The present study constitutes the first social life cycle assessment (SLCA) study in Afghanistan and aims at assessing the social performance of the waste management system (WMS) of Kabul city. The system boundary considered includes households generating the waste, the sanitation department of Kabul city, scavengers, recycling shops, the recycling factory, and the local community living in its vicinity. Compared to previous SLCA studies that consider one stakeholder per organization, we distinguished between the manager and the worker level for each organization. In total, eight stakeholders, 90 inventory indicators, and 20 impact subcategories were investigated. Results show three main social issues: the overwork of scavengers, recycling shop owners and recycling factories’ workers and managers, the absence of communication and implication of the local community, and the poor cleanliness of the surroundings of the recycling factory and collection points. At the sanitation department, managers were found facing more psychological stress and overwork than workers, demonstrating the current isolation of the department inside Kabul’s local government. It seems nonetheless possible to improve Kabul’s WMS by redesigning the location of garbage bins and conducting communication campaigns towards consumers and the local community. That would help to minimize the nuisances associated with the handling of waste and to integrate better waste management activities into the socio-economy of Kabul city.

Our earlier work identified social issues of stakeholders who are highly exposed to poor social performance in the current waste management system (WMS) of Kabul city, Afghanistan. The present work builds on earlier findings to elaborate four alternative scenarios with better social outcomes. For each scenario of the current system, greenhouse gas (GHG) and economic assessments were conducted. Results show that Scenario 2, considering increase waste collection coverage, recycling, unsanitary landfilling, and integration of informal workers, was found as the best alternative. Scenario 3, which added a source-separated system to Scenario 2, was the second-best alternative. These two scenarios address social issues and can reduce GHG emissions, save costs, and provide more jobs than the current system. In contrast, the absence of recycling in Scenario 1, and the conversion of unsanitary landfill into sanitary landfill in scenario 4 result in higher costs and GHG emissions, even though they deal with social issues and generate higher jobs to the existing waste management practice.