute corresponding to the decision
criteria)
- ki: number of levels (i.e., performance scales) for attribute
- m: number of attributes
It is worth to note that the conjoint analysis method uses a linear regression, where the target variable
depends on the used approach. In the present case study, the employed CBC models attribute binary
variables which derive from the choice (yes or no) for each combination. Hence, the coming sections
present the results of the weighting factors calculated for each sustainability dimension. These weighting
factors are subsequently investigated through a comparison of the results to a large-scale survey.
5. Results Interpretation
5.1. Development of weighting factors and application of LCSA results
The individual weight of each sustainability decision criterion is illustrated in Figure 54. The
environmental criteria (i.e., contribution to climate change and air quality) together with the costs criteria
turn out to be the most important according to users followed by the social criteria (i.e., travel time and
accessibility of mobility alternatives), which appear to have the less influence on users’ choices in terms
of mobility.
263
Figure 54 Calculated weighting factors for the five considered attributes (i.e., sustainability decision criteria)
The deriving weights for the environmental dimension are highlighted as the most relevant by users,
with the sum of both considered criteria (i.e., climate change and air quality) attaining a total weight of
53%. When considering each environmental criteria individually, the relative importance of climate
change was weighted at 32% while that of air quality was weighted at 21%. The economic dimension
took the second place, with 31% of relative importance attributed to the monthly budget as a driver for
users’ mobility choices. Finally, the results show that the respondent users gave the same exact
importance for each of the social criteria (i.e., travel duration and accessibility), which have been
weighted at 8% of relative importance, each.
The overall results from weighting reveal users’ awareness to the environmental dimension which was
perceived as more important than the other sustainability dimensions. However, when considering each
sustainability dimension individually, no clear clustering is demonstrated, which can confirm the
difficulty respondents expressed when making the ranking. Such observations have also been
highlighted by Tarne et al. (2019), who showed relatively close results of weighting factors from the
preference analysis for each of the criteria. Moreover, performing such technique separately for each
sustainability dimension might require consequent knowledge from the respondents of the sustainability
issues linked to the investigated systems. This may also raise questions on the representativeness of the
sample. In this case study, the preference analysis was performed within a very limited number of users.
5.2. Validation of the results for the weighting factors
While performing the case study, a large-scale survey was conducted in Sophia Antipolis by the local
authorities with the objective of reorganizing the transportation network. This survey was conducted
during the year 2021 across 3642 transportation users and aimed at: (i) characterizing the users’ profiles
264
in the geographical area (i.e., mobility patterns, type of travels, share of mobility services use, etc.) (ii)
understanding and investigating users’ mobility choice drivers from a sustainability perspective. Other
questions concerned the impact of the current pandemic situation on users’ mobility patterns and the
characterization of their specific needs to facilitate the development of low-impact mobility alternatives
(i.e., electric bikes, modal shift, intermodality).
In this regard, local authorities in CASA were contacted within this thesis. The interaction was motivated
by the need for a significant sample size that could be used in support to the current case study. Such
large-scale survey can also be used to challenge the assumptions set within its design. Hence, the
collected data from this large-scale survey was analyzed with a focus on two elements:
(i) Characterization of the sample to check if the consulted mobility users in the large-scale
survey are representative for the travel type analyzed in the case study of this thesis namely,
commuting travel from Antibes to Sophia Antipolis
(ii) Coherence between the users’ preferences in terms of sustainability dimensions that are
influencing their choices the most, and the weighting factors generated from the conjoint
analysis.
This adds a new feature to the interpretation of results, which seeks to challenge the legitimacy of the
weighting factors. Hence, the present research work opens the discussion on the validation of the ability
of the MCDA approaches to provide relevance guiding to decision-making process.
5.2.1. Characterizing the representativeness of the sample
The gathered data was first analyzed to characterize the sample of users that have responded to the
survey. Figure 55 illustrates the different travel types that are performed by the users. This latter shows
that 55% of the travels concern commuting to work and school, corresponding to the journey from
Antibes to Sophia Antipolis. Such results are in accordance with the assumptions settled within the
design of the case study. The other part of the trips concerns 26.1% for shopping, leisure and food
provisions, 10.2% for health and 8.7% for other travel types.
Figure 55 travel types for users in CASA (sample=3642) Data from the CASA local authorities- conducted
survey in 2021 for restructuration of the ENVIBUS network (public transport provider)
265
5.2.2. Users’ perceptions on the relative importance of the three sustainability dimensions
The survey conducted by CASA local authorities also concerned the identification of users’ main
mobility drivers from a sustainability perspective. Such result is herein compared with the findings of
the conjoint analysis in order to check the consistency of the determined weighting factors. As illustrated
in figure 56, the conducted survey was performed by considering the sustainability dimension
levels rather than sustainability criteria levels. In fact, to ease the data collection process, the large-
scale survey has categorized the criteria by the sustainability dimension rather than considering the
comparison at the level of each criterion.
The overall ranking shows that social drivers are the most contributing to users’ mobility choices. In
fact, the social drivers comprise safety issues, comfort, accessibility and facilities or availability of the
mobility offers. In the second position, 30% of users ranked the environmental criteria as the most
important, 19.9% of users stated that having no other mobility alternative imposes the use of public
transportation and finally 9.8% of respondents accorded the first position for the economic drivers.
Figure 56 : Main sustainability drivers for users’ mobility choices – Data from ENVIBUS 2021 (public transport
service provider)
The large-scale survey highlights divergent results for mobility users’ choice drivers with respect to the
findings obtained through the conjoint analysis. In fact, the ranking order of the three sustainability
dimensions differs: environmental dimension > economic dimension > social dimension (results of the
case study), in contrast, social dimension > environmental dimension > economic dimension (results
from the large-scale survey). To understand the sources explaining of such difference and the possible
influencing factors, the following analysis is now proposed:
- The sample size is the first factor that can be highlighted. In fact, the number of consulted users
within the conjoint analysis being limited can raise questions on the representativeness of the
sample, thus the outcomes.
- The level of detail associated with the attributes. In fact, the large-scale survey was conducted at
the level of sustainability dimensions rather than at the level of sustainability decision criteria. The
266
number of attributes to be considered directly affects the feasibility of the survey. On the other hand,
a limited number of decision criteria, despite required to make conjoint analysis feasible, may lead
to a partial representation of LCSA results and cannot be sufficient to fully inform decision makers.
The question that arises from the two above-mentioned limiting factors is the following:
What is the optimal balance between the sample size and the level of detail?
- How to select attributes, namely sustainability decision criteria in the case study, need to be
considered. Indeed, the direct citation method used during the focus group resulted in a lack of life
cycle perspective for the social dimension and did not reflect other stakeholder impact
subcategories. Such approach can also be questioned due to the resulted distortion between the
decision criteria and the impact categories analyzed through the proposed LCSA framework.
Is it more relevant to give stakeholders the ability to generate the criteria that describe
best their needs and expectations, as implemented in this study, or to impose a list of
impact subcategories that require high knowledge from the consulted actors?
The above-listed statements reveal limitations and challenges to overcome in future research studies.
These observations challenge the role that LCSA can play in guiding the decision-making. The question
that is raised at this stage is the following:
Are the determined weighting factors appropriate and reliable to support decision-making
process in assessing relative sustainability for different mobility scenario?
Although the role LCSA can play in informing the decision-making process is undeniable, it is legitimate
to question the limits of the methodology, scientifically speaking, to guide decisions that belong to
political decision makers. In fact, although LCSA provides scientifically based information of the
magnitude of impacts and highlights the possible improvements that can be made on the technology,
materials and process levels, several drawbacks can be identified linked to the introduction of weighting
factors. These can result in a simplistic representation of the actual impacts and consequently mislead
decision makers’ choices. In addition to this, cautious choices should be made when selecting the type
of MCDA approach, the survey design, the selection of the attributes, as they have been identified as
sources of uncertainties and variability in the results.
6. Conclusions
The present chapter aimed at exploring how LCSA can be used to guide public and private decision
makers within the design of sustainable mobility alternatives while accounting for the users’ perspective.
The proposed LCSA comprehensive framework in chapter 2 introduced MCDA approaches to support
the interpretation phase of LCSA in response to the research questions of this thesis. Throughout a
specific case study related to daily commuting travels, an MCDA approach was selected to support
267
LCSA results’ interpretation, namely, the conjoint analysis. Such technique was selected among others
due to its ability to understand users’ needs and help integrate them in the early stages of sustainable
mobility design. Conjoint analysis allows, thus, the induced trade-offs from the sustainability analysis
to be tackled by introducing MCDA approaches.
By means of a real-world case study, the conjoint analysis has been tested on a specific commuting
travel from Antibes to Sophia Antipolis, in the south of France. The chapter started by defining the
mobility decision scenario (urban area), the existing mobility alternatives (public transportation,
personal and shared mobility) and the key actors that are involved in the mobility scheme. The users
who are considered as a key actor for developing future mobility alternatives in the future, were involved
in the designed case study. To this end, a focus group was designed with the aim of generating and
selecting the most relevant sustainability decision criteria from their perspective. Impact categories
evaluated through the proposed LCSA framework in chapters 3, 4 and 5 were subsequently linked to the
five sustainability decision criteria selected by users (i.e., travel duration, accessibility, climate change,
air quality, monthly costs). In addition, the sustainability performance scales, which are required for the
application of the conjoint analysis (i.e., specification of the attributes), were defined based on LCSA
results for each of the sustainability decision criteria. This made it possible to conduct the preference
analysis with a choice-based model, across mobility users to determine the sustainability weighting
factors. The obtained weighting factors have highlighted the awareness of the consulted users to the
environmental, social and economic aspects. The environmental dimension was the first ranked and was
weighted at 53%, the economic dimension at 31% and the social dimension at 16%.
The obtained values for the weighting factors were compared with results of users’ preferences from a
large-scale survey conducted by CASA across 3642 users in Sophia Antipolis. Through this survey,
users were asked about their mobility choice drivers with respect to the three sustainability dimensions.
The collected data on this survey was therefore analyzed in the present chapter with the aim of testing
the applicability of the conjoint analysis and the coherence between the two findings. The results showed
a divergence in the user’s preferences as the ranking order of the sustainability dimensions did not
comply with the finding from the conjoint analysis.
A set of the potential limiting factors that could influence the results on the weighting was thus defined
including the sample size and its representativeness, the number of the considered attributes (i.e.,
sustainability decision criteria), the approaches for the selection of attributes, and the used MCDA
approach. To conclude, the following paragraphs state the main limitations and recommendations for
future research studies.
Benefits from adopting this new approach and Recommendation:
✓ The conjoint analysis has proven to be an appropriate approach for understanding users' preferences
and avoiding the use of a pairwise comparison to prevent practitioners from facing two main
268
drawbacks: (1) pairwise contribution relies on a direct ranking of the criteria, (2) it requires a high
knowledge from the actors to the proposed impact categories – as decision criteria –.
✓ The use of the choice-based conjoint analysis allows to reduce the number of the combinations and
ease the implementation of the preference analysis through the elimination of ones that do not
comply with realistic scenarios.
✓ The involvement of users within the LCSA demonstrated a real interest for improving the local
relevancy of the findings. Involvement of users for the selection of sustainability decision criteria
can be an interesting alternative for a conventional selection by the LCSA practitioners and enable
the decision makers to account for their needs and expectations in the upstream of the design phase.
-->Thus, the interest of coupling both approaches.
✓ Large-scale surveys can be used by decision makers to adapt the design of the mobility alternatives
to users’ needs and expectations. Surveys can also be recommended, whenever possible, to validate
the results from the weighting approaches.
✓ Although it is not possible to provide a general conclusion on “the most suitable” MCDA technique,
the conjoint analysis appeared to be appropriate to understand users’ preferences and enable
presenting very concrete and clear decision profiles to users based on the criteria they have generated
(e.g., distance, travel duration, etc.). Future research studies may focus on exploring other MCDA
approaches.
✓ MCDA techniques that involve multiple involved actors may be used to investigate the variability
of the results compared to MCDA approaches that reflects a single perspective and those who do
not call for the stakeholders’ involvement, e.g., decision utility methods.
✓ Future research studies can also explore other MCDA techniques and investigate to what extent
the statistical approaches (i.e., decision utility methods) can be better than participatory
approaches (pairwise comparisons and preference ranking methods).
Main limitations
- The implemented MCDA technique (i.e., the conjoint analysis) may lead to a significant number of
uncertainties that derive from the assumptions and methodological choices settled within the design
of the present case study.
- The sample size is limited to guarantee the feasibility of the study, which questions the
representativeness of the obtained weighting factors,
- The chosen data collection methods (qualitative rather than quantitative), namely through the focus
group can significantly influence the outcomes of the study.
- The direct citation method can restrain the integration of the life cycle perspective and other
stakeholder categories. In fact, the involved stakeholders are likely to consider solely the criteria
that directly affect them.
269
- When using a direct citation method, a distortion between the decision criteria and LCSA impact
categories has been found. On the one hand, the conjoint analysis allows processing indicators that
are familiar to users, but, on the other hand, they are not the same ones as those directly derived
from LCSA. A step should, thus, be added to link both. Otherwise, other approaches shall be used
imposing a set of impact categories to the involved stakeholders.
- Only a limited number of sustainability criteria can be integrated when applying the conjoint
analysis in order to limit the number of induced combinations. Thus, this approach systematically
calls for a limited selection of sustainability decision criteria.
7. References
ADEME-CASA. (2018). Séminaire mobilité : Changeons nos comportements—Révision plan de
déplacements urbains. Ademe et Communauté d’agglomération Sophia Antipolis.
https://docplayer.fr/149057311-Seminaire-mobilite-changeons-nos-comportements.html
Chalkia, E., Mueller, B., & L’Hostis, A. (2017). The role of societal resistance in transportation
innovation. 8th International Congress on Transportation Research: Transportation by 2030:
Trends and perspectives, 12P. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1216917
Grudens-Schuck, N., Allen, B. L., & Larson, K. (2004). Methodology Brief : Focus Group
Fundamentals. 5, 7.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=extension_communities_p
ubs
Guillot-Soulez, C., & Soulez, S. (2011). L’analyse conjointe : Présentation de la méthode et potentiel
d’application pour la recherche en GRH. Revue de gestion des ressources humaines, 80(2), 33.
https://doi.org/10.3917/grhu.080.0033
Imre Keseru, Thierry Coosemans, Eliza Gagatsi, & Cathy Macharis. (2018). User-centric vision for
mobility in 2030 : Participatory evaluation of scenarios by the multi-actor multi-criteria
analysis (MAMCA). https://zenodo.org/record/1483459#.XI-3vbiNyUk
Kostiainen, J., & Tuominen, A. (2019). Mobility as a Service—Stakeholders’ Challenges and Potential
Implications. In B. Müller & G. Meyer (Éds.), Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe :
Challenges, Solutions and Collaborations (p. 239-254). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99756-8_16
Lebeau, K., Van Mierlo, J., Lebeau, P., Mairesse, O., & Macharis, C. (2012). The market potential for
plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles in Flanders : A choice-based conjoint analysis.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(8), 592-597.
270
L’Hostis, A., MULLER, B., meyer, G., BRUCKNER, A., FOLDESI, E., Dablanc, L., Blanquart, C.,
TUOMINEN, A., KOSTIAINEN, J., POU, C., URBAN, M., KESERU, I., COOSEMANS, T.,
DE LA CRUZ, M. T., VAL, S., Golfetti, A., Napoletano, L., SKOOGBERG, J., HOLLEY-
MOORE, G., … LANGHEIM, J. (2016). MOBILITY4EU - D2.1—Societal needs and
requirements for future transportation and mobility as well as opportunities and challenges of
current solutions (p. 85p.) [Research Report]. IFSTTAR - Institut Français des Sciences et
Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement et des Réseaux. https://hal.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-01486783
Plummer-D’Amato, P. (2008). Focus group methodology Part 1 : Considerations for design.

