Expanding Social Impact Assessment Methodologies Within SDGs: A Case Study on Novel Wind and Tidal Turbine Blades Development

Abstract

The European Union’s commitment to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions by promoting renewable energy necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the societal impacts of these initiatives to achieve sustainable development. A significant challenge lies in effectively assessing the social impacts of the wind and tidal energy sector. This paper addresses this issue by presenting an expanded methodology derived from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Impact Assessment, specifically tailored to assess social impacts. The methodology focuses on social SDGs, particularly Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3), Gender Equality (SDG 5), Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG 7), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11), and Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17). Irrelevant targets are excluded based on defined criteria, while the remaining targets are characterized according to their impact pathways, validated through peer review, and prioritized by experts. The results underscore the importance of strategic partnerships, innovative material development, and gender equality in achieving global sustainability objectives. This research offers valuable insights into integrating SDG-aligned indicators within project frameworks, providing a replicable model for similar initiatives.

1. Introduction

The global shift to renewable energy is crucial for both mitigating climate change and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This energy transition demands a holistic approach that incorporates environmental, economic, and social dimensions. The SDGs provide a recognized framework to guide sustainability efforts, emphasizing equitable and inclusive development [1]. While the environmental benefits of renewable energy technologies are well-documented, their societal impacts remain underexplored. Tools like the SDG Impact Assessment Tool address this gap by evaluating contributions to SDG targets through both qualitative and quantitative methods [2].

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) frameworks have traditionally been applied to infrastructure and resource extraction projects, offering structured methodologies for evaluating societal implications [3]. However, renewable energy projects pose unique challenges that require adaptations to these frameworks. The need to balance technological innovation with social equity and well-being has become increasingly urgent, particularly as projects grow in complexity and scale.

This study aims to address this gap by developing a tailored methodology for assessing the social impacts of renewable energy projects through the integration of SDG-aligned indicators. The research presents a case study of the Carbo4Power project, an EU-funded initiative focused on wind and tidal turbine blade technologies. This project demonstrates how renewable energy initiatives can simultaneously advance both technological innovation and social sustainability by aligning with SDG targets.

The study explores the following research questions:

• How can SDGs be incorporated into SIA frameworks for renewable energy projects?
• What tailored indicators are required to comprehensively evaluate societal impacts?
• How can synergies and trade-offs between environmental and social goals be managed to achieve balanced outcomes?

By addressing these questions, the study develops a replicable model that integrates SDGs into renewable energy project assessments, contributing to both the European Union’s sustainability goals and global efforts for equitable development.

Since its inception in the 1970s, SIA has evolved into a comprehensive tool for managing social issues throughout a project’s lifecycle [4,5]. It is widely adopted across the Global South and by organizations like the World Bank, playing a key role in promoting environmental technology and financing renewable energy projects [6,7]. Defined by [8], SIA focuses on analyzing, monitoring, and managing the social consequences of development projects, with a growing emphasis on stakeholder engagement, community development, and cultural preservation [7]. By integrating social research and public engagement, SIA ensures systematic evaluation of both positive and negative social impacts [9].

The International Principles for SIA promote best practices in addressing social impacts through community participation and capacity building [8]. These principles underscore the importance of securing a social license to operate by incorporating local knowledge and addressing community concerns [10]. However, challenges persist in measuring social impacts due to the complexity of applying both qualitative and quantitative metrics [11].

Despite extensive research on socio-economic indicators such as job creation and economic growth, the nuanced social implications of renewable energy projects remain underexamined [12]. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasizes a balanced approach to sustainability, with equal attention to economic, environmental, and social dimensions [13]. The SDGs initiated a global movement toward a more responsible world, emphasizing the equal importance of the three pillars of sustainability: economy, environment, and society [14]. The European Union’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to a low-carbon economy by 2050 highlights the importance of addressing both social and economic challenges for societal acceptance [15,16]. SIA offers valuable insights into how renewable energy projects can impact communities, supporting informed decision-making and public support [17].

The SDGs, introduced in 2015, consist of 17 goals and 169 targets, shaping global sustainability policies and guiding diverse sectors [18,19]. These goals emphasize equity and social justice as central themes [20]. Organizations are increasingly aligning their strategies with SDG indicators, demonstrating a shift toward integrating both social and environmental concerns [21]. However, the integration of SDGs into Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) remains fragmented, with only 13% of studies incorporating SDG targets directly into impact assessment methodologies [14]. Challenges include the regional specificity of S-LCA, which complicates its alignment with global SDG metrics. The UNEP/SETAC Guidelines attempt to address these limitations by linking S-LCA sub-categories to SDGs, though further research is needed to harmonize these methodologies for promoting sustainable development [22].

2. Conceptual Work Framework

2.1. Integrating Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SIA serves as a vital tool to evaluate and manage the social dimensions of development projects. Traditionally applied in infrastructure and resource extraction, SIA has evolved to incorporate broader sustainability concerns, particularly under the framework of the United Nations’ SDGs. These goals emphasize equitable development across social, environmental, and economic pillars [1]. However, integrating SDG targets within SIA frameworks remains a challenge, as many assessment models fail to capture the complexity of social impacts specific to renewable energy projects [14].

To address this gap, this study adopts a structured approach that adapts relevant SDG targets to renewable energy contexts, ensuring that social equity, community well-being, and stakeholder engagement are prioritized alongside technological advancements.

