15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13317

R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions

Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks

Datu Buyung Agusdinata1 Wenjuan Liu1 Sinta Sulistyo1 Philippe LeBillon2

Je’anne Wegner1

1
School of Sustainability, Arizona State of
University, Tempe, Arizona, USA Abstract
2
Department of Geography, The University of The extraction of critical minerals used in clean technologies has profound impacts on
British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,
sustainable development goals (SDGs). Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is
Canada
used to evaluate the sustainability impacts of products and services, but few frame-
Correspondence works exist to support SDGs assessment for the “green minerals” extraction. Here, we
Datu Buyung Agusdinata, School of
Sustainability, Arizona State University, 777 E propose a mining-specific framework identifying linkages between LCSA and SDGs,
University Dr, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. along with a process to integrate methods and data. As a proof of concept, we assess
Email: [email protected]
the LCSA performance and local-community level SDG impacts of a nickel mining
Editor Managing Review: Yuan Yao project in Indonesia. Integrating remote sensing, media sources, stakeholder’s data,
and expert opinion, we find that LCSA encompasses all 17 goals but only a subset of
targets and indicators. The study highlights the need to incorporate indigenous peo-
ple’s perspectives in both LCSA and SDG assessments, and points to priority areas for
improving life cycle sustainability and SDG outcomes: fighting corruption, protecting
cultural heritage, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We suggest that this frame-
work can inform corporate social responsibility activities, as well as consumer choices
for low-carbon technologies.

KEYWORDS
industrial ecology, metals, mining, sustainability assessment, sustainable development,
sustainable resource extraction

1 INTRODUCTION

One key solution to achieve the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) is the development and adoption of low-carbon technologies with posi-
tive social and environmental life cycle impacts. Low-carbon technologies require critical minerals such as cobalt, nickel, silver, manganese, copper,
lithium, aluminum, cadmium, and rare earth. These “green” minerals are, for example, used as components in electric vehicles (EVs), energy storage,
wind turbines, and solar PVs (Dominish et al., 2019). As demand for these minerals increases, so do the debates about the social and environmen-
tal impacts of their extraction (Agusdinata et al., 2018, 2022; Liu & Agusdinata, 2020; Sovacool et al., 2020). Existing methodologies are currently
insufficient in capturing the full suite of social, environmental, and governance concerns, as well as the full interdependencies among actors across
the minerals supply chain, consumers, and policies (Ali et al., 2017; Bazilian, 2018).
As part of sustainability efforts to measure and evaluate impacts, the concept of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) provides an integrated
approach to incorporate the three pillars of sustainability: environment, economic, and social well-being (Finkbeiner et al., 2010; Zamagni, 2012).
The LCSA concept draws on three evaluation instruments: (i) environmental LCA (ELCA), which has been widely studied and applied to products and
industries ( Agusdinata et al., 2011; Farjana et al., 2019); (ii) Social LCA (SLCA), developed to address the societal implications of process chains and
products from a life cycle perspective (UNEP-SETAC, 2009) and also been applied to various domains (Corona et al., 2017; Martínez-Blanco et al.,
2014); and (iii) Life cycle costing (LCC), which estimates the economic feasibility of changes required to achieve SDGs (Rebitzer & Hunkeler, 2003).

Journal of Industrial Ecology 2022;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jiec © 2022 by the International Society for Industrial Ecology. 1
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 AGUSDINATA ET AL .

