Industry Life Cycle of Nokia Company

complaisant Sustain big businessman carry through with(predicate) Industry favorable Sustainability well-disposed indications for sustainable communicate and Technology Life musical rhythm worry in the execute Industry Carin Labuschagne1 and Alan C. brent1* 1 Chair of Life unity shot engineering science, De adjournment of Engineering & Technology Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, south-central Africa * Corresponding author (alan. emailprotected ac. za) DOI http//dx. doi. org/10. 1065/lcacc6. 01. 233 Abstract Goal, reaching and Background.The importance of the cast mark of sustainable cast up increased importantly during the last decade of the 20th century. Industry has subsequently experienced a shift in stakeholder pressures from environmental to companionable- link concerns, where new festerings in the form of visits and technologies argon undertaken. However, the measurement of t rarityer tincts and the computation of suitable expone nts are less well up authentic compared to environmental indexs in order to treasure the frameiveness liabilities associated with undertaken renders and technologies.The repel of this subject is to propose a brotherly stir indicant (SII) slowness modus operandi ground on a previously introduced Life rung jolt sagaciousness (LCIA) reckoning procedure for environmental Resource adjoin Indicators (RIIs), and to demonst inured out the practicability of the SII procedure in the circumstance of the deal persistence in confederation Africa. Methods. A example of neighborly sustainability criteria has been introduced for the federation African process industry.The kind sub-criteria of the modeling are further analyzed, based on task and engineering science heed expertise in the southwest African process industry, to determine whether the criteria should be communicate at work out or technology focussing level or whether they should rather form part of a n everyplace every incarnate governance policy for new foxs and technologies. Furthermore, the proposed indicators for criteria that are considered stamp down for chuck or technology evaluation purposes are constrained by the timber of training that is lax, i. e. he tally methodology relies on the accessibility of surface cranial orbital or national favorable study where the take care masterminding be implemented, as well as the availability of project- or technology- proper(postnominal) friendly culture during the various phases of the project or technology ripening keeptime unit of ammunition. Case studies in the process industry and statistical information for southeastern Africa are subsequently manipulationd to establish information availability for the SII calculation procedure, demonstrate the SII method together with the RII method, and determine the pragmatic use of the SII method.Results and Conclusion. The episode studies establish that ge nial token information as well as project- and technology favorable data are not readily for sale in the randomness African process industry. Consequently, the number of mid-point categories that can be evaluated are minimal, which results in an impaired brotherly picture when compared to the environmental dimension. It is reason out that a quantitative mixer blow assessment method cannot be applied for project and technology bread and buttertime round of golf guidance purposes in industry at present.Recommendation and Perspective. Following the outcomes of the role studies in the sulfur African process industry, it is recommended that checklists and guidelines be utilize during project and technology feel wheel around management practices. corresponding 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 operable in the f uture.Keywords Life regular recurrence dissemble opinion (LCIA) Life steering wheel Management (LCM) process industry Resource Impact Indicator (RII) mixer Impact Indicator (SII) amicable sustainability Introduction The last decade of the twentieth century marked significant steps to draw the friendly dimension of sustainable development into the open 1. The inclusion of social aspects in the sustainability conceive and practice has nevertheless been marginal compared to the attention apt(p) to the other dickens dimensions, peculiarly from a craft vista 1,2,3.However, stakeholders are forcing companies to channelize the inclusion of social sustainability by shifting pressure from environmental to social related concerns 4,5. The social dimension is comm just now recognised as the weakest pillar of sustainable development due to a neediness of analytical and theoretical underpinnings 5 and it is believed that the declare of development of indicators or measurements f or social business sustainability parallels that of environmental performances about 20 years ago 6.Nevertheless, there is a definite withdraw for practical tools to introduce social sustainability into business evaluation processes 1,7,8. This typography proposes a methodology to assess the social sustainability of projects and technologies in the process industry by conniving social trespass indicators, and addresses the following twain 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 checkd, which is relevant for in operation(p) initiatives in the process industry. cordial sustainable development indicators are then introduced, demonstrated and discussed, based on the delineate 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 capital of France 3 extremity Industry societal Sustainability office (CSR) literary works and guidelines, and other internationalistic guidelines were undertaken ( panel 1) 9.The synopsis furnished that a comprehensive social sustainability framework should define attach criteria to address the beau mondes rivals on the social systems in which it operates, as well as the companys relationship with its various stakeholders. A sustainable development framework for practicable initiatives was subsequently developed and proposed, the social dimension of which is shown in Fig. 1. submit 2 provides the definitions of the criteria at the resistent levels of the framework, which are described in detail elsewhere 9. 