International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 15(2), 69-73.
https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2008.15.2.28189
Tarne, P., Lehmann, A., Kantner, M., & Finkbeiner, M. (2019). Introducing a product sustainability
budget at an automotive company—One option to increase the use of LCSA results in decision-
making processes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(8), 1461-1479.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1576-z
Vernette, E. (1987). Identifier les attributs determinants : Une comparaison de six methodes. Recherche
et Applications En Marketing, 2(4), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/076737018700200401
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology : A review. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 1(3), 181-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874
Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L., & Reibstein, D. J. (1990). The Effect of Differences in the Number
of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results. Marketing Letters, 1(2), 113-123.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40216150
271
Chapter VII: General Conclusions and Perspectives
Chapter VII: General Conclusions and

Perspectives
Mobility is undergoing a total metamorphosis. Public policies are continuously moving towards more
restrictive regulations to ensure the transition from the current fossil fuel-based transportation systems,
causing significant adverse effects for the environment and the society, to alternative scenarios with
lower impacts. Indeed, the substantial use of petroleum-based products in the transport sector, on
one hand, and the increasing use of individual mobility, on the other hand, highly contribute to climate
change, air quality degradation, resources depletion and noise emissions. In addition to these
environmental impacts, transportation can have a substantial social and socio-economic impact on
different stakeholder categories (i.e., users, workers, value chain actors, etc.).
The methodological framework developed in this PhD thesis supports the sustainability assessment of
the ongoing energy transition, which requires radical transformations in production and consumption
patterns. In the transport sector, the shift towards electric mobility, in particular, raises questions
regarding its sustainability. While the environmental impacts of electric mobility have been widely
addressed in the literature, the associated social and socio-economic impacts are yet not fully
addressed. The weak knowledge of the social sustainability dimension is directly linked to the lack of
availability and low level of maturity of the methods and tools for the identification, monitoring and
management of the social and socio-economic impacts.
Among the most widely recognized evaluation methods for all three sustainability dimensions lies the
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA allows the analysis of the impacts that are generated all along
the life cycle of products and services, from the extraction of raw materials to final disposal of
products. LCA approaches have significantly gained in maturity over the last years and are increasingly
adopted to investigate the three sustainability dimensions through environmental LCA, Social-LCA and
Life Cycle Cost (LCC). However, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), which aims at bringing
together the three LCA approaches into one integrated methodology, still faces major challenges.
The main findings of this thesis:

The present research sought to develop a comprehensive framework for sustainability assessment
based on LCSA. This research contributes to enhance sustainability evaluation methods and provides
insights on the assessment of the three dimensions. Moreover, the present thesis has explored how LCSA
results can support the decision-making by integrating users’ perspectives and, thus, help public and
272
private actors better adapt their mobility offers to users’ needs and expectations when developing
sustainable mobility alternatives. To achieve this goal, two research questions were investigated:
First Research question (RQ1):
How can environmental, societal, and economic impacts be integrated into a