2.2. Key Concepts and Methodological Innovations

This research builds on the following concepts to enhance existing frameworks:

• Adapting SDG Indicators: Indicators were tailored to align with project-specific objectives, balancing global targets with localized needs [23].
• Characterizing Social Impacts: Direct and indirect social impacts were categorized to address both immediate and long-term consequences, ensuring comprehensive assessments.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Recognizing that stakeholder perspectives are crucial, the framework integrates participatory processes to capture diverse viewpoints and enhance inclusivity [8].
• Quantitative and Qualitative Metrics: The methodology combines data-driven insights, such as standard deviation analysis, with qualitative evaluations to provide a holistic assessment of social sustainability [22].

This multifaceted approach bridges the theoretical principles of SIA with practical project assessments, demonstrating its applicability through the Carbo4Power project case study.

2.3. Conceptual Framework for Social Impact Assessment in Renewable Energy Projects

The conceptual framework, illustrated in Figure 1, demonstrates how renewable energy projects can align with SDG objectives by integrating tailored social impact indicators and stakeholder feedback mechanisms. This model emphasizes the iterative process of aligning project activities with sustainability goals, supporting both environmental and social outcomes. The framework is designed to:

• Enhance decision-making through dynamic feedback loops.
• Address synergies and trade-offs between sustainability dimensions.
• Provide a replicable template for future renewable energy initiatives.

3. Methodologies for SIA, Pros/Cons, and Challenges

The Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) has become a key methodology for evaluating social impacts along supply chains [24], providing a foundation for social impact assessments in energy technologies [25]. Built on the ISO 14040 framework, which was originally developed for Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (E-LCA), S-LCA offers valuable insights into the social aspects of sustainability by assessing impacts across a product’s entire life cycle—from raw material extraction to end-of-life stages—using both generic and site-specific data [22]. Importantly, S-LCA accounts for geographical differences, as social impacts are highly location-dependent [26]. Unlike E-LCA, which focuses on physical quantities, S-LCA uses both quantitative and qualitative data, often measuring social impact in terms of “worker-hours”. The assessment phase includes performance reference points and thresholds for both positive and negative impacts [22]. Despite its strengths, S-LCA faces challenges, including the lack of standardized indicators and metrics, which can result in inconsistent assessments. Data availability and quality are common limitations, making it difficult to acquire accurate social impact data [27]. Social impacts are also context-specific, complicating cross-case comparisons. The Social Life Cycle Assessment requires extensive stakeholder engagement, which can be time-intensive and resource-heavy. UNEP/SETAC’s 2009 Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products provide a framework to address these issues, complementing other tools like Environmental LCA and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) for a holistic evaluation of goods and services in a sustainable context. Social Life Cycle Assessment has evolved since the mid-1990s, but it still displays significant variability and is often criticized for methodological inconsistencies [27,28]. These concerns point to the need for refining S-LCA to improve its accuracy and applicability [29]. Several studies have explored methodologies for assessing the social impacts of renewable energy projects. Buchmayr et al. [25] developed a comprehensive SIA framework for wind energy technologies, integrating S-LCA type I and II, job quality assessments, and local impact perception surveys, which revealed higher negative global impacts for offshore wind projects due to material demands. Lehmann et al. [30] focused on S-LCA for offshore wind farms, emphasizing health, safety, and the need for diverse stakeholder engagement, identifying component suppliers as the most sensitive stakeholders. Omodara et al. [31] introduced a Product Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT) to evaluate wind turbines across their life cycles, highlighting the superior sustainability of doubly fed induction generators in manufacturing. El Kinani et al. [32] assessed social factors like community acceptance and visual impacts of wind projects in France, stressing the importance of consultation and community involvement. Fois et al. [33] used the Mixed Environmental, Economic, and Social (MEES) method to balance social concerns, such as noise, with renewable energy benefits in a Sardinian wind project. Windemer and Cowell [34] examined the reversibility of impacts from onshore wind projects in the UK, identifying gaps in policy and practice, while Barney et al. [35] used multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate energy scenarios in the Faroe Islands, incorporating local social perspectives to assess offshore wind and tidal energy. Bianchi and Fernandez [36] assessed the social and economic impacts of tidal energy in Orkney, Scotland, using Location Quotients and Input-Output multipliers to map local economic benefits, and Rivera et al. [37] examined environmental and social impacts of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and tidal devices off the coast of Chiapas, Mexico. Despite the value of S-LCA, significant challenges remain, such as the lack of standardized indicators and databases, as noted by Mármol et al. [21], necessitating alternative frameworks for industrial projects like Carbo4Power.

Safe-and-Sustainable-by-Design (SSbD) is another approach, central to the European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (EC-CSS). It ensures that chemicals, materials, and products are safe and sustainable throughout their life cycles. SSbD integrates functionality with circularity, climate neutrality, and safety, which is crucial to achieving the European Green Deal’s goals of climate neutrality and a toxic-free environment [38]. The SSbD framework emphasizes minimizing harmful chemicals and reducing environmental footprints. A two-phase framework, proposed by the Joint Research Center (JRC) in 2022, involves a (re)-design phase and a safety and sustainability assessment phase, covering environmental sustainability and socio-economic aspects [39]. While still evolving, SSbD also considers broader social dimensions, including human rights, labor conditions, and governance, ensuring that products contribute positively to societal well-being [40]. The SSbD framework ensures products and services not only meet environmental and safety standards but also contribute positively to social well-being, enhancing sustainable value chains and societal outcomes [41].

