Industry Life Cycle of Nokia Company

Social Sustainability Process Industry Social Sustainability Social Indicators for Sustainable Project and Technology Life Cycle Management in the Process Industry Carin Labuschagne1 and Alan C. Brent1* 1 Chair of Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Engineering & Technology Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa * Corresponding author (alan. [email  protected] ac. za) DOI: http://dx. doi. org/10. 1065/lca2006. 01. 233 Abstract Goal, Scope and Background.The importance of the social dimension of sustainable development increased significantly during the last decade of the twentieth century. Industry has subsequently experienced a shift in stakeholder pressures from environmental to social-related concerns, where new developments in the form of projects and technologies are undertaken. However, the measurement of social impacts and the calculation of suitable indicators are less well developed compared to environmental indicators in order to assess the pot ential liabilities associated with undertaken projects and technologies.The aim of this paper is to propose a Social Impact Indicator (SII) calculation procedure based on a previously introduced Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) calculation procedure for environmental Resource Impact Indicators (RIIs), and to demonstrate the practicability of the SII procedure in the context of the process industry in South Africa. Methods. A framework of social sustainability criteria has been introduced for the South African process industry.The social sub-criteria of the framework are further analyzed, based on project and technology management expertise in the South African process industry, to determine whether the criteria should be addressed at project or technology management level or whether they should rather form part of an overall corporate governance policy for new projects and technologies. Furthermore, the proposed indicators for criteria that are considered appropriate for project or technology evaluation purposes are constrained by the type of information that is available, i. e. he calculation methodology relies on the availability of regional or national social information where the project will be implemented, as well as the availability of project- or technology-specific social information during the various phases of the project or technology development life cycle. Case studies in the process industry and statistical information for South Africa are subsequently used to establish information availability for the SII calculation procedure, demonstrate the SII method together with the RII method, and determine the practical use of the SII method.Results and Conclusion. The case studies establish that social footprint information as well as project- and technology social data are not readily available in the South African process industry. Consequently, the number of mid-point categories that can be evaluated are minimal, which results in an impaired soci al picture when compared to the environmental dimension. It is concluded that a quantitative social impact assessment method cannot be applied for project and technology life cycle management purposes in industry at present.Recommendation and Perspective. Following the outcomes of the case studies in the South African process industry, it is recommended that checklists and guidelines be used during project and technology life cycle management practices. Similar to the environmental dimension, it is envisaged that such checklists and guidelines would improve the availability of quantitative data in time, and would therefore make the SII procedure more practical in the future.Keywords: Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA); Life Cycle Management (LCM); process industry; Resource Impact Indicator (RII); Social Impact Indicator (SII); social sustainability Introduction The last decade of the twentieth century marked significant steps to draw the social dimension of sustainable development into the open [1]. The inclusion of social aspects in the sustainability debate and practice has nevertheless been marginal compared to the attention given to the other two dimensions, especially from a business perspective [1,2,3].However, stakeholders are forcing companies to address the inclusion of social sustainability by shifting pressure from environmental to social related concerns [4,5]. The social dimension is commonly recognised as the ‘weakest' pillar of sustainable development due to a lack of analytical and theoretical underpinnings [5] and it is believed that the state of development of indicators or measurements for social business sustainability parallels that of environmental performances about 20 years ago [6].Nevertheless, there is a definite need for practical tools to introduce social sustainability into business evaluation processes [1,7,8]. This paper proposes a methodology to assess the social sustainability of projects and technologies in the process industry by calculating social impact indicators, and addresses the following two questions: 1) What social criteria must such an assessment methodology consider and measure? 2) How must these criteria be addressed and measured?To address the first question, a framework of social business sustainability criteria is defined, which is relevant for operational initiatives in the process industry. Social sustainable development indicators are then introduced, demonstrated and discussed, based on the defined framework. Int J LCA 11 (1) 3 – 15 (2006)  © 2006 ecomed publishers (Verlagsgruppe Huthig Jehle Rehm GmbH), D-86899 Landsberg and Tokyo †¢ Mumbai †¢ Seoul †¢ Melbourne †¢ Paris 3 Process Industry Social Sustainability Responsibility (CSR) literature and guidelines, and other international guidelines were undertaken (Table 1) [9].The analysis showed that a comprehensive social sustainability framework should define appropriate criteria to address the comp any's impacts on the social systems in which it operates, as well as the company's relationship with its various stakeholders. A sustainable development framework for operational initiatives was subsequently developed and proposed, the social dimension of which is shown in Fig. 1. Table 2 provides the definitions of the criteria at the different levels of the framework, which are described in detail elsewhere [9]. 1 1. 1 Social Sustainability Criteria FrameworkDevelopment of a framework for business management purposes in the process industry The current indicator frameworks that are available to measure overall business sustainability do not effectively address social aspects of sustainability at operational level in the process industry, especially in developing countries such as South Africa [9]. The question arises what the exact scope of social sustainability should entail from a business management perspective. An analysis of current available frameworks, Social Impact Assessm ent (SIA) guidelines, Corporate SocialTable 1: Analysis of the social criteria addressed by current frameworks and guidelines [9] Name and type of literature Health Education Environment Housing / Living conditions ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Criteria Society Security / Crime Facilities & Services Population characteristics Community characteristics Economic welfare / Employment ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Indicator frameworks United Nations 1 ? ? 