comprehensive methodological framework to address sustainability with a life cycle
perspective?
The first research question that has been explored sought to conceptualize a methodological framework
for LCSA by integrating the three sustainability pillars. To achieve this goal, several challenges were
highlighted. LCSA has been poorly addressed from a methodological point of view as most publications
tends to focus on case studies. In response, chapter 2 is a key support for research in the field and
provides insight on the different pathways to be explored for further developing a comprehensive LCSA
methodology. Hence, guidelines are presented by including the key features for each phase of the
LCSA, in accordance with the ISO standards. The main methodological issues to be addressed are
highlighted.
The first issue was to ensure a clear definition of the goal and scope of the study to reach the coherence
between all three sustainability dimensions, including the functional unit, system boundaries, and impact
categories. Such elements were further explored through the definition of mobility scenarios studied in
this thesis. Each scenario was characterized by four elements, namely the transportation technology, the
mobility service, the transportation infrastructures, and the energy powering of the vehicle. Moreover,
introducing the users’ perspective in the whole process has been a major milestone in the thesis as
it adds a new feature to LCSA goal and scope definition.
This novelty consists of the identification of the actors that are involved in the mobility scheme; main
involved actors in the decision-making and those affected by these decisions. Such definition provides
guidance for the development of LCSA framework and its implementation to a precise goal, namely
supporting the decision-making process towards a sustainable mobility by integrating users’ perspective
in the present work. In fact, the literature review revealed a major gap to overcome in order to better
understand users’ needs and expectations and to integrate them within LCSA for better informing
decisions. This need was also identified among the impact evaluation phase, especially in S-LCA, in
which users’ impact subcategories were poorly addressed in previous work. In response, a new scheme
was proposed by integrating their perception into the overall proposed framework.
The second issue was linked to LCSA impacts’ evaluation phase. Two methodological pathways for
impact assessment were identified and explored. Pathway 1 aimed at developing a combined impact
assessment for LCSA by developing specific characterization models for each sustainability dimension.
Although it can be beneficial for ensuring the coherence of the framework, this pathway poses major
obstacles due to the need to gain more knowledge of the social and economic dimensions. In fact, current
273
development of S-LCA and LCC does not allow covering a similar level of detail as the environmental
LCA. Moreover, the accuracy of such quantitative models was questioned in view of the limitations that
can occur to address all the significant impacts and stakeholder categories. In this regard, a second
pathway was explored and adopted in this thesis to design the comprehensive LCSA framework using
an individual application of the impact assessment approaches. Such pathway enables the
consideration of the heterogeneous nature of each sustainability dimension by choosing
compatible assessment approaches for the environmental, social, and economic impacts.
The implementation of LCIA approaches was performed for three electric mobility scenarios for
passengers’ transportation in urban areas:
- Scenario 1: personal mobility, consists of the individual use of private passenger cars including
five different electric and conventional powertrains.
- Scenario 2: shared transportation, consists of buses transportation including four conventional
and electric powertrains.
- Scenario 3: shared mobility, which consists of a carpooling use including five different electric
and conventional powertrains.
The evaluation was conducted for the French context by considering the national electricity mix.
Moreover, the implementation of the LCIA approaches to these scenarios enabled specific
methodological issues within each of them to be addressed. To enable the implementation of the overall
framework following the second identified LCSA assessment pathway, chapters 3, 4 and 5 have targeted
the three sustainability dimensions separately.
The environmental evaluation was performed in chapter 3 for the three defined mobility scenarios. A
literature review was conducted according to the main environmental impact categories (i.e., climate
change, air quality, noise levels, resources depletion) and life cycle stages of transportation systems (i.e.,
manufacturing stage, use phase and end of life). This analysis enabled the definition of key input
parameters to be integrated within the environmental LCA studies, such as the driving cycles, fuel
pathways and electricity mixes.
This chapter proposed a systematic approach for the implementation of parametrized LCA models
allowing to consider the defined key input parameters within the assessment. Such approach entails the
main steps to integrate LCA parametrized models, which enhance the representativeness of the existing
datasets by including the multiple specificities and technological advances that may occur over time.
Hence, it was used to integrate different LCA models from the literature and to adjust the identified key
input parameters to the defined mobility scenarios in this thesis. The interpretation of results for the
environmental impact categories did not show a clear clustering in the environmental performance as
the different powertrains conducted to a large variability of the environmental impact results.
274
 Electric vehicles exhibited a low contribution to climate change, to a large extent linked to the
use of electricity from the French mix, relatively dominated by nuclear energy, as the energy
source in the use phase.
 In contrast, higher environmental impacts were recorded by electric vehicles compared to their
conventional counterparts for resource depletion (i.e., use of water and metal resources) and
ecosystem quality (i.e., ionizing radiation, freshwater ecotoxicity and marine eutrophication).
These impacts mainly derived from the electric batteries’ production which led to higher
impacts in the case of full BEV than in the case of PHEV.
 Public transportation (scenario 2) showed a better environmental performance compared to
personal and shared mobility; hybrid electric technologies can be a lever for reducing the
environmental footprints of transportation and improving local air quality in dense urban areas.
Chapter 4 presents the social and socio-economic evaluation of the considered mobility scenarios. The
present thesis especially contributed to S-LCA methodological development focusing on the
enhancement of evaluation of social and socio-economic impacts. To this end, chapter 4 started by
identifying the main methodological issues and current limitations within S-LCA studies for mobility
and introduced the bottlenecks to be addressed.
- The definition of impact subcategories to be analyzed in S-LCIA is blurred and calls indirectly for
a selection step. Most S-LCA studies solely use the literature review to do such selection, which
often lacks transparency. In contrast, participatory approaches have been rarely introduced, which
can further legitimate such process.
- The evaluation of social and socio-economic impacts hardly dealt with users’ stakeholder group due
to the lack of data and the complexity that may arise when conducting a specific impact analysis.
In response, the present thesis proposed a comprehensive S-LCA framework in accordance with
ISO standards to address the above-mentioned issues. The proposed step-by-step S-LCA framework
integrates two innovative features:
 A participatory approach for the selection of the relevant impact subcategories within S-
LCA (Bouillass et al. 2021)8
The participatory approach introduced in this chapter entails two stages: (1) the identification
stage, enabling the definition of sectorial-based impact subcategories for each stakeholder group
throughout the life cycle of the product, and (2) a general consultation process designed to
enable the prioritization of the identified impact subcategories and to consider the most relevant
ones from the perspective of all concerned stakeholders. The selected social and socio-economic
impact subcategories were then used to perform the S-LCIA phase and thus, contribute to a
8
G. Bouillass, I. Blanc et P. Perez-Lopez (2021) Step-by-step social life cycle assessment framework: a
participatory approach for the identification and prioritization of impact subcategories applied to mobility
scenarios, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (In press)
275
comprehensive analysis in the interpretation phase. This work is published in the International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
 A specific analysis of user-related impact subcategories.
The second introduced feature sought to support the evaluation phase, usually conducted
through a generic evaluation, by adding a user-centric specific impact assessment of mobility
services (i.e., personal, public and shared mobility use). The user-centric impact assessment
approach was therefore explained, covering from the definition of new impact subcategories
and data collection to the assessment and the interpretation of results.
In addition to these two methodological features, chapter 4 proposed different toolboxes to support S-
LCA practitioners to generalize the proposed framework to other product systems. These provide some
key requirements for designing the consultation process and conducting the specific analysis.
The work carried out in this chapter demonstrated the interest of participatory approaches to boost
stakeholders’ involvement within S-LCA framework. This is essential for further legitimating the
selection of impact subcategories and improving the representativeness of the finding. Nevertheless, the
chapter pointed out the main limitations that might be raised when applying this framework:
- The long duration and large sample size required of the surveys that need to be carefully
designed,
- The data availability
- The missing link between the proposed specific assessment and the used activity variable
(working hours) in the evaluation phase.
- The difficulty to cover the evaluation phase of S-LCA with a similar level of detail to that
of the environmental dimension, due to missing data and the complexity of modeling the
different powertrains.
Future research should further focus on the development of appropriate activity variables and account
for users-related impact categories. The proposed framework can be used, adapted and/or adjusted to
analyze other products and sectors by adding new impact subcategories and stakeholder groups, namely
the ones proposed in the most recent version of UNEP S-LCA guidelines.
Within the economic evaluation of electric mobility scenarios, chapter 5 started by introducing the main
elements of LCC together with an extensive literature review of LCC studies that targeted a wide scope
