A social impact quantification framework for the resource extraction industry



The objective of this study was to develop a social impact quantification framework for the resource extraction industry. The framework was developed to incorporate two approaches—scale-based and quantitative approaches. It aimed to be used for assessing upstream social impacts for products incorporating mined materials to produce a full social life cycle assessment (S-LCA).


The framework consists of measurable indicators and impact assessment methods. The quantitative approach simulates S-LCA by applying a two-step impact assessment: (1) calculation of impact scores at the social topic level, and (2) normalization and aggregation to the social theme and stakeholder level.

Results and discussion

The framework was demonstrated via a case study to compare one material issue—health and safety—from the material extraction phase of two major photovoltaic (PV) technologies in the USA: poly-Si and CdTe PV under stakeholder workers. A temporal analysis on a key mineral was performed. The results showed large variations in the social impact scores for selected topics on key raw materials associated with the two PVs. While the case study is limited in deriving practical implications due to preset assumptions, the framework itself can be extended and integrated with a whole product S-LCA to enhance the understanding of and promote social sustainability of the resource extraction industry.


A framework to measure both positive and negative social impacts was developed to follow the S-LCA methodology. The framework was illustrated by comparing two dominant PV technologies in the USA for the social theme of health and safety. Our case study demonstrated inspiring patterns for assessing upstream social impacts from the resource extraction industry, especially when incorporating a temporal analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. Azapagic A (2004) Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J Clean Prod 12(6):639–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC [online]: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/dtix1164xpa-guidelines_slca.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  3. Bhandari KP, Collier JM, Ellingson RJ, Apul DS (2015) Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 47:133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brent A, Labuschagne C (2006) Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Corona B, Bozhilova-Kisheva KP, Olsen SI, Miguel GS (2017) Social life cycle assessment of a concentrated solar power plant in Spain: a methodological proposal. J Ind Ecol 21(6):1566–1577

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dong YH, Ng ST (2015) A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(8):1166–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Durucan S, Korre A, Munoz-Melendez G (2006) Mining life cycle modelling: a cradle-to-gate approach to environmental management in the minerals industry. J Clean Prod 14(12–13):1057–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fitzpatrick P, Fonseca A, McAllister ML (2011) From the Whitehorse Mining Initiative towards sustainable mining: lessons learned. J Clean Prod 19(4):376–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fontes J (2016) Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment. [online]: https://product-social-impact-assessment.com/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  10. Fthenakis VM (2004) Life cycle impact analysis of cadmium in CdTe PV production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 8(4):303–334

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fthenakis VM, Kim HC (2011) Photovoltaics: life-cycle analyses. Sol Energy 85(8):1609–1628

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gibon T, Wood R, Arvesen A, Bergesen JD, Suh S, Hertwich EG (2015) A methodology for integrated, multiregional life cycle assessment scenarios under large-scale technological change. Environ Sci Technol 49(18):11218–11226

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Giurco D, Cooper C (2012) Mining and sustainability: asking the right questions. Miner Eng 29:3–12

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Giurco D, Prior T, Mudd G, Mason L, Behrisch J (2010) Peak minerals in Australia: a review of changing impacts and benefits. Research report, Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS & Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

  15. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2011) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines & Mining and Metals Sector Supplement

  16. Green Electronics Council (GEC) (2015) Photovoltaic (PV) industry primer. Overview of PV manufacturers, technologies, supply chains, performance standards & certifications. Research Report, Green Electronics Council

  17. GRI (2016a) GRI standards, GRI 101: foundation 2016. [online]: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1036/gri-101-foundation-2016.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  18. GRI (2016b) Defining what matters: Do companies and investors agree on what is material? [online]: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-DefiningMateriality2016.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  19. Guenther E, Hoppe H, Poser C (2006) Environmental corporate social responsibility of firms in the mining and oil and gas industries. Greener Manag Int 2006(53):6–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. ICMM (2016) Improving sustainable development performance in the mining and metals industry. [online]: https://www.icmm.com/en-gb

  21. Laurence D (2006) Optimisation of the mine closure process. J Clean Prod 14(3–4):285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McLellan BC (2015) Sustainability assessment of deep ocean resources. Procedia Environ Sci 28:502–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moffat K, Lacey J, Zhang A, Leipold S (2015) The social licence to operate: a critical review. For J 89:477–488

    Google Scholar 

  24. MSHA (2017) Mine Safety and Health Administration - Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS). Retrieved September 20, 2017, [online]: https://arlweb.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  25. Mudd GM (2010) The environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key mega-trends and looming constraints. Resour Policy 35(2):98–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Owen JR, Kemp D (2014) ‘Free prior and informed consent’, social complexity and the mining industry: establishing a knowledge base. Resour Policy 41:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Paragahawewa U, Blackett P, Small B (2009) Social life cycle analysis (S-LCA): some methodological issues and potential application to cheese production in New Zealand. Research report, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform

  28. Petkova V, Lockie S, Rolfe J, Ivanova G (2009) Mining developments and social impacts on communities: Bowen Basin case studies. Rural Soc 19(3):211–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Petrie J, Cohen B, Stewart M (2007) Decision support frameworks and metrics for sustainable development of minerals and metals. Clean Technol Environ Policy 9(2):133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Que S, Awuah-Offei K, Samaranayake VA (2015) Classifying critical factors that influence community acceptance of mining projects for discrete choice experiments in the United States. J Clean Prod 87:489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. SocialLicense (2016) The social license to operate. [online]: http://socialicense.com/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  32. Solomon F, Katz E, Lovel R (2008) Social dimensions of mining: research, policy and practice challenges for the minerals industry in Australia. Resour Policy 33(3):142–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. USGS (2014a) Bauxite and Alumina Statistics and Information. from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/bauxite/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  34. USGS (2014b) Copper Statistics and Information. from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  35. USGS (2014c) Crushed Stone Statistics and Information. from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/stone_crushed/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  36. USGS (2014d) Silica Statistics and Information. from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silica/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  37. USGS (2014e) "Salt Statistics and Information." from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/salt/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  38. USGS (2014f) "Cadmium Statistics and Information." from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cadmium/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  39. USGS (2014g) "Iron Ore Statistics and Information." from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_ore/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  40. USGS (2014h) "Nickel Statistics and Information." from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/nickel/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  41. USGS (2014i) "Silver Statistics and Information." from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silver/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  42. USGS (2014j) "Chromium Statistics and Information." from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/chromium/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  43. USGS (2014k) "Selenium and Tellurium Statistics and Information." from https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/selenium/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  44. Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1218–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6(7):4200–4226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yu M, Halog A (2015) Solar photovoltaic development in Australia—a life cycle sustainability assessment study. Sustainability 7(2):1213–1247

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study is supported by the Sustainable Energy Program of the National Science Foundation (CHE1230246).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiquan Chen.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Andrea J. Russell-Vaccari

Electronic supplementary material


(DOCX 2994 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, S.R., Celik, I., Apul, D. et al. A social impact quantification framework for the resource extraction industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 1898–1910 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01605-x

Download citation


  • Health and safety
  • Mineral extraction
  • Photovoltaics
  • Social impact
  • Social life cycle assessment