In the mining industry, ELCA has been adopted for a wide range of minerals in different geographical locations, together with a well-developed
life cycle inventory (LCI) database allowing estimation of various environmental impacts. Driven by the growing interest in battery-based energy
transitions, ECLA has been applied to critical minerals. The extraction of lithium carbonate equivalent, for instance, has been studied for its life cycle
impacts on carbon intensity (Ambrose & Kendall, 2020), water scarcity (Schomberg et al., 2021), and other impact categories including resource use,
pollution emission, and toxicity risks (Jiang et al., 2020). However, SLCA studies for critical minerals are still limited. Relevant efforts tend to cover a
narrow range of impact categories such as health impacts (Arvidsson et al., 2018). The current development of LCSA is still in its infancy, with most
studies engaging in methodological frameworks (Santillán-Saldivar et al., 2020; Schaubroeck & Rugani, 2017), and only minimal studies applied to
critical minerals (Wulf et al., 2017). Overall, the general lack of LCSA studies for critical minerals extraction, especially the social dimension, calls
for both methodological development and a great number of case studies in order to keep up with the pace of the global energy transition and its
implications for achieving more sustainable development (UNDP, 2016).
Mining processes are relevant to the achievement of the 17 goals in the SDGs (Cole & Broadhurst, 2021; Monteiro et al., 2019). UNDP (2016)
recognizes several opportunities to leverage and contribute to SDGs, including for environmental sustainability (SDG 6 and SDG 15; SDG 7 and
SDG 13), social inclusion (SDG 1, SDG 5, and SDG 10; SDG 16), and economic development (SDG8; SDG 9 and SDG 12), including through demand
for labor, fiscal revenues, and infrastructure development. However, mining generally involves major tradeoffs between different SDGs (Endl et al.,
2019) and can even become an obstacle in achieving most of the SDGs (Omotehinse & De Tomi, 2019), notably through negative environmental
impacts, economic and social inequalities, health problems, and conflicts (Conde & Le Billon, 2017; UNDP, 2016). There is, however, much variation
in the types of mining and related impacts on SDGs (de Haan et al., 2020; Yakovleva et al., 2017), including as a result of the characteristics of
communities in proximity to mining operations and their relations with mining activities, revenue flows, and socio-environmental impacts (Cole &
Broadhurst, 2021).
Although the academic literature considers critical mineral extraction impacts (Werker et al., 2019), studies rarely systematically assess local
social issues and impacts to the level of details required to inform concerted efforts and change of practices to affect development outcomes (Cole
& Broadhurst, 2021). In this light, the study will focus on the mineral extraction phase only. The main research questions are: to what extent do the
extractions of critical minerals affect the achievement of SDG targets? How can LCSA be integrated into SDGs framework to support assessment? The objec-
tives of the study are two-fold: (1) develop a conceptual model that connects LCSA and SDGs targets and indicators as a framework for evaluating
the sustainability impacts of mineral extractions and (2) apply the framework in a case study of nickel extractions in Indonesia as a proof of concept
to inform SDGs achievement and draw implications for life cycle actors.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. We first describe a set of methods and data used for the study. The process for developing
an integrated LCSA and SDGs framework is detailed followed by a description of the case study. We document the ELCA, SLCA, and LCC processes
and report the SDGs assessment results on the case study. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the study on LCSA method
and actions of life cycle actors.

2 METHODS

2.1 Study methodology

Leveraging LCSA to support SDGs assessment entails the integration of various supporting methods and data beyond the social and environmental
LCI database. We develop a methodology to this end and use a case study to illustrate the process (Figure 1). The measurement and evaluation of
social indicators of a company’s performance are performed using the method following the UNEP/SETAC SLCA guidelines (UNEP-SETAC, 2009).
Due to the boundaries of this study (i.e., a mineral product), we focus on three categories of stakeholders of workers, community, and society—thus
leaving aside the consumers and value chain categories often considered in SLCA studies.
We adopt an LCC method that considers social and environmental impacts by making a system boundary distinction between economic and
social & natural systems (Rebitzer & Hunkeler, 2003). Site-specific data are collected from a diversity of sources to capture the granular details
including companies’ sustainability reports, company publications, regional statistics, and academic papers. The data are also complemented by a
media analysis using the media cloud tool (mediacloud.org), which is an open-source platform for studying the content of online media to collect
data on social issues covered in the news and social media.
A holistic LCSA methodological framework like every other sustainability assessment framework should be able to answer four aspects: where
(space related), when (time related), what (how/why impact related), and who (stakeholder related) sustainability questions. Although LCSA pro-
vides an integrated approach for the environmental, economic, and social well-being aspects of impacts, it still has been criticized for lacking spatial
and temporal depth in assessing some environmental categories such as land use, biodiversity, and so on (Arodudu et al., 2017). To fill this gap, we
include the remote sensing analysis data to help assess an impact category of land use/transformation over space and time.
An assessment of SDGs impacts takes into account the results of LCSA, an integrated LCSA and SDGs evaluation framework (Section 3.1), and
supplementary information. It informs what their implications are for sustainable development. We employ a remote sensing approach (Liu et al.,
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AGUSDINATA ET AL . 3

FIGURE 1 Process flow of data, model, and activities of the research methodology

2019) to analyze changes in land uses associated with mineral mining activities, which affect the livelihoods of local communities, using the Climate
Engine tool (Huntington et al., 2017) to perform the analysis. To assist with eliciting expert opinions for SLCA, an expert panel was established,
consisting of four people who have knowledge about the SLCA method, mining industry, and local development issues. In assigning a weight of
importance to different SLCA sub-indicators, we employ the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with the capability to check for consistency on the
inputs1 (Saaty, 1990). Lastly, peer-reviewed and gray literature provides supporting information pertaining to the context of our study. To facilitate
reproducibility of the methodology, more details on the approach, steps taken, and methods used are provided in Supplementary Information S1,
section S1.1.