of transportation (i.e., technologies, services, infrastructures, etc.). The main limitations linked to the
development of LCC were highlighted, especially when conducted in the frame of a sustainability
analysis. In fact, this chapter served to identify two main categories of issues linked to
- The methodological development of LCC. There is still an important methodological gap for
a standardized LCC method that brings together the different techniques for economic
assessment (Cost-benefit analysis, externalities, TCO, etc.). In addition, economic impact
276
assessment approaches are still lacking, which is even more critical when conducting a
combined impact assessment within LCSA (pathway 1).
- The application of LCC to mobility scenarios: most studies in the literature targeted a
technological level, yet no prior study has used LCC for mobility services analysis. Moreover,
the life cycle perspective is not fully covered as most studies fail to consider the manufacturing
and end of life cycle stages.
In view of the identified challenges, chapter 5 provided two main outcomes:
 Establishment of key LCC phases in accordance with ISO standards (ISO 14040). Key
features to be covered within each phase of LCC are introduced. The provided insight should
help LCC practitioners to better characterize their specific needs and enable the selection of the
appropriate LCC approach that better fits the needs of their studies.
 Introduction of a user-centric approach to enable the cost assessment of the three defined
mobility scenarios. Such approach entails the assessment of transportation technologies
through a TCO model, and mobility services were analyzed by computing the cost effectiveness
of the three considered mobility services.
The delivered results from the three chapters corresponding to the environmental, social and economic
evaluation of mobility scenarios were used in the interpretation phase. However, a straightforward
interpretation of LCSA results appeared to be insufficient to support decision makers within the
development of sustainable mobility alternatives. This is due to the multidimensional nature of
sustainability, namely resulting in potential environmental impacts from LCA, social risks and
performance from S-LCA and cost indicators from LCC. This nature induces a multicriteria problem in
which the analyzed mobility scenarios delivered heterogeneous performances among the different
sustainability dimensions, but also within each dimension. Such issues where, thus, addressed in the
present PhD thesis by introducing MCDA approaches which may help tackling the emerging trade-offs
from LCSA results. This methodological contribution is directly linked with the second research
question that was identified in the introduction of this PhD thesis.
Second Research Question (RQ2):
How can LCSA results support the decision-making process within electric mobility
context considering actors’ perspectives, including users?
This PhD work looks, through this second research question, to support private and public actors of
mobility within the design of sustainable mobility alternatives integrating users’ needs and
expectations. To this end, MCDA techniques were introduced to manage the trade-offs induced from
LCSA results. Three main groups of MCDA approaches were therefore identified and explored to select
the most appropriate approach to serve the goal of this study.
277
(1) The proposed framework was presented in chapter 2, to couple the chosen MCDA approach to
LCSA results. Users are involved in the proposed framework to select the most relevant
sustainability decision criteria that guide their mobility choices and subsequently to perform
the preference analysis. The proposed stages entailed the definition of the decision-making
scenarios including the mobility alternatives, the key actors and the travel characteristics to be
investigated,
(2) The selection of sustainability decision-making criteria according to the considered actor’s
perspective, and
(3) The application of the selected MCDA approach for the study.
The conjoint analysis was selected among different MCDA techniques to be explored in view of its
ability to integrate users’ preferences and, thus, help public and private actors better adapt their mobility
offers to their needs and expectations when developing sustainable mobility alternatives. Such
technique avoids the use of a pairwise comparison that generally requires high knowledge of the
considered sustainability decision criteria from the involved actors, which is usually not the case in this
field of application. The preference analysis focuses on the performance of the different criteria
rather than their direct ranking, which makes it possible to define a set of alternatives profiles that
are closer to real-world decision scenarios. Such technique may enhance the accuracy and
representativeness of the investigated decision scenarios.
However, to reduce the number of combinations and enable the practical application of the conjoint
analysis, only a limited number of decision criteria are allowed. This can raise questions especially
within sustainability analysis, which calls for a significant number of impact categories to be analyzed.
To explore these issues, chapter 6 presented a real-world case study where the overall proposed
framework was implemented.
The case study was carried out for a specific daily commuting travel from Antibes to Sophia
Antipolis and focused on the application of the proposed framework coupling MCDA to LCSA results
interpretation. The objective of this case study was to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed
framework to enhance the interpretation phase of LCSA. Key elements of decision scenarios including
mobility actors, mobility alternatives and travel characteristics were defined. It is important to remind
that within this thesis, users are considered as key actors for mobility but not as decision makers.
Mobility alternatives from the specific case study were analyzed.
A divergence was revealed between standard LCSA impact categories and sustainability criteria
generated by the consulted users which are not familiar with LCA. This was identified as an issue
related to LCSA results exploitation. Thus, the previous environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC did not
include some of the decision criteria identified by users, whereas the life cycle perspective was not
systematically integrated within these criteria, especially for the social dimension (travel duration,
278
accessibility, health and safety). In fact, all generated issues were linked to users’ impact subcategories
and did not translate the social and socio-economic impacts for other stakeholder groups. The use of the
direct citation method in the conducted focus group can therefore raise questions in view of the impact
it can have in leading the whole results of the defined framework. It is important to note that the selection
of decision criteria often introduces a value choice, which may lead to certain limitations. Close-ended
questions can raise question giving that the practitioner affects to some extent the choice of the involved
actors by imposing a set of criteria to be selected. In addition, using such approach can be limited due
to the required knowledge of LCSA and the different impact subcategories. Future research can focus
on exploring other alternatives for the selection of the decision criteria, but also consider other MCDA
techniques that do not call for this selection. For instance, decision-making utility methods that are based
on empirical observations, may be relevant to analyze decision scenarios. These approaches allow a
maximum number of decision criteria to be considered, but do not enable the involvement of
stakeholders which was the reason they have not been selected. The preference analysis was conducted
through a Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) which allowed the number of the combinations to be reduced
and thus enabled a higher number of decision criteria to be considered, compared to a full-profile
preference analysis. Five different decision criteria were considered, namely:
→ Accessibility (social dimension)
→ Travel duration (social dimension),
→ Contribution to climate change (environmental dimension)
→ Local air quality (environmental dimension)
→ Monthly costs (economic dimension)
The application of the CBC approach allowed determining the weighting factors for each of the criteria.
According to the results, the environmental dimension was perceived as more important than the other
dimensions and was weighted at 53% in total, with 32% attributed to climate change and 21% to air
quality. The economic dimension took the second place and was weighted at 31%. Finally, the social
dimension took the third position and was weighted at 16% with 8% equally attributed to accessibility
and travel duration. The interpretation of the results has brought to light the awareness of mobility users
to the environmental, social and economic aspects related to their daily choices. Such results highlight
the importance of considering users’ perspective within the design of sustainable mobility alternatives.
The conjoint analysis was for this and very relevant and enabled introducing users’ preferences in an
effective way.
Several prior studies have introduced weighting approaches to LCSA. These studies used different
MCDA techniques to better manage the trade-offs induced from LCSA results and to communicate
sustainability assessment results in a clearer manner. However, the consistency of these approaches has
not been thoroughly analyzed in previous studies. In fact, a wide range of MCDA approaches can be
used, as previously explained, which often calls for value choices that are not sufficiently justified and
279
transparent. In this regard, the present work added a deeper insight in the interpretation of results to
check the accuracy of the weighting factors with a large-scale survey conducted in the same
geographical area of the study across 3 642 transportation users. The results of data analysis for the
large-scale study revealed a significant divergence in the results with respect to the focus group results.
Thus, in the large-scale study, social dimension obtained the highest score among the different drivers
for users’ choices. The consulted users ranked the environmental dimension as second position and
finally the economic dimension took the last position of the scoring.
Such results reveal a major limitation and question the whole weighting approach and its reliability to
support the decision-making process. In fact, the integration of such approaches can lead to a simplistic
interpretation of sustainability results and a misuse of the results in the decision-making. This can be
explained by the following reasons:
 The number of selected decision criteria selected needs to be limited, so as to facilitate the
implementation of the chosen MCDA approach. Hence, it prevents considering all the analyzed
impact categories within LCSA to support the decision-making.
 Weighting approaches call for the introduction of value choices that systematically induce a
partial representation from the concerned stakeholder of the significant impact categories. In