Finally, the SDG Impact Assessment Tool [42] offers a structured, five-step methodology for evaluating project alignment with the SDGs. The tool evaluates contributions to SDG targets using a rating system from strong positive to strong negative, covering environmental, social, and economic categories. Stakeholder engagement is encouraged, and results are visualized through graphs and heatmaps for easy analysis. Recent research emphasizes how tools like this enable organizations to strengthen the integration of SDGs across various sustainability pillars, improving both impact assessment and decision-making [2]. This iterative process helps organizations refine their alignment with global sustainability targets, making the tool suitable for renewable energy projects and strategic decision-making.

While a variety of methodologies exist for assessing social impacts, it is essential to understand their relative strengths and limitations to ensure the most appropriate approach is selected. Several methodologies have been developed to assess the social impacts of projects, products, or policies. Understanding these approaches is essential to selecting the appropriate method for evaluating the social impact of initiatives like the Carbo4Power project. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), derived from Environmental LCA (E-LCA), assesses the social and socio-economic aspects of products across their lifecycle [22]. It provides a structured framework for evaluating social impacts using both site-specific and generic data, raising awareness of social sustainability issues. However, S-LCA studies often face criticism for methodological inconsistencies and contradictions [27,28]. Furthermore, S-LCA predominantly focuses on developing countries, which can overlook broader social considerations in other contexts. The method’s isolation from broader social sustainability goals, such as the SDGs, further limits its application in various sectors, including the automotive industry.

Sustainability Impact Assessment is an iterative process that evaluates policies across the three pillars of sustainability—social, economic, and environmental—while also proposing mitigation measures. Its strength lies in stakeholder involvement throughout the process, ensuring diverse perspectives are considered. However, while SIA evaluates all sustainability pillars comprehensively, it may miss certain nuanced impacts, limiting its depth in assessing specific social or environmental factors. The SDG Impact Assessment Tool helps users assess how projects align with SDGs by offering a structured framework to evaluate a project’s impact. However, the tool’s effectiveness relies heavily on user knowledge of sustainable development, and it does not delve into SDGs at the target level, which can limit the depth of analysis. The SSbD approach integrates social and environmental considerations early in the product design process. SSbD’s main strength lies in promoting socially responsible product creation from the outset, ensuring products meet safety and sustainability standards. However, the SSbD is still evolving and faces challenges in harmonizing with existing frameworks, including the need for standardized methodologies, better data availability, and increased stakeholder engagement [43].

Given these methodologies’ varied strengths and weaknesses, the choice of approach must be tailored to the specific needs and context of each assessment. The Carbo4Power project, funded under the Horizon 2020 framework (Grant Agreement number 953192), exemplifies how social impact assessments can be practically applied within the renewable energy sector. Focused on the development of advanced offshore wind and tidal turbine technologies, Carbo4Power integrates sustainability by utilizing next-generation materials and innovative manufacturing. Beyond its technological advancements, the project incorporates structured methodologies to evaluate its contributions to social sustainability, aligning with key SDG targets. This dual focus on both innovation and societal well-being makes it a replicable model for aligning renewable energy projects with global sustainability goals.

For this research, we developed a customized methodology that focuses exclusively on the social pillar of sustainability. S-LCA, with its focus on developing countries, did not align well with our broader social context, and its lack of integration with SDGs further limited its relevance for our project. Although the SDG Impact Assessment Tool evaluates all sustainability pillars, the environmental and economic aspects of the Carbo4Power project have already been addressed through LCA, Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Levelized Cost of Energy (LCoE). Our methodology bridges this gap by specifically targeting social impacts, while integrating SDGs for a more comprehensive evaluation, merging best practices from established frameworks with the project’s unique requirements.

4. Methodology

To provide a clear overview of the methodological framework used in this study, Figure 2 visually summarizes the key steps in the social impact assessment process. Each step, from the identification of relevant SDG targets to the final characterization of social impacts, is detailed in the sections that follow.

4.1. Step 1: Identification of Social Impact Target

The first step involved categorizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into social, environmental, and economic pillars, focusing on societal impacts crucial to the Carbo4Power project. Based on the framework by the Stockholm Resilience Centre [44], this categorization emphasized the interconnected nature of the SDGs. While environmental and economic goals were addressed through LCA, LCC, and LCoE analyses, the focus here was on social goals. After a pre-review process, three SDGs—Zero Hunger (SDG2), Quality Education (SDG4), and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG16)—were excluded as they lacked direct relevance to the project. Six SDGs—No Poverty (SDG1), Good Health and Well-being (SDG3), Gender Equality (SDG5), Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG7), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG11), and Partnerships to Achieve the Goals (SDG17)—were retained, aligning closely with the project’s core objectives.

4.2. Step 2: Categorization and Screening of Targets

To ensure a focused social impact assessment, the 169 SDG targets were systematically evaluated for relevance to the Carbo4Power project. This process applied three criteria: geographical relevance, policy dependence, and alignment with the project’s scope.

• Geographical Relevance: Targets addressing issues specific to developing countries were excluded, as the project’s impact is region-specific.
• Policy Dependence: Targets heavily reliant on external regulatory frameworks or policies beyond the project’s control were removed.
• Project Scope: Targets unrelated to Carbo4Power’s objectives or referencing timelines outside the project’s duration were excluded.