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Global Reporting Intitiative2 IchemE Sustainability Metrics Wuppertal Indicators 4 European Conceptual Framework for Social Ind. SIA literature Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles6 Socioeconomic impacts for Energy Efficiency Project for Climate Change Mitigation7 South Sydney Council SIA 8 checklist SIA categories for development 9 projects in South Africa South African social criteria for CDM project evaluation10 Classification of social impacts 11 according to Vanclay Classification of social impacts 11 according to Juslen Classification of social impacts according to Gramling and 11 Freudenburg SIA Series’ Guide to Social Assessment12 Government actions European Greenpaper on CSR World Bank’s Social Analysis 14 Sourcebook SRI Indexes Dow Jones Sustainability Index FTSE 4 GOOD16 JSE SRI Index 17 18 15 13 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pressures from international financing organisations ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Dominini 400 Index Global Compact19 International standards and guidelines Global Sullivan Principles20 Caux Round Table OECD Guidelines SA 8000 23 21 22 AA 100024 Investors in People CSR standards Ethos Indicators 27 25 26 Ethical Trading Initiative ? 29 ? ? ? ? ? Standards of CSR28 Danish Social Index 4 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 Social Sustainability Process IndustryTable 1: Analysis of the social criteria addressed by current frameworks and guidelines [9] (cont'd) Name and type of literature Society Community cohesion Indicator frameworks 1 United Nations 2 Global Reporting Intitiative ? 3 IchemE Sustainability Metrics 4 Wuppertal Indicators European Conceptual Framework ? 5 for Social Ind. SIA literature Interorganizational Committee on ? 6 Guidelines and Principles Socioeconomic impacts for ? Energy Efficiency Project for 7 Climate Change Mitigation 8 South Sydney Council SIA checklist ? SIA categories for development ? 9 projects in South Africa South African social criteria for CDM project evaluation10 Classification of social impacts ? 11 according to Vanclay Classification of social impacts ? 1 according to Juslen Classification of social impacts ? according to Gramling and 11 Freudenburg SIA Series' Guide to Social ? Assessment12 Government actions 13 European Greenpaper on CSR ? Pressures from international financing organisations World Bank's Social Analysis ? 14 Sourcebook SRI Indexes 15 Dow Jones Sustainability Index FTSE 4 GOOD16 17 J SE SRI Index 18 Dominini 400 Index International standards and guidelines 19 Global Compact 20 Global Sullivan Principles Caux Round Table21 22 OECD Guidelines 23 SA 8000 ? AA 100024 ? 25 Investors in People ? 26 Ethical Trading Initiative ? CSR standards 27 Ethos Indicators 28 Standards of CSR Danish Social Index29 1Criteria Society and company (interlinkage) Product Community Stakeholder Training, responsibility involvement participation / education of of company Engagement staff Equity Company internal Fair Human labour rights practices Employee health and safety ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (2001): Indicators of susta inable development: guidelines and methodologies. United Nations. Available from ;http://www. un. rg/esa/sustdev/ natlinfo/indicators/indisd/indisd-mg2001. pdf;, visited on 19 November 2003 Global Reporting Initiative (2002): Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2002. Global Reporting Initiative, Boston Institution of Chemical Engineers, (2002): The Sustainability Metrics: Sustainable Development Progress Metrics recommend for use in the Process Industries. Institution of Chemical Engineers. Rugby Spangenberg JH, Bonniot O (1998): Sustainability Indicators – A Compass on the Road Towards Sustainability. Wuppertal Paper 81 Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA) (2000): Conceptual Framework and Structure of a European System of Social Indicators.EuReporting Working Paper no 9, Mannheim Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment (1995): Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment R eview 15 (1) 11–43 Vine E, Sathaye J (1999): Guidelines for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Verification and Certification of Energy-Efficiency Projects for Climate Change Mitigation. US Environmental Protection Agency through the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098 South Sydney Council (2004): The South Sydney Plan: Social Impact Assessment Checklist. ;http://www. sscc. nsw. gov. au/router? model=c=1704;, visited on 21 January 2004. Khosa M (2000): Social Impact Assessment of Development Projects. In: Khosa M (ed), Infrastructure Mandate for Change 1994–1999.Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Publishers, Pretoria Brent AC, Heuberger R, Manzini D (2005): Evaluating projects that are potentially eligible for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) funding in the South African context: A case study to establish weighting values for sustainable development criteria. Environment and Development Economics 10 (5) 631–649 Vanclay F (200 2): Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (3) 183–211 Branch K, Hooper DA, Thompson J, Creighton J (1984): Guide to Social Assessment: A framework for assessing social change. Westview Press, London European Commission: Employment and Social Affairs (2001): Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. European Communities, Luxembourg Social Analysis and Policy Team (2003): Social Analysis Sourcebook: Incorporating Social Dimensions into Bank-supported projects.Washington DC, The World Bank: Social Development Department SAM Indexes (2003): Dow Jones Sustainability World Indexes Guide, Version 5. 0. SAM Indexes GmbH, Zollikon-Zurich FTSE (2003): FTSE4Good Index Series: Inclusion Criteria. FTSE The Independent Global Index Company, London Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2004): JSE SRI Index: Background and Selection Criteria. ;http://www. jse. co. za/sri/docs/;, visited on 9 January 2004 Domini Social Investments (2003): T he Domini 400 Social IndexSM. Available from ;http://www. domini. com/Social-screening/creation_maintenance. doc_cvt. htm;, visited on 31 December 2003 Kell G (2003): The global compact: origins, operations, progress and challenges.The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Autumn, 35–49 Global Sullivan Principles (2003): The Global Sullivan Principles of Social Responsibility. Available from ;http://www. globalsullivanprinciples. org;, visited on 27 December 2003 Caux Round Table (2003): Caux Round Table Principles for Business, English Translation. Available from: ;http://www. cauxroundtable. org/ENGLISH. htm;, visited on 20 January 2003 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2000): The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2000 Revision. OECD Publication, Paris Social Accountability International (2003): Overview of SA8000. Available from ;http://www. cepaa. org/SA8000/SA8000. tm;, visited on 4 March 2003 AccountAbility (1999): Overview of the AA1000 fr amework. AccountAbility Publication, London, available from ;http://www. accountability. org. uk/uploadstore/cms/docs/AA1000%20Overview. pdf;, visited on 29 December 2003 Investors in People UK (2003): The Standard. Available from ;http://iipuk. co. uk/IIP/Internet/InvestorsinPeople/TheStandard/default. htm;, visited on 29 December 2003 Ethical Trading Initiative (2003): Ethical Trading Initiative Homepage. Available from ;http://www. ethicaltrade. org;, visited on 29 December 2003 Ethos Institute for Business and Social Responsibility (2001): ETHOS Corporate Social Responsibility INDICATORS.Instituto Ethos de Empresas e Responsabillidade Social, Sao Paulo Goodell E (ed) (1999): Social Venture Networks: Standards of Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Venture Networks, San Fransisco Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, KPMG, Socialforskningsinstituttet (2000): Social Index: Measuring a Company's social responsibility, Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, Copenhagen Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 5 Process Industry Social Sustainability Social Sustainability Internal Human Resources External Population Macro Social Performance Stakeholder Participation Employment Stability Human Capital Socio- Economic Performance Information Provision Employment Opportunities Employment Renumeration Employment Practices Health Economic Welfare Trading Opportunities Socio- Environmental Performance Collective Audience Selected Audience Stakeholder Influence Education Productive Capital Disciplinary & Security Practices Employee Contracts Equity Housing MonitoringDecision Influence Potential Stakeholder Empowerment Service Infrastructure Mobility Infrastructure Regulatory & Public Services Community Capital Legislation Enforcement Labour Sources Health & Safety Health & Safety Practices Health & Safety Incidents Capacity Development Sensory Stimuli Cultural Properties Social Pathologies Security Economic Welfare Social Cohesion Research & Development Career Development Fig. 1: Framework to assess the social sustainability of engineering projects and technologies [9] Table 2: Definitions of Social Criteria [9] Internal Human Resources focuses on the social responsibility of the company towards its workforce and includes all aspects of employment.The criterion addresses a business initiative's impact on work opportunities within the company, the stability thereof as well as Employment Stability evaluating the fairness of compensation. Disciplinary and secrecy practices as well as employee contracts are addressed under this criterion. These are evaluated to Employment Practices ensure that it complies with the laws of the country, international human rights declarations as well as other human rights and fair employment practice standards. The criterion focuses on the health and safety of the workforce and evaluates preventive measures as well as the occurrence Health & Safety and handling of health and/or safety incidents. Capacity Development The criterion addresses two different, aspects namely research and development, and career development.External Population focuses on the external impacts of the company’s operational initiatives on a society, e. g. impacts External Population on the availability of services, community cohesion, economic welfare, etc. Human Capital refers to an individual's ability to work in order to generate an income and encompasses aspects such as health, Human Capital psychological wellbeing, education, training and skills levels. The criterion addresses Health and Education separately. Productive capital entails the assets and infrastructure an individual needs in order to maintain a productive life. The criterion Productive Capital measures the strain placed on these assets and infrastructure availability by the business initiative.This criterion takes into account the effect of an operational initiative on the social and institutional relationships and networks of Community Capital trust, reciprocity and sup port as well as the typical characteristics of the community. Macro Social Performance focuses on the contribution of an organisation to the environmental and financial Macro Social Performance performance of a region or nation, e. g. contribution to exports. Socio-Economic Performance This criterion addresses the external economic impact of the company's business initiatives. Economic welfare (contribution to GDP, taxes, etc. ) as well as trading opportunities (contribution to foreign currency savings, etc. ) are addressed separately.Socio-Environmental This criterion considers the contributions of an operational initiative to the improvement of the environment for society on a Performance community, regional and national level. The extension of the environmental monitoring abilities of society, as well as the enhancement of legislation and the enforcement thereof, are included in this criterion. Stakeholder Participation focuses on the relationships between the company and ALL its stakeholders (internally and Stakeholder Participation externally) by assessing the standard of information sharing and the degree of stakeholder influence on decision-making. The quantity and quality of information shared with stakeholders are measured.Information can either be shared openly with all Information Provisioning stakeholders (Collective Audience) or shared with targeted, specific groups of stakeholders (Selected Audience). The degree to which the company actually listens to the stakeholders' opinion should also be evaluated. Two separate subStakeholder Influence criteria are included: Decision Influence Potential and Stakeholder Empowerment. Internal Human Resources 6 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 Social Sustainability Process Industry The conclusion was reached that no social aspect of the ten projects could be found that could not be classified into the criteria framework. In addition, all of the social criteria did not manifest in each asset life cycle phase. However, ther e may be social aspects that did not manifest in either the case studies or the framework.Nevertheless, the basis on which the individual case studies were chosen makes these cases adequately representative of the current social environment in which construction, operation, and decommissioning occurs in the process industry. It is subsequently concluded that the framework is complete enough to be used as an initial basis to develop a social assessment methodology, which can incorporate social sustainability into project and technology management practices. The social sustainability framework was further validated by means of a Delphi Technique survey [12]. The survey focused on the relevance of the proposed social criteria for the evaluation of projects or technologies and attempted to answer whether the project team, a functional unit within an organisation, or an organisation's corporate governance framework should address the different social aspects.A total of 23 project managem ent experts in a process industry company in South Africa participated in the survey, which established the suitability of the social criteria, as well as the relevance of the criteria in terms of sustainable business practices. The outcomes of the survey support the conclusion reached by the case studies, but also suggest, according to the opinion of project management experts, that all the criteria are not relevant to project and technology management, but should rather manifest as part of corporate policy (Table 3) [11]. 1. 