fact, the focus group revealed that users identified merely decision criteria that directly affect them
but do not consider the impacts on other stakeholder categories and other life cycle stages.
 Representativeness of the used sample can significantly influence the final obtained results.
The conducted focus group and the preference analysis although targeting users from the same
geographical area, demonstrated significant differences in the results.
 Outcomes from the MCDA are highly dependent on the MCDA technique type. Hence, the
consistency of the obtained results should be carefully analyzed. Future research can focus on
experimentation of different MCDA techniques and comparison of the results to identify the
variability of the ranking. In the present study, the ranking was analyzed regarding the
representativeness of the sample.
Other MCDA approaches should be defined to ensure that decision-making based on LCSA is
consciously made and accounts for the different sustainability dimensions and for the impact categories
within each dimension. It is also important to ensure that the life cycle perspective is respected, and the
defined decision criteria cover the impacts for the different stakeholder categories. Compensation
between the different positive and negative impacts, which can lead to a misinterpretation of results,
should be carefully handled. Hence, it is for future research studies to investigate how to avoid such
compensation of impacts within a sustainability dimension or among the three dimensions when
considered jointly.
280
Generalization of the proposed framework to other mobility scenarios and other actors
The current thesis work sought to contribute to research and application of LCSA by proposing a
consistent methodological framework for mobility scenarios. Such framework paid especial attention to
stakeholders’ involvement and, more specifically, users’ expectations and needs in terms mobility to
support the decision-making towards a sustainable mobility. The proposed framework can be adjusted
to cover other products and systems and include other stakeholders’ perspectives. The following
suggestions are proposed as an outcome of this PhD thesis to ease adopting the framework and its
application to other product systems:
 The study should pay especial attention to the goal and scope of the study, to clearly define the
system boundaries and prevent important key stakeholders from being excluded. In S-LCA,
users’ or consumers’ stakeholder groups should not be let out of the scope and efforts should be
deployed to further account for their relative social and socio-economic impacts. The involvement
of users within the design phase can significantly improve the accuracy of decision-making by
investigating potential future societal resistance from the development of the alternatives under
consideration.
 The involvement of stakeholders within the definition of the impact categories appeared to be
very relevant for narrowing down the scope to indicators that were perceived for them as
important. If possible, the study should include a participatory approach that enables a large panel
of stakeholders’ perceptions to be covered for the definition of the relevant impact subcategories.
Participatory approaches can be an interesting alternative instead of classical weighting of impact
assessment results, which introduces the value choices impact subcategories before the assessment.
 Future studies can use the proposed stages to explore other MCDA techniques and account for
other stakeholders’ perspectives and decision scenarios. These studies should carefully select the
most appropriate MCDA technique in such a way that serves their specific goal and scope. In the
present thesis, the conjoint analysis was convenient to account for the users’ perspective.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that this approach can also be adapted for other stakeholders. The
proposed recommendations in chapter 5 can be used to explore other data collection procedures
through the design of different consultation processes to involve the different stakeholders.
The work carried out in this PhD has the ambition to foster the development of LCSA, which
undeniably can provide thorough insight on the three sustainability dimensions with a life cycle
perspective. Such comprehensive vision is more than ever necessary to inform the ongoing transition
towards sustainable production and consumption patterns.
Finally, in order to bypass wild storms, the ship does not only need strong stirring, but also skillful
captain that know how to follow the available maps.
281
282
Glossary
Glossary
Term Definition
Activity variable “An activity variable is a measure of process activity or scale which can be related to
process output. Activity variables, scaled by the output of each relevant process, are used
to reflect the share of a given activity associated with each unit process. A relevant
activity variable is worker-hours. Process-specific coefficients of worker-hours per unit
of process output are used to estimate the share of total life cycle worker-hours associated
with each unit process.”9
Area of protection “A state that is desired to be sustained or protected which is of recognizable value to
society, in the specific context of sustainability assessment. In the field of S-LCA, one
area of protection has been defined and is referred to as human well-being (health and
happiness) or simply social well-being.” Erreur ! Signet non défini.
Attributes In MCDA, the attributes correspond to the decision-making criteria that are considered
within the study.
Characterization Factor, derived from a characterization model, that is applied to convert an assigned Life
factor Cycle Inventory Analysis result to the common unit of the category and/or subcategory
indicator.10
Choice-based Technique that enables the preference analysis within the conjoint analysis by proposing
conjoint (CBC) a set of possible profiles that reflect different specifications of the attributes (e.g.
decision-making criteria)
Conjoint Analysis A type of MCDA that uses an outranking preferences model. The considered
(CA) stakeholders are thus involved to rank different combinations / profiles according to their
preference and meeting their needs and expectations.
Cost category A class of cost indicators, which helps categorizing the different indicators within a Life
Cycle Cost Inventory phase. These indicators can correspond to a specific sustainability
dimension (environmental cost categories, social cost categories) or to a specific
stakeholder (e.g. users-related costs, manufacturers and designers-related costs), or to a
specific life cycle stage (manufacturing costs, operation costs, energy production costs,
end of life costs).
Decision-maker Public actors developing transportation-specific policies and action plans and/orprivate
actors such as designers of transportation technologies and services providers, etc.
Decision-making A specific scenario that involves different mobility actors, mobility alternatives with
scenario specific geographical and urban characteristics.
9
Definition from UNEP. (2020). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations (C.
Benoît Norris, M. Traverso, S. Neugebauer, E. Ekener, T. Schaubroeck, S. Russo Garrido, M. Berger, S.
Valdivia, A. Lehmann, M. Finkbeiner, & G. Arcesse, Eds.). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-
of-Products-and-Organizations-2020-sml.pdf
10
ISO 14040. (2006). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. ISO.
283
Glossary
Focus group “A focus group is a type of group interview organized to acquire a portrait of combined
local perspective on a specific set of issues. What distinguishes the focus group technique
from the wider range of group interviews is the explicit use of the group interaction to
produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in
a group.”9
Functional unit “Quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit in a life cycle
assessment study, and also valid for an S-LCA”9
Impact category “A social impact category is a class that covers certain social issues of interest to
stakeholders and decision makers. In practice, impact categories are logical groupings of
S-LCA (subcategory) results.”9
Impact Pathway “Impact pathway S-LCIA assesses potential or actual social impacts by using causal or
Social Life Cycle correlation/regression-based directional relationships between the product
Assessment system/organizations’ activities and the resulting potential social impacts – a process
called “characterization”. Here, the analysis focuses on identifying and tracking the
consequences of activities possibly to longer-term implications along an impact
pathway.”9
Impact subcategory “It is a constituent of an impact category that is assigned to a stakeholder group, for
example “Health and Safety” for the stakeholder group “Workers”. Multiple
subcategories, possibly across various stakeholder groups, may be part of an overarching
impact category” Erreur ! Signet non défini.
Inventory indicator “An indicator is a measurement or value which gives you an idea of what something is
like”9
Life Cycle “Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental
Assessment (LCA) impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle”10
Life Cycle Cost In this research, LCCI consists of data collection including all cost indicators and input
Inventory (LCCI) parameters defined within the goal and scope and with respect to the system boundaries.
Life Cycle impact “Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude
assessment (LCIA) and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout
the life cycle of the product.”10
Life Cycle “Phase of life cycle assessment in which the findings of either the inventory analysis or
Interpretation the impact assessment, or both, are evaluated in relation to the defined goal and scope in
order to reach conclusions and recommendations”10
Life cycle inventory “Phase of life cycle assessment involving the compilation and quantification of inputs
analysis and outputs for a product throughout its life cycle.”10
Life Cycle Methodological framework that introduces the life cycle perspective to the three-
Sustainability sustainability dimension by bringing together the environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC.
Assessment (LCSA) It allows the evaluation of the environmental impact categories, stakeholder impact
subcategories and costs categories of the product system under consideration.
Life Cycle Thinking “Going beyond the traditional focus on production site and manufacturing processes so
to include the environmental, social, and economic impact of a product over its entire
life cycle. [UNEP-DTIE-Life Cycle Management, a Business Guide to Sustainability]”9
Materiality “Materiality assessment is a process to select topics that are more important because of
Assessment their impact on stakeholders and/or on the business. The Global Reporting Initiative
consider material issues to be the ones that reflect the organization’s significant social
impacts; or that substantively influence the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.
This is also recommended by ISO 26000”9
284
Glossary
Methodological Coherent set of methods