This screening process reduced the initial 169 targets to 93 for further evaluation. After additional refinement, 17 highly relevant targets were identified for in-depth analysis in subsequent steps. This rigorous approach ensured the assessment remained actionable and directly aligned with the project’s strategic goals.

4.3. Step 3: Peer Review Process

The peer review process played a pivotal role in the social impact assessment for the Carbo4Power project. An Excel-based questionnaire was distributed to a panel of experts, comprising representatives from the project’s partner organizations. These experts were selected based on their direct involvement in the Carbo4Power project and their specialized knowledge in renewable energy technologies, sustainability, and social impact assessments. This targeted sampling approach ensured that the feedback collected was directly relevant to the project’s strategic goals and actionable within its framework.

The questionnaire aimed to validate and prioritize the social impact targets, ensuring their alignment with both the project’s objectives and broader sustainability benchmarks, such as the SDGs. While the selection was not random, the targeted approach was designed to leverage the expertise of those with an intimate understanding of the project’s technical and social dimensions, minimizing the risk of misaligned or uninformed responses.

In adherence to ethical standards, the research was conducted following the guidelines of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. To protect the privacy of participants, the names and identities of the participating organizations were anonymized. Data collection was limited to academic purposes, and all participating experts provided informed consent for their involvement. This rigorous approach ensured both the credibility and ethical integrity of the study, while addressing potential biases through the inclusion of diverse perspectives from across the consortium.

4.3.1. Assessing Relevance

The first part of the peer review involved evaluating the relevance of each social target identified in the initial assessment. Of the 17 social targets initially considered, only eight were deemed relevant by the experts, achieving unanimous agreement (100% agreement). These targets were selected for further analysis, ensuring that the social impact assessment focused on the most pertinent aspects of the Carbo4Power project’s impact.

4.3.2. Prioritizing Targets

After determining relevance, the experts were asked to prioritize the selected targets based on their perceived importance. Standard deviation (SD) was employed to measure the level of agreement among project partners on the prioritization of these targets. SD served as an objective indicator of consensus, with lower values reflecting greater agreement. While SD effectively quantifies the degree of agreement, it is important to note that it does not capture the direction of disagreement, nor does it account for the relative importance or expertise of individual respondents. As such, SD was used in conjunction with qualitative insights to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the prioritization process.

• Application of Standard Deviation in Prioritization

The standard deviation was calculated based on the numerical prioritization scores assigned by each of the nine project partners to the selected SDG targets. These scores ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated the least priority, and 5 indicated the highest priority. The partners were asked to evaluate each SDG target in terms of its relevance to the project’s goals and its potential for positive social impact. The resulting standard deviation values reflected the level of agreement or variability among partners, with the following thresholds applied for interpretation:

• Low Standard Deviation (<0.5): Strong consensus, indicating high agreement on the prioritization of the target.
• Moderate Standard Deviation (0.5–1): General agreement, with some variability requiring further alignment.
• High Standard Deviation (>1): Significant variability, signaling divergent views among the partners.

By analyzing the SD values, targets were categorized into three groups: strong consensus, moderate agreement, and divergent views. This classification provided a clear framework for guiding strategic actions and focusing discussions.

• Evaluating Consensus and Variability in SDG Target Prioritization

The calculated SD values revealed distinct patterns of consensus and variability among the Carbo4Power project partners. These patterns provide actionable insights into how prioritization aligns with the project’s strategic goals.

• Low Standard Deviation (<0.5): Strong Consensus for Immediate Action. Several targets exhibited low SD values, indicating strong consensus among partners. These included:
  • Inclusive and sustainable urbanization (SD = 0.33)
  • Reducing mortality from non-communicable diseases (SD = 0.33)
  • Reducing the environmental impact of cities (SD = 0.48)

The low variability suggests that these targets are well understood and uniformly prioritized across all partners. Given the high level of agreement, these targets represent areas where immediate and coordinated action can be taken. Their alignment with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) reinforces their importance in addressing public health and environmental sustainability.

2.

Moderate Standard Deviation (0.5–1): General Agreement with Room for Alignment. Targets in this range showed general agreement but some variability in prioritization. Examples include:

• Enhancing the availability of reliable data (SD = 0.50)
• Adopting and strengthening policies for gender equality (SD = 0.60)
• Promoting access to research, technology, and investments in clean energy (SD = 0.60)

These results suggest that while partners largely agree on the importance of these targets, differences in their prioritization reflect varying organizational priorities or resource constraints. Further discussions, such as workshops or joint strategy sessions, can help align partners’ perspectives and ensure cohesive implementation.

3.

High Standard Deviation (>1): Divergent Views Requiring Further Deliberation. One target, providing access to safe and inclusive green and public spaces (SD = 1.12), exhibited significant variability. While some partners considered it highly relevant, others deprioritized it due to its perceived lack of applicability to their operations. This wide range of views suggests the need for further discussions to explore these differences and assess whether this target should remain a priority.

• Strategic Insights for SDG Prioritization

The analysis of the partners’ prioritization of SDG targets reveals a clear path forward for the Carbo4Power project. Targets with low variability, where there is strong consensus, such as inclusive and sustainable urbanization, reducing mortality from non-communicable diseases, and reducing the environmental impact of cities, should be prioritized for immediate action. These are widely understood and uniformly supported across the consortium, making them ideal for efficient implementation.