2 Verification and validation of the completeness and relevance of the social criteria of the framework The social sustainability framework was verified by means of case studies testing the completeness and relevance of its criteria.Since the aim of the framework is to assess the social sustainability of projects and technologies in the process industry, ten case studies were chosen that represent the three phases of the asset, or technology, life cycle with t he greatest potential to cause social impacts, i. e. the Construction Phase, the Operation Phase, and the Decommissioning Phase. The rationale for focussing on the three asset life cycle phases, as well as the interaction between asset and project life cycles, can be found in literature [10]. The case studies aimed to describe the significant social impacts that may occur during the life cycle phases in relation to the proposed framework, and to identify any social impacts that cannot be classified into the framework [11]: †¢ The construction of three process industry facilities: an incinerator, a mine, and a gas pipeline. The operation of four chemical manufacturing facilities, one in Germany, one in the USA, and two in different provinces in South Africa. †¢ The decommissioning of three process industry facilities: a cyanide manufacturing plant, an acrylic fibre manufacturing plant, and a mine. Project related documentation, pertaining to each of the case studies, was ev aluated and personal interviews were held with project responsible individuals [11]. It must be noted that in case study research it is not easy to generalise results, since statistical analysis cannot necessarily be applied. Cases are not sampling units and cannot be treated as such. Table 3: Delphi Technique survey results [11]Criterion Employment Opportunities Employment Remuneration Disciplinary & Security Practices Employee Contracts Equity & Diversity Labour Sources Health & Safety Practices Health & Safety Incidents Research Development Career Development Health Education Housing Service Infrastructure Mobility Infrastructure Regulatory & Public Services/ Institutional Services Sensory Stimuli Security Cultural Properties Economic Welfare Social Pathologies Social Cohesion Economic Welfare Trading Opportunities Monitoring Legislation Enforcement Information Provisioning Stakeholder Influence Project x The criterion should be addressed by†¦ Business Strategy x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Functional Department x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 7 Process Industry Social Sustainability CC = Characterisation factor for an impact category (of intervention X) within the pathway. As a first approximation no characterisation factors are assumed and social LCI constituents are considered separately.NC = Normalisation factor for the impact category based on the social objectives in the region of assessment, i. e. the inverse of the target state of the impact category. The information is obtained from social footprint data in the region of the assessment. And, Significance (or relative importance) of the impact category in a social group based on the distance-to-target method, i. e. current social state divided by the target social state (see section 1. 2). 2 Social Impact Indicator (SII) Calculation Procedure The main focus of this paper is the development and testing of a quantitative so cial sustainable development indicator calculation method.A life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approach has been proposed before for the evaluation of the social impacts of life cycle systems from compiled LCIs [13,14]. An introduced LCIA methodology developed specifically for the South African context, termed the Resource Impact Indicator (RII) approach [15], is thereby used as basis for the development of social indicators. The environmental RII approach considers the current and target ambient state or ecological footprint through a conventional distance-to-target normalisation and weighting calculation procedure [15]. A similar calculation procedure is proposed for Social Impact Indicators (SII), using the four main social criteria (shown in Fig. 1) as Areas of Protection (AoP).Three of these criteria represent the main groups of social resources on which the company can have an impact, while the fourth criterion represents all relationships between the company and stakeholders . The general SII calculation procedure is described through Eq. 1. (1) Where: SIIG = Social Impact Indicator calculated for a main social resource group through the summation of all impact pathways of all categorised social interventions of an evaluated life cycle system. QX = Quantifiable social intervention (X) of a life cycle system in a midpoint impact category C, i. e. project or technology specific information with regards to social impacts. Table 4: Midpoint categories and evaluation methods [17] Social Impact Indicators (SIIs) Internal Human Resources Midpoint category SC = CS = TSTo develop the calculation method, the same case studies used for the verification of the social criteria (see section 1. 2) were used to compile a list of possible social interventions, i. e. a social Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of assessed operational initiatives in the process industry. However, the RII method makes use of mid-point categories. To define midpoint categories, the list of social i nterventions was mapped against the social criteria at various levels within the proposed social sustainability framework. A causal relationship diagram was consequently established for each of the four main social criteria, which define the midpoint categories. These causal diagrams are shown in the Appendix [16].Three measurement methods are proposed to express the defined midpoint categories in equivalence units (Table 4) [17]: †¢ Established risk assessment approaches, which require a subjective evaluation of the probability of occurrence, the projected frequency of the occurrence, and the potential intensity thereof; Measurement methods to establish equivalence units Quantitative Risk Quantitative Quantitative Risk Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative/Quantitative Quantitative External Population Stakeholder Participation Macro-Social PerformancePermanent internal employment positions Internal Health and Safety situation Knowledge level / Career development Internal Research and Development capacity Comfort level / Nuisances Perceived aesthetics Local employment Local population migration Access to health facilities Access to education Availability of acceptable housing Availability of water services Availability of energy services Availability of waste services Pressure on public transport services Pressure on the transport network / People and goods movement Access to regulatory and public services Change in relationships with stakeholders External value of purchases / supply chain value/Nature of Purchases Migration of clients / Changes in the product value chain/Nature of Sales Improvement of socio-environmental services 8 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 Social Sustainability Process IndustryTable 5: Proposed Midpoint Categories for the four main social criteria together with proposed units of equivalence Social AoP Internal Human Resources Midpoint Category Permanent Internal Employment Positions Possible Health and Safety Incidents Internal Research & Development Capacity External Population Comfort Level/Nuisances Units of equivalence Number of employment opportunities equivalent to a specific position Fatality or Disability Injury Rate Cost spend on R capacity Risk of uncomfort/ Kilo tons of pollutants emitted per annum Intervention Information, i. e. project Social Footprint Information needed or technology information Number and type of employment Employment by type, i. e. osition and opportunities created or destroyed full-time/part-time, for municipality Risk of health and safety incidents with prediction of number based on similar previous undertakings Investment by project in R as part of project budget Predicted emissions that can smell or risk of emissions Industry fatal accident or disability injury rate Municipality budget on R or industry budget Emissions and noise le vel of municipality as well as acceptable levels by standards, e. g. SABS standards Predicted noise levels or risk of noise Aesthetics Level of perceived acceptability Risk of structure and location having a negative impact on aesthetics of community Perceived level of aesthetic acceptability by community Local Employment Fraction of employable community hours Number of permanent job type equivalents Calculation: permanent positions multiplied by