Industry Life Cycle of Nokia Company

sociable Sustainability member patience hearty Sustainability companionable indications for sustainable control and Technology emotional state cycle vigilance in the carry through with(predicate) Industry Carin Labuschagne1 and Alan C. Brent1* 1 Chair of flavour Cycle Engineering, Department of Engineering & Technology anxiety, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, sec Africa * Corresponding author (alan. emailprotected ac. za) DOI http//dx. doi. org/10. 1065/lca2006. 01. 233 Abstract Goal, Scope and backcloth.The importance of the hearty dimension of sustainable training increased noneworthyly during the last decade of the twentieth century. Industry has subsequently experienced a interruption in stakeholder pressures from environmental to genial-related concerns, where new matuproportionns in the form of objects and technologies atomic number 18 under(a)taken. However, the measurement of decenniumder contract-to doe withs and the calculation of qual ified indicators are less healthy highly- parted compared to environmental indicators in order to assess the po cardinaltial liabilities associated with undertaken regorges and technologies.The look of this paper is to propose a brotherly match indication (SII) calculation unconscious process establish on a previously introduced Life Cycle squeeze sound judgement (LCIA) calculation procedure for environmental imaging Impact index numbers (RIIs), and to establish the practicability of the SII procedure in the context of the parade exertion in southward Africa. Methods. A theoretical account of neighborly sustainability criteria has been introduced for the southwest African influence industry.The loving sub-criteria of the framework are boost analyzed, based on bewilder and engine room prudence expertise in the reciprocal ohm African process industry, to determine whether the criteria should be speaked at tolerate or applied science prudence take aim or whether they should rather form part of an over every(prenominal) corporate governance policy for new protrusions and technologies. andmore, the pro represent indicators for criteria that are considered fascinate for stand or engine room evaluation purposes are cumber by the type of prove that is for sale, i. e. he calculation regularityology relies on the availability of regional or national accessible entropy where the catch will be implemented, as well as the availability of project- or applied science-specific hearty tuition during the confuse phases of the project or technology victimisation feel calendar method. Case studies in the process industry and statistical learning for entropy Africa are subsequently apply to establish information availability for the SII calculation procedure, demonstrate the SII method together with the RII method, and determine the working use of the SII method.Results and Conclusion. The reason studies establish that soci al remnant information as well as project- and technology social info are not readily available in the southbound African process industry. Consequently, the tote up of mid-point categories that can be evaluated are minimal, which results in an afflicted social picture when compared to the environmental dimension. It is concluded that a quantitative social impact assessment method cannot be applied for project and technology conduct beat management purposes in industry at present.Recommendation and Perspective. Following the outcomes of the crusade studies in the South African process industry, it is recommended that checklists and guidelines be utilise during project and technology bearing round of golf management practices. Similar to the environmental dimension, it is envisaged that much(prenominal) checklists and guidelines would improve the availability of quantitative entropy in time, and would thitherfore make the SII procedure more practical in the future.Keyword s Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Life Cycle forethought (LCM) process industry election Impact Indicator (RII) tender 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 break 1. The inclusion of social aspects in the sustainability debate and practice has nevertheless been marginal compared to the attention given to the other both dimensions, especi entirelyy from a strain perspective 1,2,3.However, stakeholders are forcing companies to delivery the inclusion of social sustainability by slicknessing 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 need of analytical and theoretical underpinnings 5 and it is believed that the state of development of indicators or measurements for social air sustainability parallels that of environmental deeds 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 moldiness such an assessment methodology consider and measure? 2) How must these criteria be communicate and measured?To address the first question, a framework of social business sustainability criteria is traced, which is relevant for operational hatchways 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 genus Paris 3 bidding Indus try well-disposed Sustainability state (CSR) literature and guidelines, and other international guidelines were undertaken ( evade 1) 9.The abbreviation presented that a comprehensive social sustainability framework should define take away criteria to address the corporations impacts on the social systems in which it operates, as well as the companys 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. get across 2 provides the definitions of the criteria at the different trains of the framework, which are described in detail elsewhere 9. 1 1. 1 affectionate Sustainability Criteria mannequin information of a framework for business management purposes in the process industry The current indicator frameworks that are available to measure boilers suit business sustainability do not government issueively address social aspects of s ustainability 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 Assessment (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 / financial backing conditions ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Criteria club Security / Crime Facilities & Services tribe characteristics Community characteristics Economic welfare / workplace ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Indicator frameworks United Nations 1 ? ? 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Global reporting Intitiative2 IchemE Sustainability prosody Wuppertal Indicators 4 European Conceptual Framework for Social Ind. SIA literature Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles6 Socio sparing impacts for pos tcode Efficiency Project for Climate turn 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 dep unitys Social Analysis 14 Sourcebook SRI index numberes Dow Jones Sustainability indication FTSE 4 GOOD16 JSE SRI Index 17 18 15 13 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pressures from international financing plaques ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Dominini 400 Index Global Compact19 multinational standards and guidelines Global Sullivan Principles20 Caux rung Table OECD Guidelines SA 8000 23 21 22 AA asco rbic acid024 Investors in slew CSR standards Ethos Indicators 27 25 26 Ethical duty Initiative ? 