Targets with moderate variability, including enhancing the availability of reliable data, adopting and strengthening policies for gender equality, promoting access to research, technology, and investments in clean energy, building resilience to environmental, economic, and social shocks, and others, present opportunities for further collaboration and alignment. While there is general agreement on these goals, additional discussion will help ensure that all partners are working cohesively toward achieving these targets.

Finally, targets with high variability, such as providing access to safe and inclusive green and public spaces, require deeper dialog to address divergent views and ensure that the project remains aligned with its broader sustainability goals. Revisiting discussions on these targets will help foster a shared understanding and enable the project to move forward with a more unified approach.

Table 1. PSDG target prioritization and impact analysis.

SDG	SD Value	Priority Level— Impact Type	Relevant UN Indicator
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	0.33	High—Positive	Reduce environmental impact of cities
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	0.33	High—Positive	Reduce illnesses and deaths from pollution
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	0.48	High—Positive	Annual mean levels of particulate matter
SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals	0.50	Moderate—Positive	Increase data availability
SDG 5: Gender Equality	0.60	Moderate—Positive	Policies for gender equality
SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy	0.60	Moderate—Positive	Promote access to research and clean energy investments
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	0.60	Moderate—Positive	Policies for resilience
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	1.12	Low—Positive	Safe, green, and public spaces

summarizes the prioritization and impact analysis of selected SDG targets within the Carbo4Power project. It highlights the standard deviation values, priority levels, and impact types, along with the relevant UN indicators associated with each target.

4.3.3. Evaluating Adoption

The Carbo4Power project demonstrates a diverse range of strategies aligned with key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reflecting its broader sustainability objectives. Participating organizations have focused on R&D initiatives to advance renewable energy technologies, aligning with SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure).

Some organizations combined community-focused activities with innovative practices, such as integrating circular economy technologies and promoting sustainable resource management, supporting SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Others emphasized environmental initiatives, including emission reductions and clean transportation efforts, contributing to SDG 13 (Climate Action).

On the social front, initiatives like the Living Wage Employer model and material collection campaigns for disadvantaged communities have addressed SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 4 (Quality Education). These efforts highlight a holistic approach to social and environmental sustainability.

Feedback from project partners identified opportunities to formalize and scale these efforts, particularly by expanding fair wage practices and enhancing community outreach. By building on these insights, Carbo4Power can further align its activities with SDG targets and strengthen its contributions to global sustainability goals.

4.4. Step 4: Characterization of Social Impact Targets

The final step involved the detailed characterization of the eight prioritized social targets, focusing on their potential impacts and pathways.

Table 2. Characterization of social targets based on their impact and impact pathways.

SDG	Sorted Targets	Impact	Impact Pathway	UN Indicator	Indicator for Carbo4Power
Good Health and Well-being (SDG3)	3.9. Reduce illnesses and deaths from hazardous chemicals and pollution	Positive	Indirect	3.9.1. Mortality rate, attributed to household and ambient air pollution.	Emissions released by conventional technologies vs. wind and tidal energy.
Gender Equality (SDG5)	5.c. Adopt and strengthen policies and enforceable legislation for gender equality	Positive	Direct	5.c.1. Proportion of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment.	Inclusion of Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, COM (96) 67 final, Women in STEM.
Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG7)	7.2. Increase the global percentage of renewable energy	Positive	Direct	7.2.1. Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption	5% increase in annual energy produced.
	7.3. Double the improvement in energy efficiency	Positive	Direct	7.3.1. Energy intensity measured in terms of primary energy and GDP	90% reduction in annual power loss due to erosion resistance.
	7.a. Promote access to research, technology, and investments in clean energy	Positive	Direct	7.a.1. International financial flows to developing countries in support of clean energy research and development and renewable energy production, including in hybrid systems	Dissemination activities % of investments, partnerships, patents, to be defined.
Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG11)	11.6. Reduce the environmental impact of cities	Positive	Direct	11.6.2. Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g., PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population weighted)	35% reduction in LCA
Partnerships to Achieve the Goal (SDG17)	17.16. Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development	Positive	Direct	17.16.1. Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of SDGs.	Number of International Partnerships and Collaborative Projects Initiated through Carbo4Power.
	17.17. Encourage effective partnerships	Positive	Direct	17.17.1. Amount of US dollars committed to public–private and civil society partnerships.	Development of website, social media presence on platforms, Twitter and LinkedIn, and Open Days.

provides a summary of these targets, categorizing them based on the nature of their impacts—direct (stemming directly from Carbo4Power’s activities) or indirect (broader implications for the wind and tidal energy sector in Europe).

Each target was evaluated using tailored Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that connected global UN SDG indicators with Carbo4Power-specific metrics. This approach ensured that the assessments were both globally relevant and project-specific. For example, under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), a KPI was developed to measure the reduction in pollution through cleaner wind and tidal energy technologies, demonstrating contributions to public health improvements. Similarly, under SDG 5 (Gender Equality), indicators were created to monitor gender inclusion in STEM fields, emphasizing balanced representation within research teams.

This tailored methodology ensured that Carbo4Power’s contributions were actionable, measurable, and aligned with global sustainability norms. The structured characterization, detailed in Table 2, offers a replicable framework for assessing and enhancing the social impacts of renewable energy initiatives.