conversion factor Employment by type for community or municipality Local Population Migration Access to health facilities Level of short-term demographic changes People per qualified doctorPredicted change in local population Predicted increase or decrease in ratio, focus only on public health sector Predicted impact on the number of literate adults The predicted need for houses which must be build multiplied by the average size Quantity of water used or supplied Quantity of electricity used or supplied Quantity of waste generated and/or qu antity of waste removed from municipal area Number of additional public transport seats required Tons of good transported on roads and or kilometre of road infrastructure provided Percentage of turnover or expenses spend locally Monetary amount spend on services, resources or information that will improve macro environmental performance Predicted Percentage improvement or deterioration in perceived stakeholder trust Demographic profile of community or municipal area National ratio of people per qualified doctor or international ratio Literate adults in municipality area or region Size of municipality area Access to Education Availability of acceptable houses Availability of water services Availability of energy services Availability of waste services Pressure on public transport services Pressure on transport network/ People and goods movement Macro Social Performance Literate adults Zoned residential area per capita Water of drinking quality per capita kWh of electricity per capita Capita per G:h landfill siteWater of drinking quality used by municipality Electricity usage by municipality Landfill sites (type and size) used by municipality Public Transport seats available in municipal area Ton kilometres per capita (in region or nationally) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per region and/or per industry. Monetary amount spent on Environmental Services by the region, i. e. provincial government or municipal council Perceived stakeholder trust based on community questionnaires or surveys Seat kilometres per capita Ton kilometres per capita External value of purchases Fraction of purchased locallymanufactures goods Improvement of SocioEnvironmental Services Cost spent on SE services per capita Stakeholder Participation Change in relationships with stakeholders Level of stakeholder trust Quantitative evaluation approaches, including, but not limited to, costs and direct measurements in society; and †¢ Qualitative evaluation approaches, which require appropriate subjective scales and associated guidelines, and have been proposed for the industrial ecology and streamlined LCA disciplines (see section 1. 2). The defined midpoint categories, which, from the validation survey (see section 1. 2), are considered appropriate at project or technology management level, together with pro- posed units of equivalence for evaluation purposes are shown in Table 5. The units of equivalence were determined from the characteristics of the social interventions identified from the ten case studies.The definitions of the midpoint categories make it evident that the normalisation and significance steps will be constrained by what is practicably measurable within a society where an operational initiative, i. e. project or technology (from an industry perspective), will typically occur. The availability of information is likely to differ be- Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 9 Process Industry tween developed and developing countries. Furthermore, the projection of the socia l interventions of a project or technology may be problematic or at least differ from case to case. Separate studies may be required for some of the social sustainability criteria, e. g. stakeholder participation, even at project-specific level, which may be problematic. Case Studies to Demonstrate and Test the SII Calculation Method Social Sustainability 3. 1 Construction of an open cast mine 3. 1. 1 Background The SII calculation method was applied to three case studies to determine the current feasibility thereof in terms of data availability. In the third case study, environmental Resource Impact Indicators were also calculated using the RII method [15]. All case studies are set in South Africa and project information was obtained from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies as well as interviews with members of the respective project teams. Due to the hindsight application of the SII method no additional data could be collected from a project perspective.Social footprint information was obtained from: †¢ Statistics South Africa [18]; †¢ South African Department of Transport [19]; †¢ South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) [20]; †¢ South African Department of Health [21]; †¢ South African Department of Labour [22]; †¢ NOSA International [23]; and †¢ Municipal Demarcation Board South Africa [24] and individual municipalities, e. g. some municipalities have undertaken Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) in certain regions of South Africa. In the case studies, mid-point categories were evaluated in respect of whether both project and social footprint information are available, and if the respective information is comparable. It is noted that whereas LCA normally considers a product's life cycle, these case studies focus on the asset, or technology, life cycle (as described in section 1. 2) with the functional unit being one operational year of the asset.However, since the asset life c ycle and the associate product life cycle interact through the asset’s operational phase [10], the indicators could be translated to a typical product-manufactured functional unit. In 1996 a petrochemical company in South Africa announced its intention to develop an Open Cast Strip Mine on the banks of the Vaal River between the Gauteng and Free State Provinces. The project was motivated on the basis that the reserves of the company's main mine in the area had reached the end of its economic life and that this posed a threat to the future of a large chemical manufacturer in a nearby town, which was supplied by the mine from 1952.Ultimately, a threat to the existence of the chemical manufacturer is a direct threat to the existence of the town and in a sense the province since the manufacturer contributes 12% to the geographical economy of the region. The project was met with a lot of resistance from the public, especially owners of riverside properties. The project was stopped after a non-governmental organisation took the company to court and won a legal battle, which changed the mining legislation of South Africa. 3. 1. 2 Available project and social footprint information Tables 6 and 7 summarise the available project information and social footprint information that have been obtained from the Environmental Management Programme Report [25] and the specialist study on the macro social economic impacts [26]. 3. 1. 3 SIIs for the projectThe information presented in Tables 6 and 7 highlights the mismatch between available project and social footprint information. SIIs were calculated as far as possible where both appropriate project and social footprint information was available for midpoint categories (Table 8) using Eq. 1. The project will have an overall positive social impact, although job creation could not outweigh the negative impact on the comfort level on the neighbourhoods in a close vicinity to the plant. The overall positive impact is mainly d ue to the large contribution the project will make to the Gross Geographic Product (GGP) of a relative small area, which relies strongly on mining.Table 6: Available project social intervention information for the proposed mine Construction Employment Opportunities created Employment Opportunities destroyed Indirect Employment Opportunities Contribution to GDP (added or lost) Reduction in property values Increases in Ambient Noise levels (dBa) on Average Dust (mg/day/m2) 450 people [24:138] Operation 300a employment opportunities over a 20 year life span [24:121] Multiplier effect of 2. 