framework
Mobility Is the ability of people and goods to be moved by means of transportation
Mobility actors Key stakeholders that are directly involved in the decision-making process. It can be
decision-makers, e.g. public authorities and transportation policy-makers, or private
actors such as transportation manufacturers, services providers, etc. or an interested
party who is significantly and directly affected by the mobility decision scheme such as
users, local communities, etc.
Mobility scenario Defined through four elements in this research: mobility services, transportation
technologies, transportation infrastructure and energy consumption
Mobility services use Service whose purpose is to provide mobility solutions to people. Three main categories
are distinguished in this research: personal mobility, public / collective mobility and
shared mobility.
Modal shift Designates the modification of the market shares between the various modes of
transportation. It is most commonly used to promote alternative modes of transport to
substitute the individual use of private vehicles.
Multicriteria decision A methodology that aims through various available techniques to support the decision-
analysis (MCDA) making process by explicitly managing the multiple conflict criteria and that could
present antagonist results, e.g. cost versus comfort versus emissions, could be considered
when purchasing a car.
Organization “Company, corporation, firm, enterprise, authority, or institution, or part or
combination thereof, whether incorporated or not, public or private, that has its own
functions and administration. [ISO 14001 (2004)]”9
Parametrized LCA Model assessing the environmental impacts in LCA according to set parameters
model identified with a high influence on results.
Participatory “Approach in which actors participate and contribute to the study or scientific process”9
approach
Performance “Quantitative and qualitative markers of performance for each of the social topics, e.g.
indicators number of working hours during weekends, minimum wage paid, etc.”11
Performance “Thresholds, targets, or objectives that set different levels of social performance or
Reference Points social risk. PRPs allow to estimate the magnitude and significance of the potential
(PRPs) social impacts associated with organizations in the product system. The PRPs are
context-dependent and are often based on international standards, local legislation, or
industry best practices – Comparing inventory indicator data with PRPs allows to
qualify performance on a scale”9
Potential social and “Social topic for which an adverse impact is probable; the probability could also be
socio-economic quantified (e.g. child labor is a social risk, with high probability, since cotton production
impacts takes place in Country X where probability for child labor is generally high)”9
Reference Scale “Reference scale S-LCIA assesses the social performance in the product system. More
Social Life Cycle specifically, it assesses the social performance of activities of organizations in the
Impact Assessment product system (e.g., the practices implemented to manage social impacts) based on
specific reference points of expected activity (called performance reference points -
PRPs).”Erreur ! Signet non défini.
11
Fontes, J., Gaasbeek, A., Goedkoop, M., Contreras, S., & Evitts, S. (2016). Handbook for Product Social Impact
Assessment 3.0. PréSustainability. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23821.74720
285
Glossary
Reference scales “Reference scales are ordinal scales, typically comprised of 1 to 5 levels, each of which
corresponds to a performance reference point (PRP).”9
Social hotspot “A social hotspot is a location and/or activity in the life cycle where a social issue (as
impact) and/or social risk are likely to occur. It is usually linked to life cycle stages or
processes. It needs to contribute significantly to the impact (overall, by impact category
or subcategory). In other words, social hotspots are unit processes located in a region
where a problem, a risk, or an opportunity may occur in relation to a social issue that is
considered to be threatening social well-being or that may contribute to its further
development.” Erreur ! Signet non défini.
Social impact “Social impacts are consequences of positive or negative pressures on social endpoints
of area of protection (i.e. well-being of stakeholders).”9
Social inventory “Social indicators are evidence, subjective or objective, qualitative, quantitative, or semi-
indicators quantitative being collected in order to facilitate concise, comprehensive and balanced
judgements about the condition of specific social aspects with respect to a set of values
and goals.”9
Social performance “Refers to the principles, practices, and outcomes of businesses’ relationships with
people, organizations, institutions, communities, and societies in terms of the
deliberate actions of businesses toward these stakeholders as well as the unintended
externalities of business activity measured against a known standard (Wood, 2016).
Commonly, social performance is measured at the inventory indicator level.”9
Social risk “Social topic for which an adverse impact is probable; the probability could also be
quantified (e.g. child labor is a social risk, with high probability, since cotton production
takes place in Country X where probability for child labor is generally high)”9
Sectorial social risk A screening of social risks related to the investigated product system, including the
analysis geographical location, sector, activities, stakeholders that are involved.
Social significance “Social significance is a judgment on the degree to which a situation or impacts are
important. It is highly dependent on context, based on criteria, normative, contingent on
values, and entails considering trade-offs.”9
Socio-economic “Which involves a combination of social and economic factors or conditions.”9
Stakeholder “Individual or group that has an interest in any activities or decisions of an organization.
[ISO 26000, 2008].”9
Stakeholder category “Cluster of stakeholders that are expected to have similar interests due to their similar
relationship to the investigated product system.”9
Sustainability Represent the LCSA impact categories that are processed in the interpretation phase
decision-criteria through an MCDA approach. They can be directly derived from LCSA or selected by
the involved stakeholders.
Transportation The means by which people and freight are moved from point A to point B.
Unit process “Smallest element considered in the life cycle inventory analysis for which input, and
output data are quantified”10
Users Refers to “consumers”, “customers”, or “passengers”. This category corresponds to
primary users by whom the investigated product is intended to be used or consumed. It
does not include the secondary users, namely workers in the use phase such as bus
drivers.
Weighting “Converting and possibly aggregating indicator results across impact categories using
numerical factors based on value-choices; data prior to weighting should remain
available.”9
286
287
Acronyms & Signification
Acronyms & Signification