2.2 Case study: Nickel extractions in Indonesia

Nickel is one of the most indispensable minerals used in EVs, taking up 6.98% of materials weights in lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide batteries
(NCAs) and 13.6% in nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries (Mohr et al, 2020). Global nickel production increased 57% between 2010 and 2020,
from 1,590,000 metric tons (t) to 2,500,000 t (USGS, 2021). Among other producers, Indonesia holds about 21 million ton in nickel reserves and
accounted for 30% of global production in 2020 (USGS, 2021). The extraction and processing of nickel ore usually involve energy-intensive and
disruptive activities such as land clearing (deforestation), mining, drying, and smelting, which create complex social and environmental implications
for the surrounding communities. The nickel mining industry in Indonesia rapidly expanded in recent years, and new mining projects are mounting
up, driven by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and widespread policies supporting EV adoptions.
Almost 90% of nickel reserves in Indonesia are spread over Sulawesi and North Maluku, with Southeast Sulawesi holding the most mining oper-
ations (GeoRIMA, 2021) (Figure S3 in Supporting Information S1). The nickel mining industry in Indonesia is primarily ore extraction focused,
which has drawn policymaker’s attention to increase the added value of mining products through processing and purification (KESDM, 2015).
The study examines Company Y, a multinational nickel mining company and a major nickel supplier operating in the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia
(Umah, 2021).
Company Y, as Indonesia’s largest nickel producer with 75,000 metric ton/year capacity has extracted ore and produced nickel matte in a small
mining town, Sorowako in East Luwu Regency, since 1984 (PTVI, 2020). Its processed nickel matte is then transported to its Japanese partner for
refining ferro-nickel products. Its major production uses pyrometallurgical technology, including mining, drying, calcination, smelting, converting,
and roasting processes with three hydro-power plants partially supporting its production (PTVI, 2016).
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 AGUSDINATA ET AL .

F I G U R E 2 An integrated LCSA and SDGs evaluation framework: Connections between LCSA elements and SDG targets related to mineral
extractions. A more detailed list can be found in Supporting Information S2

3 RESULTS

3.1 An integrated LCSA and SDGs evaluation framework

Mining activities have strong linkages with development issues and the industry has a major role in achieving SDGs (Kennedy et al., 2020). To
demonstrate the actual and potential contributions of the mining sector to the achievement of the SDGs, UNDP has developed a framework to
map between mining and the SDGs by using examples of good practice in the industry and existing knowledge and resources in sustainable devel-
opment (UNDP, 2016). Similarly, Kolotzek et al. (2018) develops a framework to assess the economic, social, and environmental risks of mineral
extraction and use. However, since an explicit linkage between SDG targets and LCSA indicators is still lacking, our integrated framework aims to
extend the existing frameworks to make such a connection.
The underlying premise behind the integrated framework is that activities conducted by actors along the life cycle of products and services affect
the achievement of SDGs in both positive and negative ways. To capture such relationships, the integration of LCSA and SDGs is conducted by
matching the scope of LCSA to that of SDGs to create an assessment tool for impacts. The process involves matching the keywords of performance
indicators in LCSA with the wordings in SDG targets and indicators. During the matching process, a subjective interpretation was needed when an
LCSA keyword did not have an exact verbatim match to SDGs wordings. SDG targets that are closest to the broader interpretation of the LCSA
keywords were linked. For example, the resource depletion pathway in ELCA can be associated with sustainable management and efficient use of
natural resources (SDG 12.2). The resulting framework is shown in Figure 2.
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AGUSDINATA ET AL . 5