8: 840a a 20 employment opportunities on farmsa [24: 267] Multiplier effect of 2. 8: 1260 R52 million per annum (in 1999/2000) [25:32] 9-19% (year 1–10) [24: 258] ;2 [24: 195] Between ;50–250 [24: 187] 2–6% (after year 10 till mine closure) [24:258] ; 2 [24: 238–239] ;100a [24: 231] a a These values are used as quantifiable social interventions (Qx) in the SII calculation procedure. The South African Rand is equal to approximately 0. 12 Euros (as at the end of October 2005). 10 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 Social Sustainability Process IndustryTable 7: Available social footprint information for the region of the proposed mine Labour Force: Potentially Economically Active [25: 55] Total 736,721 100% Estimated ambient noise level (dBA) [24: 97] Time of day Morning Midday Evening Night Over 24 hours Sasolburg GDP (1991) due to kind of activity [25: 59] Mining & Quarrying Dust Pattern [25] March–July August–December January–February Dust Figures [25] September October (2 x sites) November (1 site) a b c Employed 308,826 41. 9% a Unemployed 149,335 20. 3% a Not-economically active 278,560 37. 8% Typical weekday 50. 9 46. 9 41. 4 34. 7 44. 6 b Typical weekend 49. 2 48. 0 46. 9 42. 3 46. 8 b R 259 677 000 per annumc Low Higher Lower 251–500 mg/day/m2 501–1200 mg/day/m 501–1200 mg/day/m 2 2 Moderate Heavy Heavy The sum of t hese values are the target state for the region. The current tate refers to only the value 308,826. The average of these two values are used as the target state for the region. The current state is assumed equal to the target state. Value used for target and current state for the region. The South African Rand is equal to approximately 0. 12 Euros (as at the end of October 2005) 3. 2 Operation of a chemical facility 3. 2. 1 Background The chemical facility is located on a 6,798 ha industrial site in South Africa. The construction of the site started in the early 1970s and was finished in 1980. It employs approximately 7000 permanent employees. The facility contributes 13% to the economy of the geographic region. 3. 2. Available operation and social footprint information †¢ A Strategic Environmental Assessment of the area; †¢ South African Census Information; and †¢ South Africa’s Compensation Fund Statistics. References of these sources are withheld to protect the company's identity. Table 9 summarises the available plant information and social footprint information that were obtained. 3. 2. 3 SIIs for the operation The following sources of information were used to calculate SIIs: †¢ The company's Sustainable Development Report; Table 10 shows the calculated SIIs using Eq. 1. Table 10 shows that the operation of the plant has in total a negative social impact. The positive contribution to GDPTable 8: Calculated Social Impact Indicators for the proposed open cast mine from the available case study information Area of Protection Internal Human Resources External Population Intervent. Employment Creation Permanent Positions b Noise & Dust 1 Generated 2 Nature of Sales Midpoint Category Permanent Positions Local Employment Comfort Level Intervent. Value 300 in total 2195200 hrs a Normalisation Value (Ts–1) –06 2. 183 x 10 1. 11 x 10 –09 Significance Value (Cs/Ts) 0. 674 0. 674 1 1 1 Midpoint Indicator Value 4. 41 x 1 0 –04 SII Value 4. 4 x10 –04 1. 65 x 10 –03 –7. 5 x10 –02 –01 External Value of 2. 0 x 10 Macro Social Purchases Performance No information available Stakeholder Participation –01 Final Social Impact Value 1. 5 x10 a Total of 1140 permanent positions at 40 hours per week assumed for 49 weeks (three weeks vacation, etc. ). b A target (and current) state is taken as the weighted average for the region, i. e. 916 mg/day/m2. 1 Since no characterisation factors for noise to dust or dust to noise is available, the midpoint. category was calculated as a weighted average with equal weights to each constituent. 2 The units of equivalence have been changed to contribution to GDP due to the information available. 2 dBA 2 100 mg/d/m R 52 mil. 2. 19 x 10 –03 1. 09 x 10 –03 3. 85 x10 –02 –4. 38 x 10 –01 –1. 09 x 10 –01 2. 0 x 10 –02 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 11 Process Industry Social Sustainabili tyTable 9: Available operational and social footprint information for the region of the chemical facility Interventiona Employees Plant Informationb  ± 7,000 Social Footprint Information Target: To have everyone employed excluding people who prefer to be not economically active. Govan Mbeki Municipality: Employed: 60,681 Unemployed: 40,189; Total Labour Force: 100,870. Employable Community Work hours – assuming all full-time employees – 40 hours – 49 weeks (3 weeks leave). 13 019 (target and current state assumed equal). Not available Not available Not available 197 kilo ton 138. 8 kilo ton 394 kilo ton 90 kilo ton (Permit: 101) 44,109. 2 kilo ton Atmospheric Emissions (concentration information from SEA) NOx 1 Hour Maximum NO2 concentration Average of 5 3 receptor points: 539.  µg/m Acceptable Target (WHO guideline): 200  µg/m3 (1-hour NOx average) Current State: 1 Hour Maximum NO2 concentration based on maximum predicted concentration: 801  µg/m3 Accep table Target (WHO guideline): 125  µg/m3 Current State: 24 Hour Maximum SO2 Concentration based on based on maximum 3 predicted concentration: 152  µg/m Target: (1:200 year firm yield) 150 million m per annum Current (predicted 1998/2000 average) 183. 6 million m3 per annum R 49,707 million Not available Not available 3 Indirect Employment Creation  ± 21,000 (applying the rule of 3 used in SIAs) Total Injuries Disabling Injury Rate (no/200,000 hours) Health & Safety Incidents (Spillages) Atmospheric Emissions: SO2 NOx VOC H2S CO2 541 0. 59 70 Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available SO2 24 Hour Maximum SO2 Concentration based on average of 5 receptor points: 127. 4  µg/m3 Water Usage – River Water 89,963 m 3 Financial Turnoverc Transportation Incidents Complaints a b R 7835 million 12 36 cOnly those quantifiable social interventions for which plant and social footprint information is available, are used in the SII calculation procedure. Al l plant information has been obtained from the Sustainable Development Report where the average of data available has been used unless otherwise stated. The South African Rand is equal to approximately 0. 12 Euros (as at the end of October 2005). Table 10: Calculated Social Impact Indicators for the chemical facility from the available case study information Area of Protection Internal Human Resources Intervent. Midpoint Category Permanent Positions Possible Health and Safety Incidents Local Employment Comfort Level Availability of water services External Value of Purchases Intervent.Value 7,000 541 Normalisation Value (Ts–1) 9. 91 x 10–06 7. 68 x 10 –05 Significance Value (Cs/Ts) 0. 602 1 Midpoint Indicator Value 4. 17 x 10–02 –4. 16 x 10 –02 SII Value Employment Creation Health & Safety Incidents 1. 9 x10–04 External Population Permanent Positions Atmospheric Emissions (SO2) Water Usage 41,167,000 hrs 127. 4  µg/m 89. 963 m 3 3 5. 06 x 10 0. 008 0. 007 –09 0. 602 1. 216 1. 224 0. 125 –1. 239 –0. 734 0. 158 –1. 85 Macro Social Performance Stakeholder Participation Nature of Sales R 7835 mil. 2. 01 x 10 –05 1 0. 158 No information available –1. 