IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9313-d442516.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Functional Unit for Impact Assessment in the Mining Sector—Part 1

Author

Listed:
  • Julien Bongono

    (Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, University of Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, INRAE, I2M Bordeaux, F-33400 Talence, France)

  • Birol Elevli

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun 55139, Turkey)

  • Bertrand Laratte

    (Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, University of Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, INRAE, I2M Bordeaux, F-33400 Talence, France
    Department of Industrial Engineering, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun 55139, Turkey
    APESA-Innovation, F-40220 Tarnos, France
    French Institute of Anatolian Studies, CNRS USR 3131, Palais de France Nur-i Ziya, sk. 10 PK 54 34433 Beyoğlu, Istanbul, Turkey)

Abstract

More and more efforts are directed towards the standardization of the methods of determining the functional unit (FU) in a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). These efforts concern the development of theories and detailed methodological guides, but also the evaluation of the quality of the FU obtained. The objective of this article is to review this work in order to propose, using a multiscale approach, a method for defining the FU in the mining sector, which takes into account all the dimensions of the system under study. In this first part, the emphasis is on identifying the shortcomings of the FU. The absence of a precise normative framework specific to each sector of activity, as well as the complex, multifunctional and hard-to-scale nature of the systems concerned, are at the origin of the flexibility in the selection of the FU. This lack of a framework, beyond generating a heterogeneous definition of the FU for the same system, most often leads to an incomplete formulation of this sensitive concept of LCA. It has been found that key parameters such as the end-use of a product or process, as well as the interests of stakeholders, are hardly taken into account in the specification of the FU.

Suggested Citation

  • Julien Bongono & Birol Elevli & Bertrand Laratte, 2020. "Functional Unit for Impact Assessment in the Mining Sector—Part 1," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-12, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9313-:d:442516
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9313/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9313/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mancini, Lucia & Sala, Serenella, 2018. "Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison of indicators frameworks," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 98-111.
    2. Kemp, Deanna & Worden, Sandy & Owen, John R., 2016. "Differentiated social risk: Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 19-26.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reina Pérez & Cecilia Fernández & Amanda Laca & Adriana Laca, 2024. "Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in Legume Crops: A Case Study of PGI White Bean Production in Southern Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. Ottone Scammacca & Rasool Mehdizadeh & Yann Gunzburger, 2022. "Territorial Mining Scenarios for Sustainable Land-Planning: A Risk-Based Comparison on the Example of Gold Mining in French Guiana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-25, August.
    3. Oluwaseye Samson Adedoja & Emmanuel Rotimi Sadiku & Yskandar Hamam, 2025. "Multicriteria Decision-Making for Sustainable Mining: Evaluating the Transition to Net-Zero-Carbon Energy Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-32, May.
    4. Brereton, David & Flynn, Sharon & Kemp, Deanna, 2024. "An essay on mining and the moral obligation not to harm others," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. António Mateus & Luís Martins, 2021. "Building a mineral-based value chain in Europe: the balance between social acceptance and secure supply," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(2), pages 239-261, July.
    6. Gudrun Franken & Philip Schütte, 2022. "Current trends in addressing environmental and social risks in mining and mineral supply chains by regulatory and voluntary approaches," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 35(3), pages 653-671, December.
    7. Van Assche, Kristof & Gruezmacher, Monica & Granzow, Michael, 2021. "From trauma to fantasy and policy. The past in the futures of mining communities; the case of Crowsnest Pass, Alberta," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    8. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen, 2022. "Corporate social irresponsibility, hostile organisations and global resource extraction," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1816-1824, September.
    9. Bainton, Nicholas & Holcombe, Sarah, 2018. "A critical review of the social aspects of mine closure," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 468-478.
    10. Christina G. Siontorou, 2023. "Fair Development Transition of Lignite Areas: Key Challenges and Sustainability Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Guzmán, Juan Ignacio & Karpunina, Alina & Araya, Constanza & Faúndez, Patricio & Bocchetto, Marcela & Camacho, Rodolfo & Desormeaux, Daniela & Galaz, Juanita & Garcés, Ingrid & Kracht, Willy & Lagos, , 2023. "Chile: On the road to global sustainable mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    12. Lèbre, Éléonore & Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna & Valenta, Rick K., 2022. "Complex orebodies and future global metal supply: An introduction," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    13. Fernandez, Viviana, 2021. "Are extractive ventures more socio-environmentally committed?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    14. V. L. Morgan & E. S. McLamore & M. Correll & G. A. Kiker, 2021. "Emerging mercury mitigation solutions for artisanal small-scale gold mining communities evaluated through a multicriteria decision analysis approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 413-424, September.
    15. Heydari, Mehrnoosh & Osanloo, Morteza & Başçetin, Ataç, 2023. "Developing a new social impact assessment model for deep open-pit mines," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    16. Sinclair, Lian & Coe, Neil M., 2024. "Critical mineral strategies in Australia: Industrial upgrading without environmental or social upgrading," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Angelo Antoci & Paolo Russu & Elisa Ticci, 2019. "Mining and Local Economies: Dilemma between Environmental Protection and Job Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-21, November.
    18. Fox, Sarah Jane, 2022. "‘Exploiting – land, sea and space: Mineral superpower’ In the name of peace: A critical race to protect the depths and heights," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    19. Olivier Boiral & Iñaki Heras‐Saizarbitoria & Marie‐Christine Brotherton, 2023. "Sustainability management and social license to operate in the extractive industry: The cross‐cultural gap with Indigenous communities," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 125-137, February.
    20. Bach, Vanessa & Finogenova, Natalia & Berger, Markus & Winter, Lisa & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2017. "Enhancing the assessment of critical resource use at the country level with the SCARCE method – Case study of Germany," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 283-299.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9313-:d:442516. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.