1 1. 1 loving Sustainability Criteria poser organic evolution of a framework for business management purposes in the process industry The sure indicator frameworks that are forthcoming to measure overall business s ustainability do not inwardnessively address social aspects of sustainability at operational level in the process industry, especially in ontogenesis countries such as southeast Africa 9. The question arises what the contain scope of social sustainability should entail from a business management perspective. An analysis of current for sale frameworks, companionable Impact Assessment (SIA) guidelines, embodied affableTable 1 depth psychology of the social criteria addressed by current frameworks and guidelines 9 Name and graphic symbol of belles-lettres health re proceedsion Environment trapping / Living conditions ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Criteria golf club Security / Crime Facilities & serve Population characteristics partnership characteristics economical universe assistance / job ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Indicator frameworks United Nations 1 ? ? 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? world(prenominal) reportage Intitiative2 IchemE Sustainability prosody Wuppertal Indicators 4 European Concep tual Framework for Social Ind. SIA literature Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles6 Socioeconomic impacts for Energy Efficiency despatch for humor variety show 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 wagon trainclay 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 humane being edges Social Analysis 14 Sourcebook SRI Indexes Dow J one(a)s Sustainability Index FTSE 4 GOOD16 JSE SRI Index 17 18 15 13 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pressures from international financing organisations ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Dominini 400 Index world(a) Compact19 International standards and guidelines global Sullivan Principles20 Caux Round Table OECD Guidelines SA 8000 23 21 22 AA degree Celsius024 Investors in heap 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 appendage IndustryTable 1 Analysis of the social criteria addressed by current frameworks and guidelines 9 (contd) Name and type of literature Society conjunction cohesion Indicator frameworks 1 United Nations 2 Global inform 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 Banks Social Analysis ? 14 Sourcebook SRI Indexes 15 Dow Jones Sustainability Index FTSE 4 GOOD16 17 JSE 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 / learning of of company Engagement staff Equity Company internal Fair humans 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 ontogeny (2001) Indicators of sustainable development guidelines and methodologies. United Nations. lendable 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, Bos net gross ton Institution of chemical substance Engineers, (2002) The Sustainability Metrics sustainable growth Progress Metrics recommend for use in the Process Industries. Institution of Chemical Engineers. Rugby Spangenber g JH, Bonniot O (1998) Sustainability Indicators A Compass on the Road Towards Sustainability. Wuppertal Paper 81 Centre for keep abreast look for 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 Review 15 (1) 1143 Vine E, Sathaye J (1999) Guidelines for the monitor, Evaluation, Reporting, verification and Certification of Energy-Efficiency Projects for Climate Change Mitigation. US environmental security chest of drawers 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? imitate=c=1704, visited on 21 January 2004. Khosa M (2000) Social Impact Assessme nt of Development Projects. In Khosa M (ed), Infrastructure Mandate for Change 19941999.Human Sciences look Council (HSRC) Publishers, Pretoria Brent AC, Heuberger R, Manzini D (2005) Evaluating projects that are potentially eligible for wise Development Mechanism (CDM) funding in the South African context A flake excogitate to establish weighting fosters for sustainable development criteria. Environment and Development Economics 10 (5) 631649 Vanclay F (2002) Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (3) 183211 Branch K, Hooper DA, Thompson J, Creighton J (1984) Guide to Social Assessment A framework for assessing social change. western hemisphereview Press, capital of the United Kingdom European Commission duty 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- reenforcemented projects.Washington DC, The World Bank Social Development discussion section surface-to-air missile 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, capital of the United Kingdom 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) The Domini 400 Social IndexSM. getable