5. Results and Analysis: SDG Targets and Social Indicators

In the Carbo4Power project, five SDGs were assessed for their relevance to the social pillar, with a focus on specific targets and corresponding UN indicators. These targets were characterized as positive, reflecting potential benefits for both the project and society. However, it was clear that some UN indicators were not directly applicable to Carbo4Power’s scope. To address this, project-specific indicators were developed, ensuring a closer alignment with the project’s objectives while preserving the intent of the original SDG indicators. This integration of global UN indicators with Carbo4Power-specific measures enables a comprehensive and relevant social impact assessment. By balancing global sustainability goals with measurable, project-specific contributions, Carbo4Power ensures meaningful progress in advancing social sustainability.

5.1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being

This section examines SDG 3, particularly Target 3.9, which focuses on reducing illnesses and deaths due to hazardous chemicals and pollution. The UN Indicator 3.9.1 measures mortality rates linked to household and ambient air pollution. For the Carbo4Power project, a tailored indicator—“Emissions released from conventional technologies vs. wind and tidal energy”—was developed to better align with the project’s specific contributions.

The project indirectly supports this target by reducing emissions from conventional energy sources through the development of cleaner wind and tidal energy technologies. Wind energy, for instance, generates approximately 11 g of CO₂ per kilowatt hour (g CO₂/kWh), significantly less than coal’s 980 g of CO₂/kWh and natural gas’s 465 g of CO₂/kWh [45]. This represents a reduction of roughly 98.88% in CO₂ emissions compared to coal, and 97.63% compared to natural gas, highlighting the project’s potential in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and improving public health.

Given that air pollution contributes to about 6.7 million premature deaths globally, with household air pollution alone causing 3.2 million deaths annually [46], the initiative’s promotion of wind and tidal energy significantly supports SDG 3 by lowering exposure to harmful pollutants and reducing related mortality rates [47,48]. These efforts position the project as a key contributor to clean energy solutions and public health improvements.

5.2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

The project aligns with SDG 5, particularly Target 5.c, which focuses on adopting and strengthening policies for gender equality. The UN indicator 5.c.1 measures the proportion of countries with systems to track and share budget allocations for gender equality. However, this indicator does not fully address the specific needs of the initiative. To better assess its impact, the project introduced a tailored indicator: Inclusion of Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, COM (96) 67 final, and Women in STEM. This indicator is more relevant for evaluating how gender equality is promoted, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Guided by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 objectives, the project emphasizes merit, abilities, and gender balance in its team composition, aligning with Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and other EU directives. Gender mainstreaming is integrated throughout the project lifecycle—from team selection to research and dissemination—ensuring that gender equality is a consistent focus.

Additionally, the project follows the gender research cycle from the European Commission’s FP7 framework, ensuring gender considerations are embedded at every stage: research idea, proposal, implementation, and dissemination. This approach fosters gender inclusion both internally, through balanced representation in teams and decision-making, and externally, by incorporating the gender dimension into project activities. The comprehensive strategy ensures a direct and positive impact on Target 5.c, promoting gender equality within the renewable energy sector and contributing to broader goals of gender equity in STEM disciplines.

5.3. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

The project aligns with SDG 7, Affordable and Clean Energy, specifically Target 7.2, which focuses on increasing the global share of renewable energy. The UN Indicator 7.2.1 tracks the renewable energy share in total final energy consumption, covering sources like hydro, modern biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal, while excluding traditional biomass used in low-income households. In 2021, renewable energy sources (RESs) accounted for 15.3% of Europe’s total energy consumption, with wind energy contributing 2.1% and tidal energy at 0% [49,50].

To enhance this share, the initiative targets a 5% increase in annual energy production by developing advanced materials and technologies for offshore turbine rotor blades. By using high-performance carbon-based materials and innovative surface coatings, the project is expected to increase energy production by over 6%, significantly contributing to the global renewable energy share.

For offshore wind turbines in warm regions, a 5% increase in energy production is anticipated due to a 50% improvement in blade durability. In cold regions, a 9% increase is expected, driven by reduced icing and the benefits of higher air density. These advancements directly support SDG 7 by improving turbine efficiency and durability, thereby increasing the renewable energy share in total energy consumption and contributing substantially to the promotion and utilization of renewable energy technologies.

The initiative directly supports Target 7.3, which aims to double the global rate of energy efficiency improvements. The project’s contributions align with the UN indicator that tracks global primary energy intensity improvement, defined as the percentage decrease in the ratio of total energy supply per unit of GDP. In 2020, Europe’s energy intensity was 4.6 MJ per 2017 USD PPP, reflecting slow progress toward the 3.4% annual improvement required to meet this target [51,52].

The project addresses this challenge by developing lightweight, high-strength, multifunctional materials for offshore turbine rotor blades, leading to several key advancements:

• Accuracy Improvement: A 20% increase in accuracy through AI/ML algorithms.
• Reduction in False Positives/Negatives: A 20% reduction in both false positives and negatives, enhancing operational reliability.
• Bladelets on Wingtips: An 8% reduction in span-wise velocity, improving aerodynamic efficiency.
• Mechanical Failures Reduction: A 50% reduction in mechanical failures, leading to more reliable energy production.
• Erosion Resistance: A 90% reduction in annual power loss due to enhanced erosion resistance, significantly boosting overall energy efficiency.

These innovations are crucial for enhancing the efficiency of renewable energy systems by reducing energy losses and improving performance. Despite recent global challenges in energy efficiency, the initiative’s efforts directly contribute to the broader goal of doubling energy efficiency improvements, making a substantial impact on achieving SDG 7.3.

