Abstract
Decisions on sustainable technologies are surrounded by high degrees of uncertainty and absence of agreed indicators and metrics. The alumina industry therefore supported the development of a quantitative methodology for strategic assessment of the sustainability of bauxite residue management. It combines a strategic outlook with quantitative, outcome-based assessment. The methodology compares current practice with ideal values, derived from sustainability aspirations. The indicator system combines management indicators (for planning, management and reporting systems); condition indicators (state of environment and communities surrounding residue operations); and operational indicators (technical and economic performance). They have three hierarchical levels: headline performance indicators (6, measuring sustainability objectives); key performance indicators (24, measuring sustainability impacts) and performance measures (flexible set, measuring operational contributions). Performance is measured on a five-level ordinal scale. The methodology was successfully piloted at an operating plant. This confirmed that the methodology complemented existing audit protocols and strategic planning processes. The unique advantages are the universal performance measuring system for environmental, social and economic outcomes, and the strategic orientation towards improvement and innovation in residue technology. This development demonstrates that even with imperfect knowledge and uncertainty, quantified sustainability tools can be developed that aid in decision making on technology development and implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AMIRA International (2001) Alumina technology roadmap. Melbourne (VIC), Australia, p 36
Azapagic A (2004) Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J Clean Prod 12(6):639–662
GRI (2002) Sustainability reporting guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, Boston
GRI (2005) GRI Mining and metals sector supplement: Pilot version 1.0. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam, p 45
GRI (2006) Sustainability reporting guidelines (G3). Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam, p 46
Holmberg J (1998) Backcasting: a natural step in operationalising sustainable development. Greener Manage Int (23):30–51
IAI (2003) The aluminium industry sustainable development report. International Aluminium Institute, London, p 28
IAI (2004) Aluminium for future generations: sustainability update 2004. International Aluminium Institute, London, p 6
IAI (2006) Aluminium recycling. Retrieved 9 January 2007. http://world-aluminium.org/environment/recycling/index.html
ICMM (2003) Sustainable development charter. Retrieved 24 February 2004. http://www.icmm.com
ICMM (2006) Maximising value: guidance on implementing materials stewardship in the minerals and metals value chain. International Council on Mining and Metals, London, p 36
IISD (2002) Seven questions to sustainability: how to assess the contribution of mining and minerals activities. Mining, minerals and sustainable development (North America). International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, p 54
IISI (2006) Steel: the foundation of a sustainable future (sustainability report of the world steel industry 2005). International Iron and Steel Institute, Brussels, p 52
ISO (2000) AS/NZS ISO 14031:2000 environmental management—environmental performance evaluation—guidelines. Standards Australia, Sydney, p 32
MCA (2004a) Enduring value: the Australian minerals industry framework for sustainable development. Minerals Council of Australia, Canberra, p 22
MCA (2004b) Enduring value: the australian minerals industry framework for sustainable development—guidance for implementation. Minerals Council of Australia, Canberra, p 36
MMSD (2002) Breaking new ground: mining, minerals and sustainable development (The Report of the MMSD Project). Earthscan Publications (for IIED and WBCSD), London
Moors E (2006) Technology strategies for sustainable metals production systems: a case study of primary aluminium production in The Netherlands and Norway. J Clean Prod 14(12–13):1121–1138
Norgate T, Jahanshahi S, Rankin J (2006) Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes. J Clean Prod 15(8–9):838–848
Petrie J, Cohen B, Stewart M, Evans R, Brueckner M, van Berkel R (2005) Decision support frameworks and metrics for sustainability: a focus on minerals and metals in Australia. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Resource Processing, Perth, p 137
Robert K (2003) Integrating sustainability into business strategy and operations: applying the natural step approach and framework and backcasting from principles of sustainability. In: Waage S (ed) Galileo and Gandhi: designing the future of business through nature, genius and compassion. Greenleaf Publications, Sheffield, pp 61–80
Sheeny B, Dickie P (2002) Facing the future: the report of the MMSD Australia Project. Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation, Melbourne
van Berkel R (2006) Eco-efficiency in the Australian minerals processing sector. J Clean Prod 15(8–9):772–781
van Berkel R (2007) Eco-efficiency in primary metals production: context, perspectives and methods. Resour Conserv Recycl (Int J Sustainable Resour Manage Environ Effic) 51:511–540
Van Berkel R, Power G (2008) Sustainability assessment of bauxite residue management: theory, methodology and application. In: 8th international alumina quality workshop, Darwin (NT), Australia
Weaver P, Jansen L, van Grootveld G, van Spiegel E, Vergragt P (2000) Sustainable technology development. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield
Whitmore A (2006) The emperors new clothes: sustainable mining? J Clean Prod 14(3–4):309–314
Acknowledgments
This research was funded via AMIRA International by the following industry sponsors, Alcan, Alcoa World Alumina, Aughinish Alumina, BHP Billiton, Hydro Aluminium and Rio Tinto Aluminium. The Centre for Sustainable Resource Processing and the Parker Centre for Hydrometallurgy have been established under the Australian Commonwealth Cooperative Research Centers Program. A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 8th International Alumina Quality Workshop, held 7–12 September 2008 in Darwin, NT, Australia (Van Berkel and Power 2008). The authors wish to acknowledge the inputs from colleague researchers and company representatives into the development of the assessment methodology, definition of sustainability indicators and their performance evaluation schemes and trial application of the assessment methodology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Berkel, R., Power, G. & Cooling, D. Quantitative methodology for strategic assessment of the sustainability of bauxite residue management. Clean Techn Environ Policy 10, 359–370 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-008-0155-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-008-0155-6