69 x10 –01 Final Social Impact Value 12 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 Social Sustainability nd employment cannot outweigh the negative impacts on comfort level, people (in the form of health and safety accidents), and the water usage. The biggest social impact is the impact on comfort level due to atmospheric emissions, i. e. secondary environmental impacts. 3. 3 Decommissioning of a fibre manufacturing plant Process Industry In addition, environmental RIIs were calculated using standard RII values, which were calculated for selected process parameters [27]. Table 11 shows the available project and social footprint information. 3. 3. 3 Environmental and social impact indicators 3. 3. 1 Background Tables 12 and 13 show the calcula ted Social and Environmental Impact Indicators.The values in Tables 12 and 13 show that although a similar methodology was followed to calculate SIIs compared to RIIs, the indicator outcomes are vastly different. This highlights that the interpretation of indicators remains challenging. Assessing the overall sustainability performance of a project or technology by allowing trade-offs between the contributions and damages should be seriously considered before it is applied. Ultimately, the trade-offs between the different dimensions would be the responsibility of the specific decision-makers, and therefore reflect the preferences of the decision-makers. 3. 4 Conclusions from the case studies In the early 1990s a second-hand acrylic fibre plant from a manufacturing facility in France was dismantled and relocated in the KwaZulu Province of South Africa.However, the decreasing acrylic fibre market in South Africa, combined with a lack of import protection, led to the decision to decommi ssion the plant in March 2002. The plant manufactured its last products in May 2002, which were sold in August 2002. The plant was dismantled and the site rehabilitated by March 2003. 3. 3. 2 Available project and social footprint information Using the company's sustainable development report, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the region, as well as the sustainable development indicator data of the municipal area in which the plant operated, the SII calculation procedure was applied to calculate the social impacts. As stated before it is not easy to generalise from case study research.However, the case studies showed that it is not possible to calculate all social midpoint category indicators, Table 11: Available project and social footprint information for the region of the fibres plant Interventiona Nature of Jobs Project Information 250 employment opportunities lost (5% relocated = 12 ) Social Footprint Information eThekwini unemployment: 591,024 eThekwini employmen t: 782,933 Target: To have everyone employed excluding people who prefer to be not economically active. Employable Community Work hours – assuming all full-time employees – 40 hours – 49 weeks (3 weeks leave). Indirect Employment Destruction  ± 750 (applying the rule of 3 used in SIAs) Work-hours lost due to injuries Disabling Injuries 475. 25 hours 6. Although social footprint information is available the definition of disabling injuries is not given and therefore information is not comparable. Not available Not available eThekwini Emissions 0. 488 kilo ton per annum 0. 111 kilo ton per annum 0. 005 kilo ton per annum 1,429,200 kilo litre per annum 54. 50 kilo ton per annum 54. 50 kilo ton per annum No information available eThekwini – with water loss: 168,090 ML – without water loss: 280,149 ML eThekwini: 9098 GWh per annum Not available Durban South Basin: 45,000 ton per annum Not available GDP of Kwa Zulu Natal: R 113,047 million Disabling In jury Rate (no per 200 000 hours) Health & Safety Incidents (Spillages) Atmospheric Emissions: SO2 NOx VOC Water Usage 2. 375 0. 75 per annumEnergy Usage Solid Waste: General/Domestic Non-Hazardous Industrial Nature of Sales c 48. 384 GWh per annum 5. 25 x 10 m per annum 2. 575 x 10 m per annum b 1,545 tons per annum 2. 675 x 10 m per annum Annual turnover of R 500 million 0. 5 per annum 3 3 3 3 3 3 Stakeholder Complaints a b c Only those quantifiable social interventions for which plant and social footprint information is available, are used in the SII calculation procedure. The South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry's minimum requirements for waste density was used for the conversion. The South African Rand is equal to approximately 0. 12 Euros (as at the end of October 2005). Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 13 Process Industry Social SustainabilityTable 12: Calculated Social Impact Indicators for the decommissioning of the fibres plant from the available case study informati on Area of Protection Internal Human Resources Intervent. Employment Creation Permanent Positions Energy Usage External Population Water Usage Waste a Generated Atmospheric Emissions (SO2 & NOx)b Macro Social Performance Stakeholder Participation Final Social Impact Value a b c Midpoint Category Permanent Positions Local Employment Availability of energy services Availability of water services Availability of waste services Comfort Level External Value of Purchases Intervent. Value 262 1,983,520 hrs 48. 384 GWh 1,429,200 kl 1 545 t 0. 65 kt SO2 eq. R 500 mil. Normalisation Value (Ts–1) 7. 28 x 10–07 3. 71 x 10 –10 Significance Value (Cs/Ts) 0. 570 0. 570 1 1 1 Midpoint Indicator Value –1. 09 x 10–04 –4. 20 x 10 –04 SII Value –1. 1 x10–04 1. 1 x 10–04 3. 57 x 10 –09 5. 32 x 10–03 5. 10 x 10 –03 5. 47 x10–04 2. 22 x 10–05 2. 84 x 10–02 7. 98 x 10–06 3. 43 x 10– 02 1. 04 x 10–02 –3. 99 x 10–03 –4. 0 x10–03 a Nature of Salesc 1 No information available 5. 06 x10 –02 Based on information available the units of equivalence have been changed to domestic waste generated in tons. Comfort level is measured quantitatively in kilo tons SO2 per annum using CML characterisation factors.The units of equivalence have been changed to contribution to GDP due to the information available. The South African Rand is equal to approximately 0. 12 Euros (as at the end of October 2005). Table 13: Calculated environmental Resource Impact Indicators for the decommissioning of the fibres plant from the available case study information Process Parameter (annual quantities) Waste Electricity used Coal Used Steam used Water used 1,545,000 kg 174,182,400 MJ 46,368,000 kg 354,960,000 kg 1,429,200,000 kg Resource Impact Indicator Water 7. 29 x 10–02 7. 88 x 10 0 2. 60 x 10 7. 00 x 10 8. 84 x 10 4 4 5 Air 2. 33 x 10– 06 1. 79 x 10 0 2. 51 x 10 0 1. 81 x10 +04 2 4 Land 4. 2 x 10–02 1. 68 x 10 0 4. 41 0 1. 72 x 10 +02 2 Mined 0 8. 81 x 10 1 1. 67 x 102 1. 52 x 10 0 4. 07 x 10 +02 2 +05 either because of a lack of project information, or because of a lack of social footprint information. In addition, the units of equivalence cannot be fixed since they depend on the available information. This complicates indicator comparisons between various projects. The limitation of available social footprint information results in the fact that only some midpoint category indicators are possible, i. e. permanent positions, water usage, energy usage, nature of sales, and comfort level, which leads to an impaired social picture.In addition, the midpoint category indicators for water usage, energy usage and comfort level are much higher than permanent positions, thus resulting in a net negative social impact for any proposed development, which may not be a representation of the true social influence of the project or technology. 