AVAS Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
CA Conjoint Analysis
CASA Communauté d’Agglomération Sophia Antipolis
CBC Choice-Based Conjoint
CE Circular Economy
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
CSS Country Specific Sector
EC European Commission
E-LCC Environmental Life Cycle Costing
EU European Union
EV Electric Vehicle
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle
ICEV Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
IEA International Energy Agency
ILCD International Reference Life Cycle Data System
IP S-LCIA Impact Pathway Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment
IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services
ISO International Standardization Organization
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCC Life Cycle Costing
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
LCSA Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
MCDA Multicriteria Decision Analysis
MRIO Multi Regional Input Output
NEDC New European Driving Cycle
OECD Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
PHEV Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle
PM Particulate Matter
PRP Performance Reference Points
PSIA Product Social Impact Assessment
PSILCA Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment
RS S-LCIA Reference Scale Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SHDB Social Hotspot Database
S-LCA Social Life Cycle Assessment
S-LCC Social Life Cycle Costing
S-LCI Social Life Cycle Inventory
S-LCIA Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment
TCO Total Costs of Ownership
UNEP United Nations Environmental Program
WHO World Health Organization
WLTC Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Conditions
288
289
RÉSUMÉ
Le transport est l'un des principaux moteurs du développement socio-économique, mais il est aussi une source majeure
de pollution qui menace l'environnement et la société dans son ensemble. Substituer les systèmes actuels de transport
basés sur les énergies fossiles vers des modèles de mobilité plus durables est une orientation qui mérite d’être explorée,
notamment la mobilité électrique qui explose actuellement sur le marché. A cet égard, il est incontournable de caractériser
les impacts environnementaux, sociaux et économiques qui lui sont associés. Ces informations sont indispensables pour
permettre aux acteurs publics et privés de prendre des décisions éclairées afin de gérer au mieux cette période de
transition.
Cette thèse de doctorat vise à concevoir un cadre global d'évaluation de la durabilité de scénarios de mobilité, en adoptant
une perspective de cycle de vie. L’analyse de la durabilité du cycle de vie (ADCV) est au cœur de la contribution
méthodologique de ces travaux. Celle-ci étant encore à un stade précoce de développement, implique la résolution de
défis méthodologiques majeurs. À cet égard, des lignes directrices pour la conduite de LCSA sont proposées avec un
cadre complet pour évaluer les scénarios de mobilité électrique sous l’angle à la fois des technologies et des services de
transport. L'implication des parties prenantes est explorée à travers une vision intégrée de l’ADCV à la prise de décision.
En particulier, les usagers des transports sont au centre de l'attention de ces travaux pour permettre la prise en compte de
leurs besoins et attentes dans le contexte d’une prise de décision par les décideurs (pouvoirs publics et industriels) en
faveur d’une mobilité durable. Ainsi, afin d'apporter des connaissances pertinentes sur la durabilité aux décideurs,
l'analyse multicritères de décisions est introduite pour gérer les conflits potentiels issus des résultats de l’analyse de
durabilité tout en tenant compte des perceptions des utilisateurs. Cette approche devrait faciliter la connexion avec les
autorités publiques et les acteurs industriels, impliqués dans le processus de prise de décision, en leur fournissant
simultanément des informations scientifiques sur les trois dimensions de la durabilité et les perceptions des utilisateurs.
MOTS CLÉS
Mobilité électrique, Analyse de durabilité, Analyse de Cycle de Vie environnementale, Analyse Sociale de Cycle de
Vie, Analyse de Coûts de Cycle de vie, Approche participative, Analyse multicritère de prise de décision
ABSTRACT
Transportation is one of the main drivers of socio-economic development, but it is also a major source of pollution that
threatens the environment and society. Substituting current fossil fuel-based transportation systems for more sustainable
mobility models is a worthy direction to explore, especially electric mobility which is currently exploding on the market.
In this respect, it is essential to characterize the environmental, social and economic impacts associated with it. This
information is essential to allow public and private actors to make informed decisions to best manage this transition
period.
This PhD thesis aims to design a comprehensive framework for assessing the sustainability of mobility scenarios,
adopting a life cycle perspective. Life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) is at the core of the methodological
contribution of this work. It is still at an early stage of development and involves the resolution of major methodological
challenges. In this respect, guidelines for conducting LCSA are proposed with a comprehensive framework for
evaluating electric mobility scenarios with respect to both technologies and transport services. Stakeholder involvement
is explored through an integrated view from LCSA to decision making. In particular, transport users are at the center of
attention of this work to allow their needs and expectations to be accounted for in the context of decision making by
decision makers (public authorities and industry) in favor of sustainable mobility. Thus, to provide relevant knowledge
on sustainability to decision makers, multi-criteria decision analysis is introduced to manage potential conflicts arising
from the results of the sustainability analysis while accounting users' perspective. This approach should facilitate the
connection with public authorities and industrial actors, involved in the decision-making process, by providing them
simultaneously with scientific information on the three dimensions of sustainability and users' perspective.
KEYWORDS
Electric mobility, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, Social Life Cycle
Assessment, Life Cycle Costing, Participatory approaches, Multicriteria Decision Making