Additionally, the initiative aligns with Target 7.A, which focuses on promoting access to clean energy research, technology, and investment. The project contributes directly to this target by fostering innovation in the wind and tidal energy sectors, attracting investments, and facilitating research collaborations. These efforts enhance access to sustainable energy solutions and support the broader adoption of renewable energy. The UN SDG Indicator 7.A.1 measures international financial flows to developing countries that support clean energy research, development, and renewable energy production, including hybrid systems. These financial flows are tracked through two primary sources: OECD-monitored flows, which include loans, grants, and equity investments to eligible nations, and IRENA-monitored flows, which cover additional investments specifically for hybrid and fully renewable energy projects. From 2000 to 2021, Europe received approximately $400.33 million (in constant 2020 US dollars) in international financial support for clean energy.

The initiative has made significant contributions to advancing clean energy through several key outcomes:

• Investment Attraction: The project has secured substantial funding from government grants, venture capital, and private investors, critical for developing and deploying innovative clean energy solutions.
• Technological Advancements: The project has resulted in the filing of patents and numerous research publications, advancing offshore wind turbine blade technologies and promoting renewable energy adoption.
• Collaborative Partnerships: The project has established multiple partnerships with institutions, industry stakeholders, and organizations, enhancing research capacity and promoting cooperative efforts in clean energy technology development.

Through these combined efforts, the initiative significantly contributes to the global goal of enhancing access to clean energy research, technology, and investment. The project’s activities directly support SDG 7.A, reflecting its substantial impact on promoting clean energy solutions worldwide.

5.4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The project contributes directly to SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, specifically Target 11.6, which focuses on reducing the environmental impact of cities. This target is measured by UN Indicator 11.6.2, which tracks the annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) in cities—key indicators of air pollution. Between 2010 and 2019, global PM2.5 levels decreased by 10%, while in Europe, levels dropped by 21%, from 18.75 µg/m³ to 14.88 µg/m³ [53]. These reductions are critical for improving air quality and mitigating the public health risks associated with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

The project enhances urban waste management by developing advanced materials for turbine blades that are recyclable, leading to a 35% reduction in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) footprint during the end-of-life phase. This reduction is achieved by diverting waste from landfills and extending the utility of materials, thereby advancing resource efficiency and promoting environmental sustainability in the renewable energy sector. By integrating these sustainable practices, the project plays a vital role in supporting SDG 11’s objective of minimizing the environmental impact of cities, while also promoting cleaner energy production and contributing to healthier urban environments.

5.5. SDG 17: Knowledge Sharing and Cooperation for Access to Science, Technology, and Innovation

The project plays a significant role in advancing SDG 17: Knowledge Sharing and Cooperation for Access to Science, Technology, and Innovation, particularly Target 17.16, which focuses on enhancing global partnerships for sustainable development. The project contributes directly to this target by fostering international collaborations among research institutions, industry stakeholders, and governmental bodies, promoting cooperative efforts, resource sharing, and collective action to address global sustainability challenges. Aligned with SDG Indicator 17.16.1, which measures progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness, the initiative has established a robust global partnership framework. The project involves 18 partners from 9 countries, spanning academia, research institutions, industry leaders, and SMEs, fostering a multidisciplinary approach to advancing materials and technologies for offshore wind and tidal energy.

The project’s collaboration extends to other Horizon 2020 initiatives, such as AIRPOXY, ComMUnion, DECOAT, and Demowind, integrating innovations from related fields, particularly in materials engineering and sustainable manufacturing. These collaborations enhance the project’s research impact and ensure alignment with global industry standards, facilitating the seamless integration of the project’s technological advancements into the broader energy market. By promoting international knowledge exchange and establishing strategic collaborations with European and international organizations, the initiative significantly contributes to global sustainability goals, particularly in clean energy, climate action, and industrial innovation. Its initiation of major international research initiatives and numerous bilateral partnerships underscores its significant impact on both European and global renewable energy sectors.

The initiative contributes to UN Indicator 17.17.1, which measures the financial resources committed to public–private partnerships for infrastructure development. This indicator highlights the importance of leveraging combined investments from public, private, and civil society actors to fund large-scale projects, particularly in renewable energy. It exemplifies how multi-stakeholder engagement can drive technological advancements in clean energy infrastructure.

Through its dissemination activities, the project fosters robust collaborations among various stakeholders. These activities include comprehensive dissemination and communication strategies aimed at promoting partnerships across scientific, commercial, and public audiences. The dissemination work also oversees the development of the project’s website, social media presence, and the organization of Open Days, all designed to raise awareness of the project’s objectives and outcomes, and to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration.

Additionally, the project coordinates the collection and tracking of data related to events, publications, and intellectual property rights. This ensures that reliable data are available for monitoring progress and evaluating the project’s impact, further contributing to the effective use of financial resources in advancing innovation and sustainable development through public–private partnerships.

6. Discussion

This research underscores the critical importance of integrating social impact assessments into technological and environmental projects. By focusing on selected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), the study demonstrates how social dimensions can be effectively aligned with technological innovation.

The methodology employed in this study aligns with global best practices by tailoring SDG targets to meet project-specific needs. It categorizes SDGs into social, environmental, and economic pillars, ensuring a structured alignment between sustainability goals and the Carbo4Power project’s objectives. A comparative approach highlighted by previous research demonstrates similar categorization of targets to align renewable energy projects with global sustainability metrics, providing a solid foundation for advancing both local and global sustainability outcomes [25].