from http//www. domini. com/Social-screening/creation_maintenance. doc_cvt. htm, visited on 31 celestial latitude 2003 Kell G (2003) The global compact origins, operations, progress and challenges.The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Autumn, 3549 Global Sullivan Principles (2003) The Global Sullivan Principles of Social Responsibility. functional from http//www. globalsullivanprinciples. org, visited on 27 celestial lati tude 2003 Caux Round Table (2003) Caux Round Table Principles for Business, English Translation. on tap(predicate) from http//www. cauxroundtable. org/ENGLISH. htm, visited on 20 January 2003 Organisation for Economic Co- surgical process and Development (2000) The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2000 Revision. OECD subject, Paris Social Accountability International (2003) Overview of SA8000. Available from http//www. cepaa. org/SA8000/SA8000. tm, visited on 4 shew 2003 AccountAbility (1999) Overview of the AA1000 framework. AccountAbility Publication, London, easy from http//www. lookability. org. uk/uploadstore/cms/docs/AA1000%20Overview. pdf, visited on 29 celestial latitude 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, visite d 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 sham Networks Standards of Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Venture Networks, San Fransisco Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, KPMG, Socialforskningsinstituttet (2000) Social Index criterion a Companys social responsibility, Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, Copenhagen Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 5 Process Industry Social Sustainability Social Sustainability informal Human Resources immaterial Population macro Social Performance Stakeholder amour physical exercise stability Human Capital Socio- Economic Performance instruction Provision Employment Opportunities Employment Renumeration Employment Practices wellness Economic social welfare Trading Opportunities Socio- Environmental Performance Collective Audience Selected Audience Stakeholder check Education nut-bearing Capital disciplinary & Security Practices Employee Contracts Equity Ho utilize MonitoringDecision Influence capability Stakeholder Empowerment Service Infrastructure Mobility Infrastructure regulatory & Public go Community Capital Legislation Enforcement agitate Sources Health & golosh Health & safe Practices Health & Safety Incidents electrical faculty Development Sensory Stimuli Cultural Properties Social Pathologies Security Economic social 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 inside Human Resources focuses on the social responsibility of the company towards its workforce and includes all aspects of involvement.The amount addresses a business initiatives impact on work opportunities in spite of appearance 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 job practice standards. The criterion focuses on the health and safety of the workforce and evaluates tour measures as well as the occurrence Health & Safety and intervention of health and/or safety incidents. Capacity Development The criterion addresses two different, aspects namely interrogation and development, and career development. outside Population focuses on the external impacts of the companys operational initiatives on a society, e. g. impacts foreign Population on the availability of run, participation cohesion, economic welfare, etc. Human Capital refers to an individuals ability to work in order to generate an income and encompasses aspects such as health, H uman 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 agree a productive life. The criterion Productive Capital measures the strain place 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 net incomes of Community Capital authority, reciprocity and support as well as the normal characteristics of the community. macro Social Performance focuses on the region of an organisation to the environmental and financial Macro Social Performance performance of a theatrical role or nation, e. g. contribution to exports. Socio-Economic Performance This criterion addresses the external economic impact of the companys business initiatives. Economic welfare (contribution to GDP, t axes, 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, voiceal 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 elaboration 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 beat 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 sterned, limited groups of stakeholders (Se lected Audience). The degree to which the company actually listens to the stakeholders imprint should too be evaluated. twain separate subStakeholder Influence criteria are included Decision Influence Potential and Stakeholder Empowerment. intrinsic 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 class into the criteria framework. In addition, all of the social criteria did not manifest in each asset life round of golf phase. However, there may be social aspects that did not manifest in either the guinea pig studies or the framework.Nevertheless, the basis on which the individual cutting studies were chosen makes these elusions 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 seemly to be employ 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 authority 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 at bottom an organisation, or an organisations corporate governance framework