4 Conclusions and Recommendations sions of sustainable development [29]. The research therefore concludes that a quantitative social impact assessment method cannot be applied for project and technology life cycle management purposes in industry at present. It is emphasised that these conclusions were reached from a process LCA perspective, which is industry sector-wide.Research with a product LCA focus may lead to different outcomes. Although a comprehensive top-down approach was followed, a bottom-up approach may be more appropriate for product LCAs [30], as the selection of suitable criteria would be constrained to the specific scope of a LCA study. 4. 1 Further steps to quantify social impact indicators A case study independent analysis of available social footprint information in South Africa confirmed the main finding of this paper that social footprint information is not available for all midpoint categories [28]. It is regarded as an international prob lem that current available statistics are incapable of providing an integrated view of various dimen-It is proposed that social sustainability should be incorporated into project and technology life cycle management by means of guidelines and checklists. Similar to the environmental dimension, it is envisaged that such checklists and guidelines would improve the availability of quantitative data in time, and would therefore make the SII procedure more practical in the future. Although such guidelines and checklists have been developed from a theoretical perspective [28], practical guidelines and checklists from a project or technology life cycle management perspective are yet to be dem- 14 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 Social Sustainability onstrated. Further cases are subsequently required for demonstration and analysis purposes.While the guidelines and checklists may lead to a paradigm shift in industry towards obtaining and evaluating social impact-related information, it is also suggest ed that a lesscomprehensive list of social criteria is used as a starting point to develop social LCA-specific methodologies, possibly using those midpoint category indicators that were quantifiable in the case studies of this research, i. e. permanent positions, water usage, energy usage, nature of sales, and comfort level, or other midpoint categories that are currently proposed [30]. However, social issues are highly influenced by cultural perceptions, and it would be best to undertake such a task at national level.National indicator sets can then be compared and combined on an international level. In addition, it is suggested that the development of data quality standards are required for social criteria, similar to the efforts of SETAC and ISO for the environmental criteria used in LCA today. Such standards would greatly improve the transparency of calculated indicators. References [1] Zadek S (1999): Stalking Sustainability. Greener Management International 26, 21–31 [2 ] Roberts S, Keeble J, Brown D (2002): The Business Case for Corporate Citizenship, Arthur D. Little, Cambridge [3] Visser W, Sunter C (2002): Beyond Reasonable Greed: Why Sustainable Business is a Much Better Idea! Human & Rousseau, & Tafelberg, Cape Town [4] Holliday CO, Schmidheiny S, Watts P (2002): Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield [5] Lehtonen M (2004): The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: Capabilities, social capital, institutions, Ecological Economics 49, 199–214 [6] Ranganathan J (1998): Sustainability Rulers: Measuring Corporate Environmental and Social Performances, Sustainable Enterprise Perspectives, World Resources Institute Publication [7] Hedstrom G, Poltorzycki S, Stroh P (1998): Sustainable Development: The Next Generation of Business Opportunity, Arthur D. Little: Prism-Sustainable Development: How Real, How Soon and Who's doing what? 4, 5–19 [8] Gladwin TN, Kenn elly JJ, Krause T-S (1995): Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research. Academy of Management Review 20, 874–907 [9] Labuschagne C, Brent AC, Van Erck RPG, (2005): Assessing the sustainability performance of industries.Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (4) 373–385 [10] Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2005): Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: the need to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector. Int J Project Management 23 (2) 159–168 [11] Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2005): Verification and validation of the introduced framework to assess the sustainability performances of industries. Working Paper 2005/01, Department of Engineering and Technology Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria [12] Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2004): Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: Aligning project management methodologies with the principles of sustainable development. Proceedings of Process Industry he 2004 PMSA In ternational Conference: Global Knowledge for Project Management Professionals, pp 104–115 [13] Klopfer W (2003): Life-Cycle Based Methods for Sustainable Product Development. Int J LCA 8, 157–159 [14] Brent AC, Labuschagne C (2004): Sustainable Life Cycle Management: Indicators to assess the sustainability of engineering projects and technologies. InLCA/LCM On-line Conference [15] Brent AC (2004): A Life Cycle Impact Assessment procedure with resource groups as Areas of Protection. Int J LCA 9 (3) 172–179 [16] Brent AC, Labuschagne C (2005): Sustainable Life Cycle Management: A case study in the process industry to develop a calculation procedure for social indicators following conventional LCA methods.Fourth Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Sydney [17] Brent AC, Labuschagne C (2004): Sustainable Life Cycle Management: Indicators to assess the sustainability of engineering projects and technologies. Proceedings of the IEEE International Engineerin g Management Conference, Singapore, pp 99–103 [18] Statistics South Africa, Stats Online: The Digital face of Stats SA. Available at: (visited on 18 April 2005) [19] Department of Transport, Department of Transport: Library. Available at: (visited on 19 April 2005) [20] Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Available at: (visited on 19 April 2005) [21] Department of Health, Department of Health: Documents. Available at: (visited on 19 April 2005) [22] Department of Labour, Department of Labour: All about accidents. Available at: (visited on 19 April 2005) [23] NOSA International, NOSA International: Occupational Safety, Health and Environmental Risk Management. Available at (visited on 19 April 2005) [24] Municipal Demarcation Board, Municipal Profiles. Available at: (visited on 19 April 2005) [25] Walmsley Environmental Consultants (1997): Environmental Management Programme Report for the Sigma Colliery: North West Strip Operations, Volume II Main Report, Walmsley Environmental Consultants, Report no W220/3, Johannesburg [26] Development Planning and Research cc (1996): Specialist Study 16: Macro Social Economic Impact Assessment of Sigma Colliery’s Proposed North West Strip Operation. Walmsley Environmental Consultants (Pty) LTD, Johannesburg [27] Brent AC, Visser JK (2005): An environmental performance resource impact indicator for life cycle management in the manufacturing industry.Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (6) 557–565 [28] Labuschagne C (2005): Sustainable project life cycle management: Development of social criteria for decision-making. PhD Thesis, Department of Engineering and Technology Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria [29] OECD (2004): Measuring Sustainable Development: Integrated Economic, Environmental and Social Frameworks. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris [30] Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2005): A Framewor k for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J LCA, OnlineFirst