Through prioritization and stakeholder engagement, this research operationalizes relevant SDG targets with tailored indicators. This approach parallels methods that emphasize the need for stakeholder engagement and context-specific metrics to enhance the validity of SIA frameworks [30]. The use of standard deviation analysis builds on quantitative tools applied to prioritize sustainability targets in renewable energy projects [31].

The framework integrates both qualitative and quantitative metrics to address key challenges in evaluating societal impacts comprehensively. Indicators such as pollution reduction under SDG 3 and gender inclusion under SDG 5 provide measurable outcomes that enhance the assessment’s validity. Additionally, incorporating local and project-specific indicators ensures a balanced evaluation, bridging global objectives with project realities. This integration addresses critical success factors identified in previous studies that emphasize the role of community acceptance and consultation processes in enhancing project success [32].

This study also sheds light on managing synergies and trade-offs between environmental and social objectives. For instance, cleaner energy technologies promoted by Carbo4Power contribute to both reduced carbon emissions and improved public health outcomes, consistent with findings that explore synergies between emission reductions and health improvements [34]. However, conflicting stakeholder priorities, such as those related to inclusive urban development under SDG 11, underscore the need for ongoing dialog to harmonize perspectives. The use of data-driven tools, such as standard deviation analysis, facilitates the identification of areas where consensus is strong or requires further deliberation.

Despite these advancements, challenges remain in standardizing SIA methodologies. The existing literature highlights ongoing difficulties in aligning social impact indicators with broader sustainability frameworks like the SDGs [21]. This study acknowledges these challenges and emphasizes the need for continuous refinement of both qualitative and quantitative methods to improve the robustness of social assessments.

By integrating tailored, SDG-aligned indicators into the assessment process, this study contributes to a replicable model for aligning renewable energy projects with global sustainability objectives. The findings underscore the importance of collaborative processes and stakeholder engagement, echoing principles outlined in foundational SIA research [8]. Future research should continue to explore advanced techniques, such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and real-time feedback mechanisms, to enhance the adaptability and impact of social assessment frameworks in diverse project contexts.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, the Carbo4Power project exemplifies how social impact assessments aligned with key SDGs can advance both technological and societal goals in renewable energy projects. Specifically, the project has demonstrated positive contributions to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). By integrating tailored indicators that address these SDGs, the project provides a replicable model for assessing the societal impacts of renewable energy initiatives across different sectors and geographical contexts. This structured approach reinforces the importance of social equity, public health, gender inclusion, and sustainable urban development in achieving global sustainability goals.

While the proposed methodology offers a comprehensive framework for assessing social impacts of renewable energy projects, several limitations should be acknowledged. Data gaps pose a significant challenge, as the availability and reliability of social data across regions can vary, hindering consistent comparisons. Additionally, the methodology relies heavily on stakeholder engagement, which, although crucial, can be logistically difficult, particularly in regions where participation may be limited or influenced by political or cultural factors. The subjective nature of certain social impact indicators also presents challenges, as quantifying complex social dimensions such as equity or well-being is not always straightforward. Furthermore, the alignment of project-specific indicators with the high-level SDGs can lead to difficulties in translating global targets into local or project-specific contexts. There is also the potential for bias in peer review and expert validation processes, as differing perspectives may influence the prioritization of social targets. Together, these limitations highlight the need for continuous refinement and adaptability of the methodology to ensure a more accurate and comprehensive evaluation of social impacts.

To enhance the integration of social sustainability into renewable energy projects, future work must focus on refining social impact assessment methodologies. A key area for improvement is the incorporation of more comprehensive indicators that better capture the nuances of social impacts across different geographical and cultural contexts. Developing and testing these indicators will ensure sensitivity to local conditions and provide actionable insights into the social dimensions of sustainability. This effort aligns with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by fostering stronger collaboration among stakeholders, including local communities and policymakers. It also supports SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by promoting data-driven approaches to sustainable urban development.

Future research should also explore the integration of advanced quantitative techniques, such as scenario modeling or multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), to address the complexities of renewable energy transitions more comprehensively. These tools could complement the qualitative and semi-quantitative approaches used in this study, offering deeper insights into the synergies and trade-offs between environmental and social goals.

Policymakers, renewable energy developers, and organizations should prioritize deeper engagement with a broader range of stakeholders, including local communities, policymakers, and industry leaders. Expanding stakeholder involvement will ensure a more inclusive understanding of social impacts and contribute to more effective sustainability strategies.

Additionally, future efforts should explore integrating real-time data and dynamic feedback loops into social impact assessments, allowing projects to adapt to evolving social, economic, and environmental conditions. Addressing current gaps in aligning SDG targets with practical implementation strategies will enhance the robustness of social impact assessments and lead to more sustainable, equitable outcomes.

A focus on capacity-building within organizations is essential, particularly in improving knowledge-sharing mechanisms and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration. Ensuring that decision-makers are well-equipped with methodologies that align with global sustainability frameworks like the SDGs will enable more accurate assessments of project impacts and foster more strategic policymaking.

In conclusion, continuous refinement of social impact assessment methodologies, stronger stakeholder engagement, and dynamic, data-driven approaches will be critical in advancing the alignment of renewable energy projects with global sustainability goals.