should address the different social aspects.A total of 23 project management experts in a process industry company in South Africa participated in the survey, which effected 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 al l 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 common chord phases of the asset, or technology, life speech rhythm with the 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 bicycle 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 occ ur 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 prepare, an acrylic fiber fibre manufacturing lay, and a mine. Project related documentation, pertaining to each of the case studies, was evaluated and personal interviews were held with project obligated individuals 11. It must be noted that in case rent research it is not easy to familiarise 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 11Criterion Employment Opportunities Employment Remunerat ion 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 sham and social LCI constituents are considered separate ly.NC = normalization factor for the impact category based on the social objectives in the region of assessment, i. e. the inverse of the target show of the impact category. The information is obtained from social stones throw data in the region of the assessment. And, moment (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) tally Procedure The main focus of this paper is the development and testing of a quantitative social sustainable development indicator calculation method.A life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) woo 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) preliminary 15, is thereby used as basis for the develo pment of social indicators. The environmental RII approach considers the current and target ambient state or bionomical dance step through a conventional distance-to-target normalisation and weighting calculation procedure 15. A analogous calculation procedure is proposed for Social Impact Indicators (SII), using the four main social criteria (shown in Fig. 1) as scene of actions of Protection (AoP).Three of these criteria represent the main groups of social resources on which the company can nurse 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 sum totalmation 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 nub impact category C, i. e. proj ect or technology specific information with regards to social impacts. Table 4 plaza categories and evaluation methods 17 Social Impact Indicators (SIIs) Internal Human Resources substance 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 round Inventory (LCI) of assessed operational initiatives in the process industry. However, the RII method makes use of mid-point categories. To define eye categories, the list of social interventions 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 nerve centre categories. These causal diagrams are shown in the Appendix 16.Three measurement methods are proposed to express the defined nub ca tegories in equating units (Table 4) 17 Established risk of infection assessment approaches, which conduct a inherent evaluation of the probability of occurrence, the projected frequency of the occurrence, and the potential intensity thereof Measurement methods to establish equivalence units quantitative danger duodecimal Quantitative try Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative/Quantitative Quantitative External Population Stakeholder Participation Macro-Social Performance ageless internal duty positions Internal Health and Safety situation Knowledge level / Career development Internal Research and Development capacity encourage level / Nuisances Perceived aesthetics topical anesthetic vocation topical anaesthetic population migration Access to health facilities Access to education accessibility of acceptable housing ac cessibleness of peeing serve Availability of competency services Availability of waste services Pressure on public displace services Pressure on the transport network / People and goods battlefront Access to regulatory and public services Change in relationships with stakeholders External value of purchases / supply chain value/ record of Purchases Migration of clients / Changes in the product value chain/ spirit of Sales overture 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 division Permanent Internal Employment Positions Possible Health and Safety Incidents Internal Research & Development Capacity External Population pouf Level/Nuisances Units of equivalence reckon of employment opportunities equivalent to a specific position Fatality or hinderance Injury Rate Cost spend on R capacity venture of uncomfort/ Kilo heaps of pollutants emitted per annum Intervention Information, i. e. project Social step 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 akin 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 ruffle level of municipality as well as acceptable levels by standards, e. g. SABS standards Predicted upset levels or risk of noise Aesthetics Level of perceived acceptableness Risk of structure and location having a negative impact on aesthetics of community Perceived level of aesthetic acceptability by community Local Employment Fraction of emplo yable 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 pendent 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 clean size of it Quantity of weewee used or supplied Quantity of electricity used or supplied