220425_Manuscript VF_GB

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

220425_Manuscript VF_GB

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

220425_Manuscript VF_GB

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Préparée à MINES ParisTech

Sustainability Assessment of Electric Mobility Scenarios

Analyse de durabilité de scénarios de mobilité électrique

Soutenue par Composition du jury :

Ecole doctorale n° 621 Matthias, FINKBEINER

Systèmes, Matériaux, Alessandra, ZAMAGNI

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Résumé étendu Français

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Première question de recherche (QR1) :

Deuxième question de recherche (QR2) :

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

- Scénario 1 : mobilité personnelle qui repose sur l'utilisation individuelle de voitures

Cette définition permet d’orienter le développement du cadre méthodologique de l’ADCV et son

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

La deuxième problématique concerne la phase d'évaluation des impacts (troisième phase de

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

La dimension environnementale : méthode d’évaluation par ACV paramétrée et résultats

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

La présente thèse contribue aux avancées méthodologiques de l'ASCV en se concentrant sur

En réponse à ces deux difficultés, un cadre méthodologique spécifique à la conduite de l’Analyse de

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

(2) Une analyse spécifique des sous-catégories d'impact liées à l'utilisateur.

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

concentrant sur de nouvelles approches de modélisation d’impacts. Le cadre méthodologique proposé

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

L’interprétation des résultats issus de l’évaluation de durabilité de cycle de vie

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

1) Définition du « scénario de décision » : alternatives à comparer, acteurs, caractéristiques

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

1. Accessibilité (dimension sociale)

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

- Le nombre de critères de décision sélectionnés doit être limité, de manière à faciliter la

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

catégories d’impacts et de parties prenantes évaluées dans le cadre de l’ADCV peuvent se

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Ghada Bouillass, Phd Manuscript 2021, MINES Paristech, PSL University

Résumé étendu Français .......................................................................................................................... 7

Table of content ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter I: Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 35

1. Transportation and sustainable development .......................................................................... 35

3. Objective and research questions .............................................................................................. 42

4. Thesis outline and structure ....................................................................................................... 43

Summary (II) ......................................................................................................................................... 52

Table of content (II) .............................................................................................................................. 53

1. Methodological background of sustainability assessment and life cycle-based methods ......... 54

3. Designing a comprehensive LCSA methodological framework ............................................... 71

4. Tackling trade-off management challenges in LCSA through MCDA approaches .................. 77

5. Conclusions of the chapter ........................................................................................................ 86

Summary (III) ........................................................................................................................................ 98

Table of content (III) ............................................................................................................................. 99

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 100