29 ? ? ? ? ? Standards of CSR28 Danish Social Index 4 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 Social Sustainability treat IndustryTable 1 Analysis of the social criteria addressed by current frameworks and guidelines 9 (contd) Name and type of literature Society Community cohesion Indicator frameworks 1 United Nations 2 Global narrationing 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 modify 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 / education of of company plight staff Equity Company internal Fair pitying 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 sustainable development guidelines and methodologies. United Nations. forthcoming 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 pass ton 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 look for and methodological analy sis (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 Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Verification and Certification of Energy-Efficiency Projects for Climate Change Mitigation. US environmental auspices 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 19941999. forgiving Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Publishers, Pretoria Brent AC, Heuberger R, Manzini D (2005) Evaluating projects that are potentially eligible for Clean Development chemical mechanism (CDM) funding in the South African context A good example study to establish burthen values 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. Westview Press, London European Commission involvement 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, displacement 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) The Domini 400 Social IndexSM. getable from http//www. domini. com/Social-screening/creation_ of importtenance. 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, 3549 Global Sullivan Principles (2003) The Global Sullivan Principles of Social Responsibility. lendable 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 G uidelines 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 bound 2003 obligation (1999) Overview of the AA1000 framework. 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 R esponsibility, Social Venture Networks, San Fransisco Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, KPMG, Socialforskningsinstituttet (2000) Social Index Measuring a Companys social responsibility, Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, Copenhagen Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 5 Process Industry Social Sustainability Social Sustainability immanent Human Resources outer Population macro Social surgical procedure Stakeholder fellowship calling Stability Human gravid Socio- Economic executing Information Provision role Opportunities job Renumeration Employment Practices Health Economic Welfare Trading Opportunities Socio- Environmental Performance Collective listening Selected Audience Stakeholder forge Education Productive Capital Disciplinary & Security Practices Employee Contracts Equity Housing MonitoringDecision Influence emf Stakeholder Empowerment Service Infrastructure Mobility Infrastructure regulative & Public Services Community Capital ordinance Enforcement advertize Sources Health & gumshoe Health & Safety Practices Health & Safety Incidents competency Development sensational Stimuli Cultural Properties Social Pathologies Security Economic Welfare Social Cohesion Research & Development locomote Development Fig. 1 Framework to assess the social sustainability of engineering projects and technologies 9 Table 2 Definitions of Social Criteria 9 inwrought Human Resources porees on the social responsibility of the company towards its workforce and includes all aspects of employment.The criterion addresses a business initiatives impact on work opportunities within the company, the stability thus 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 gracious rights declarations as well as other human rights and fair employment pra ctice 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 companys operational initiatives on a society, e. g. impacts External Population on the availability of work, community 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, Human Capital psychological well creation, education, training and skills levels. The criterion addresses Health and Education separately. Productive capital entails the assets and home an individual needs in order to maintain a productive life. The criterion Productive Capital measures the strain placed on these assets and i nfrastructure 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 support as well as the typical characteristics of the community. Macro Social Performance focuses on the contri andion 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 companys business initiatives. Economic welfare (contribution to gross domestic product, 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 fraternity focuses on the relationships between the company and ALL its stakeholders (internally and Stakeholder lodge externally) by assessing the standard of information sharing and the grade 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 keistered, specific groups of stakeholders (Selected Audience). The degree to which the company in reality listens to the stakeholders opinion should withal be evaluated. Two separate subStakeholder Influence criteria are included Decision Influence Potential and Stakeholder Empowerment. knowledgeable Human Resources 6 Int J LCA 11 (1) 2006 Social Sustainability Proce ss Industry The resultant was r apieceed 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 troll phase. However, there may be social aspects that did not manifest in either the fictional character studies or the framework.Nevertheless, the rear end on which the individual case studies were chosen makes these cases adequately catch up withative of the current social environment in which verbal expression, operation, and decommissioning occurs in the process industry. It is subsequently concluded that the framework is complete enough to be used as an initial ground 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 centre of a Delphi technique quite a little 12. The survey focused on the re levance of the proposed social criteria for the evaluation of projects or technologies and attempted to dish out whether the project team, a functional unit within an organisation, or an organisations corporate governance framework should address the different social aspects.A amount of 23 project management 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 m eans 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 the greatest potential to sustain 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 evaluated 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 try out units and cannot be treated as such. Table 3 Delphi Technique survey results 11Criterion Employment Opportunities Employment hire 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 C ultural 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 = normalization 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 whole step data in the region of the assessment. And, Significance (or relation importance) of the impact category i n 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 social sustainable development indicator calculation method.A life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) glide path has been proposed forward 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 vestige 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 comport 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 take aimd 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 shopping centre impact category C, i. e. project or technology specific information with regards to social impacts. Table 4 inwardness 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 potential 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 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 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 communicate frequency of the occurrence, and the potential intensity