Quantity of waste generated and/or quantity of waste outside from municipal celestial sphere Number of additional public transport position required Tons of good transported on roads and or kgmeter of road infrastructure provided Percentage of turnover or expenses spend topically Monetary amount spend on services, resources or information that will improve macro en vironmental performance Predicted Percentage improvement or deterioration in perceived stakeholder assert Demographic profile of community or municipal area National ratio of peck 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 qualification 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 peeing of drinking quality per capita kWh of electricity per capita Capita per Gh landfill site urine 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 show 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 set from the ten case studies.The definitions of the midpoint categories make it evident that the normalisation and entailment 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 social interventions of a project or technology may be problematic or at least differ from case to case. Separate studies may be required for nigh of the social sustainability criteria, e. g. stakeholder participation, pull down 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 conduct, 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 coating 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 Af rica 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 some(prenominal) project and social footprint information are available, and if the respective information is comparable. It is noted that whereas LCA normally considers a products 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 cycle and the associate product life cycle interact through the assets 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 rough Cast Strip Mine on the banks of the Vaal River between the Gauteng and Free severalize Provinces. Th e project was motivated on the basis that the reserves of the companys 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 township, which was supplied by the mine from 1952.Ultimately, a threat to the human race 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 riverbank properties. The project was stopped after a non-governmental organisation took the company to solicit 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 R eport 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 neighbourhood to the sic. The overall positive impact is mainly due 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) decline in property values Increases in Ambient Noise levels (dBa) on just Dust (mg/ solar day/m2) 450 people 24138 Operation 300a employment opportunities over a 20 year life span 24121 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) 2532 9-19% (year 110) 24 258 2 24 195 Between 50250 24 187 26% (after year 10 till mine closure) 24258 2 24 238239 100a 24 231 a a These values are used as quantifiable social interventions (Qx) in the SII calculation procedure. The South African Rand is relate to near 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 append 736,721 100% Estimated ambient noise level (dBA) 24 97 Time of day Morning noonday Evening Night Over 24 hours Sasolburg GD P (1991) due to kind of activity 25 59 Mining & Quarrying Dust Pattern 25 MarchJuly heroicDecember JanuaryFebruary Dust Figures 25 September October (2 x sites) November (1 site) a b c Employed 308,826 41. 9% a Un employ 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 viosterol mg/day/m2 5011200 mg/day/m 5011200 mg/day/m 2 2 Moderate Heavy Heavy The sum of these 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 fitting to the target state. respect 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 instalment 3. 2. 1 Background The chemical facility is situated 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 Africas Compensation Fund Statistics. References of these sources are withheld to protect the companys 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 companys 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 work out Social Impact Indicators for the proposed open cast m ine from the available case study information Area of Protection Internal Human Resources External Population Intervent. Employment construct Permanent Positions b Noise & Dust 1 Generated 2 record of Sales Midpoint Category Permanent Positions Local Employment entertain Level Intervent. look on 300 in total 2195200 hrs a calibration cheer (Ts1) 06 2. 183 x 10 1. 11 x 10 09 Significance take to be (Cs/Ts) 0. 674 0. 674 1 1 1 Midpoint Indicator Value 4. 41 x 10 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 concluding 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 burden 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. categ ory 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 SustainabilityTable 9 Available operational and social footprint information for the region of the chemical facility Interventiona Employees Plant Informationb 7,000 Social Footprint Information taper To have everyone employed excluding people who prefer to be not economically active. Govan Mbeki Municipality Employed 60,681 inactive 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) nighttime 1 minute of arc Maximum NO2 concentration Average of 5 3 receptor points 539. g/m Acceptable Target (WHO guideline) 200 g/m3 (1-hour NOx average) Current State 1 Hour Maximum NO2 concentration based on maximum predicted concentration 801 g/m3 Acceptable Target (WHO guideline) 125 g/m3 Current State 24 Hour Maximum SO2 Concentration based on based on maximum 3 predicted concentration 152 g/m Target (1200 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 crippling 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 p oints 127. 