IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i3p960-d1576358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Future Risk from Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks for the Resource Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Marcus Jerome Byrne

    (Sustainable Engineering Group, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6845, Australia)

  • Michele John

    (Sustainable Engineering Group, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6845, Australia)

  • Wahidul Biswas

    (Sustainable Engineering Group, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6845, Australia)

Abstract

This paper introduces a comprehensive sustainability assessment framework integrating Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) with Scenario Planning and Sensitivity Analysis, using the alumina industry as a case study. Current sustainability frameworks often focus narrowly on carbon emissions, neglecting broader environmental and social impacts, such as biodiversity loss, land rehabilitation, and social equity. By combining LCSA with forward-looking Scenario Planning, the proposed framework provides a multi-dimensional assessment, enabling industries to anticipate future challenges and adapt to technological, regulatory, and market changes. The analysis of Australia’s alumina production under Net-Zero and Accelerated Net-Zero scenarios demonstrates significant decarbonisation potential, achieving up to 97% emission reductions while improving energy efficiency by 50%. Despite these advances, indicators like biodiversity preservation and social equity remain insufficiently addressed, underscoring the need for a more holistic, industry-specific approach. Future research directions include improving measurement methods for ecological and social indicators, exploring policy mechanisms to enhance adoption, and establishing partnerships with international bodies like the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative to ensure global adaptability. The increasing adoption of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) methodologies highlights the need for comprehensive impact management and higher standards of governance. Although the proposed framework has notable strengths, its reliance on region-specific quantifiable indicators and simplified models limits its global adaptability. The proposed framework advocates for a mandatory, independent regulatory mechanism to drive balanced, transparent reporting, supporting industries in achieving transformative sustainability outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcus Jerome Byrne & Michele John & Wahidul Biswas, 2025. "Future Risk from Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks for the Resource Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:960-:d:1576358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/960/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/960/
    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. Monia Niero & Stig I. Olsen & Alexis Laurent, 2018. "Renewable Energy and Carbon Management in the Cradle‐to‐Cradle Certification: Limitations and Opportunities," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(4), pages 760-772, August.
    3. Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis & Gijsbert Korevaar, 2019. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Brine Treatment in the Process Industry: A Consequential Approach Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Wahidul K. Biswas & David Cooling, 2013. "Sustainability Assessment of Red Sand as a Substitute for Virgin Sand and Crushed Limestone," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(5), pages 756-762, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. Christina G. Siontorou, 2023. "Fair Development Transition of Lignite Areas: Key Challenges and Sustainability Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-14, August.
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. Fernandez, Viviana, 2021. "Are extractive ventures more socio-environmentally committed?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Ghulam Dastgir KHAN & Pinar TEMOCIN, 2022. "Human Right-based Understanding of Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement: A Review of the Literature and Synthesis," RAIS Journal for Social Sciences, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 6(2), pages 20-29, November.
    11. Smyth, Russell & Vespignani, Joaquin, 2025. "The Missing Link in Australia's Critical Minerals Strategy: The Case for Establishing A Sovereign Resources Fund," Working Papers 2025-05, University of Tasmania, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics.
    12. dos Santos Costa, Silas Samuel & do Nascimento, Marcos Antonio Leite & Nobre da Silva, Matheus Lisboa, 2024. "Correlating geodiversity and mining in the seridó UNESCO Global Geopark: Spatial and impact analysis in brazilian northeast," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Guerin, Turlough F., 2021. "Tactical problems with strategic consequences: A case study of how petroleum hydrocarbon suppliers support compliance and reduce risks in the minerals sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    14. Chye Ing Lim & Wahidul Biswas, 2015. "An Evaluation of Holistic Sustainability Assessment Framework for Palm Oil Production in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-27, December.
    15. Rajkumar, G. & Saravanan, M. & Marimuthu, P., 2023. "Developing a numerical model to analyze the production process of PMEDM," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    16. Xiaoshang Deng & Kunyu Niu & Xiangbo Xu & Chang Li & Linxiu Zhang, 2024. "Does the closure of polluting enterprises improve rural livelihoods? Evidence from rural China," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 5513-5537, October.
    17. Famiyeh, Samuel & Opoku, Robert.A. & Kwarteng, Amoako & Asante-Darko, Disraeli, 2021. "Driving forces of sustainability in the mining industry: Evidence from a developing country," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    18. Áron Szennay & Cecília Szigeti & Norbert Kovács & Dániel Róbert Szabó, 2019. "Through the Blurry Looking Glass—SDGs in the GRI Reports," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, May.
    19. Galina Williams & Ruth Nikijuluw, 2020. "The economic and social benefit of coal mining: the case study of regional Queensland," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1113-1132, October.
    20. William Alomoto & Angels Niñerola & Laia Pié, 2022. "Social Impact Assessment: A Systematic Review of Literature," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 225-250, May.

    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:17:y:2025:i:3:p:960-:d:1576358. 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.