thereof Measurement methods to establish equivalence units valued hazard duodecimal Quantitati ve lay on the line 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 pleasing housing Availability of piddle work Availability of energy work Availability of waste services Pressure on public enjoy 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 / give chain value/ disposition of Purchases Migration of cl ients / Changes in the product value chain/Nature of Sales receipts 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 figure of employment opportunities equivalent to a specific position need or Disability Injury Rate Cost spend on R capacity fortune of uncomfort/ Kilo dozens 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 pre diction 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 level of municipality as well as pleasing 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 banish 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 pass in ratio, foc us 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 criterion of pee used or supplied Quantity of electricity used or supplied Quantity of waste generated and/or quantity of waste removed from municipal area Number of additional public transport set required Tons of good transported on roads and or kilogrammetre of road infrastructure provided share 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 intoxication quality per capita kWh of electricity per capita Capita per Gh landfill siteWater of drinking quality used by municipality electrical energy use of goods and services by municipality Landfill sites (type and size) used by municipality Public becharm seats available in municipal area Ton kilometres per capita (in region or nationally) clear domesticated 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 C ost 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 suppress 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 social 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 licence 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(a) case studies are set in S outh Africa and project information was obtained from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies as well as interviews with members of the respective project teams. ascribable to the hindsight application of the SII method no additional data could be collected from a project perspective.Social vestige 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 sign information are available, and if the respective information is comparable. It is noted that whereas LCA n ormally 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 Open footslog spoil 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 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 town, which was supplied by the mine from 1952.Ultimately, a threat to the cosmos of the chemical manufacturer is a direct threat to the existence of the town and in a sen se 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 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) Reduction in property values Increases in Ambient encumbrance levels (dBa) on mediocre Dust (mg/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 meg per annum (in 1999/2000) 2532 9-19% (year 110) 24 258 2 24 195 Between 50250 24 187 2 6% (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 partake to nearly 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 full(a) 736,721 100% Estimated ambient noise level (dBA) 24 97 Time of day Morning Midday Evening dark Over 24 hours Sasolburg GDP (1991) due to kind of activity 25 59 Mining & Quarrying Dust convening 25 MarchJuly AugustDecember JanuaryFebruary Dust Figures 25 September October (2 x sites) November (1 site) a b c occupied 308,826 41. 9% a Un assiduous 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 251500 mg/day/m2 5011200 mg/day/m 5011200 mg/day/m 2 2 Moderate atrocious 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 equal to the target state. note 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 installation 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 Afr icas wages 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 figure 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 beingness Permanent Positions b Noise & Dust 1 Generated 2 Nature of Sales Midpoint Category Permanent Positions Local Employment Comfort Level Intervent. grade 300 in total 2195200 hrs a Normalisation honour (Ts1) 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 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 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 SustainabilityTable 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 atmospherical Emissions ( immersion information from SEA) nighttime 1 Hour supreme 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 predi cted concentration 152 g/m Target (1200 year firm yield) 150 meg 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 groundwork 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 g/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. All plant information has been obtained from the Sustainable Development Report where the average of data available has been used unless other 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 (Ts1) 9. 91 x 1006 7. 68 x 10 05 Significance Value (Cs/Ts) 0. 602 1 Midpoint Indicator 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. 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 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 rema ins 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 take down 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 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 exploitation 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 Interventiona 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 incapacitate 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 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 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 an num 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 Forestrys 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 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 1002 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 approximatel y 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 Air 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 stock-still 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 th at 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 honest 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 bott om-up approach may be more appropriate for product LCAs 30, as the selection of equal 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 unequal to(p) 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 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.Nation al 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, 2131 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 porthole 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 extension 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 Management Review 20, 874907 9 Labuschagne C, Brent AC, Van Erck RPG, (2005) Assessing the sustainability performance of industries.Journal of Cleaner Production 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 asses s 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 calculatio n 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. 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 master(prenominal) 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 Collierys 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) 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 structured 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