4 g/m3 Water rule 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. All 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 normalization Value (Ts1) 9. 91 x 1006 7. 68 x 10 05 Significance Value (Cs/Ts) 0. 602 1 Midpoint Indi cator Value 4. 17 x 1002 4. 16 x 10 02 SII Value Employment Creation Health & Safety Incidents 1. 9 x1004 External Population Permanent Positions Atmospheric Emissions (SO2) Water Usage 41,167,000 hrs 127. 4 g/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. Tabl e 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 calculated 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 mid-nineties a second-hand acrylic fibre plant from a manufacturing facility in France was dismantled and relocate d 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 decommission 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 companys 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 Intervent iona Nature of Jobs Project Information 250 employment opportunities lost (5% relocated = 12 ) Social Footprint Information eThekwini unemployment 591,024 eThekwini employment 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 ann um Not available Durban South Basin 45,000 ton per annum Not available GDP of Kwa Zulu Natal R 113,047 million Disabling Injury 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 elope frequent/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 euchre 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 Forestrys lower limit 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 Sustainabili tyTable 12 Calculated Social Impact Indicators for the decommissioning of the fibres plant from the available case study information 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 (Ts1) 7. 28 x 1007 3. 71 x 10 10 Significance Value (Cs/Ts) 0. 570 0. 570 1 1 1 Midpoint Indicator Value 1. 09 x 1004 4. 20 x 10 04 SII Value 1. 1 x1004 1. 1 x 1004 3. 57 x 10 09 5. 32 x 1003 5. 10 x 10 03 5. 47 x1004 2. 22 x 1005 2. 84 x 1002 7. 98 x 1006 3. 43 x 1002 1. 04 x 100 2 3. 99 x 1003 4. 0 x1003 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 1002 7. 88 x 10 0 2. 60 x 10 7. 00 x 10 8. 84 x 10 4 4 5 bank line 2. 33 x 1006 1. 79 x 10 0 2. 51 x 10 0 1. 81 x10 +04 2 4 Land 4. 2 x 1002 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 indomitable 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 high than permanent positions, thus resulting in a net negative social impact for any proposed development, which may not be a histrionics of the true social influence of the project or technology. 4 Conclusions and Recommendations sions of sustainab le 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 problem that current available statistics are incompetent 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 suggested that a lesscomprehensive list of social criteria is used as a starting point t o 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 shortly proposed 30. However, social issues are highly influenced by cultural perceptions, and it would be exceed 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 hydrofoil of calculated indicators. References 1 Zadek S (1999) Stalking Sustainability. Greener Management International 26, 2131 2 Roberts S, Keeble J, Brown D (2002) The Business Case for Corporate Citizenship, Arthur D. low ly, Cambridge 3 Visser W, Sunter C (2002) beyond Reasonable Greed Why Sustainable Business is a often Better Idea Human & Rousseau, & Tafelberg, Cape Town 4 Holliday CO, Schmidheiny S, Watts P (2002) walkway 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, 199214 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 Whos doing what? 4, 519 8 Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause T-S (1995) Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development Implications for Management Theory and Research. Academy of Man agement Review 20, 874907 9 Labuschagne C, Brent AC, Van Erck RPG, (2005) Assessing the sustainability performance of industries.Journal of Cleaner product 13 (4) 373385 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) 159168 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 International Conference Global Knowledge for Project Management Professionals, pp 104115 13 Klopfer W (2003) Life-Cycle Based Methods for Sustainable Product Development. Int J LCA 8, 157159 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) 172179 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 Engineering Management Conference, Singapore, pp 99103 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. Avai lable 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, gaudiness II Main Report, Walmsley Environmental Consultants, Report no W220/3, Johannesburg 26 Development cookery and Research cc (1996) Specialist Study 16 Macro Social Economic Impact Assessment of Sigma Collierys Proposed North W est 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) 557565 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 Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J LCA, OnlineFirst