The ELCA’s connections to SDGs are derived through the end-point impact categories (i.e., damage to human health, ecosystem, and resource
depletion) and damage pathways for each category, based on Recipe (Goedkoop et al., 2008). Second, SLCA’s connections are based on 31 impact
indicators among the five stakeholder subcategories (workers, local community, society, consumers, and value chain) that are frequently used to
guide SLCA studies (Benoît-Norris et al., 2012). Lastly, for LCC, internal costs/liabilities are incurred to the economic system for actors in the life
cycle stages: material suppliers, manufacturers, users/consumers, and end-of-life actors, affecting their profitability/bottom line. External costs
are incurred to the social & natural systems that manifest as externalities both in society and the environment. The social and environmental
externalities are covered in SLCA and ELCA in which the specific relevant SDG targets would depend on a particular product/service (and materials)
and geographical context.
The integrated framework reveals some key insights. All the 17 goals are represented in the framework but not all the targets. Overall, only
54 (about 32%) of the 169 targets are represented in the integrated framework with uneven distribution. SDG 10 (Reduced inequality) has the
highest representation percentage (8 out of 10) followed by SDG 12 (Sustainable consumption and production; 6 out of 11), SDG 8 (Decent work
and economic growth; 5 out of 12), SDG 16 (Peace, justice, and strong institutions; 5 out of 12), SDG 13 (Climate action; 2 out of 5), and SDG 17
(Partnerships for the goals; 5 out of 19). The least represented target is SDG 1 (No poverty; 1 out of 7), SDG 4 (Quality education; 1 out of 10), SDG
6 (Clean water and sanitation; 1 out of 8), and SDG 9 (Industry, innovation & infrastructure; 1 out of 8). The distribution of target representation can
be found in Supporting Information S2, Sheet S7.
Obviously, the scope of SDGs is larger than that of LCSA, resulting in a representation of only a subset of SDGs targets and indicators. Even within
an SDG target, LCSA indicators might only be relevant for a portion of the target scope. For example, in ELCA, a noncancer disease due to toxicity
only covers hepatitis whereas SDG 3.3 also covers AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Social LCA, due to its scope, has the largest number of associated
SDG targets. The general patterns of interconnections are that (1) one or several targets within the same goal cover several subindicators, or (2)
a one-to-one correspondence between an LCSA indicator and an SDG target. For example, three SLCA subindicators: corruption, secure living
conditions, and prevention and mitigation of conflicts are related to SDG 16 targets. An SLCA society subindicator, technology development (TD)
encompasses multiple SDG targets (SDG 1, 2, and 17).
Furthermore, some LCSA indicators can be associated with SDG targets only within a limited context. Intellectual rights in SDG concern only
the medical and vaccine development context. By contrast, some LCSA indicators can be associated with SDG targets but within a broader context.
Respect to SLCA indigenous rights can be generalized to all SDG aspects that include: self-determination, rights to lands, territories and resources,
economic, social and cultural rights, collective rights, equality and non-discrimination (UN Indigenous Human Rights, 2021). Fair competition indi-
cator (SLCA value chain actors, stakeholder subcategory) implies business conducts in a level playing field with equal access to information and
resources. The closest association with those attributes is on the inequalities among countries (SDG 10.5). SLCA consumer privacy indicator can
be associated with consumer protection, which can be linked to sustainable consumption related to Goal 12 on responsible consumption and
production; and consumer protection in healthcare delivery, according to Goal 3 on good health and well-being.

3.2 Social impacts of nickel extractions

The social performance of company Y for each indicator is assessed and reported in Table 1. Weights of indicators in each stakeholder category
were assessed from the AHP process. The consistency check results in consistency ratios of 0.048, 0.086, 0.047 for weights in worker, community,
and society categories, respectively, which are below the critical limit of 0.1 (Saaty, 1990), representing the consistency in these weights. In general,
Company Y has a comprehensive disclosure and good social performance as to their sustainability efforts. The detailed data extracted from media
analysis and company’s reports are provided in Supporting Information S2, Sheet S1.
For impacts on workers, Company Y is mostly consistent with the standards or national average and even being proactive in some indicators,
even though some disputes around employment and labor opportunities occurred (Muhammad et al., 2019). Freedom Association indicator, for
example, Company Y claimed that all employees are protected by the collective labor agreements (CLAs) signed between unions (PTVI, 2020). For
salary, the minimum rate paid to workers in Company Y was 113% of the minimum wage in East Luwu in 2019.
As for the impacts on communities, the performance of both companies is worse than the national average as to delocalization and migration and
safe and healthy living conditions considering their operations are emission-intensive and land destructive. In particular, Company Y is accused by
the Indigenous Karonsi’e Dongi people for its pollution on the ecosystem and social conditions, such as deforestation, water pollution, air pollution,
and health impacts (EJ Atlas, 2019). Company Y is mostly consistent with the standards and even proactive in indicators of local employment, com-
munity engagement, and access to immaterial resources. In particular, 87% of their employees are from Sorowako in 2020, which is higher than the
average local employment in mining-intensive regions (e.g., 80%; Susmiyati & Susanti, 2019); Company Y also provides infrastructure and immate-
rial services (education, health, utility) to Sorowako. However, these development efforts are only limited to the town of Sorowako, neglecting the
impacts in other surrounding communities in Wasuponda and Towuti district. Company Y was largely accused of poor recognition of indigenous
rights including land conflicts with indigenous people and not recognizing social changes to indigenous livelihood (Pongsibanne et al., 2018).
Company Y generally has a consistent and proactive performance for societal impacts. Company Y shows a beyond-average performance in
their commitment to sustainability issues by publishing comprehensive sustainability reports, incorporating hydropower and biofuels in energy
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 AGUSDINATA ET AL .

TA B L E 1 Social performance for selected impact categories for Company Y

Stake-holder Subcategory indicators Weight Co. Y* Score**

Worker Freedom Association (FA) 0.05 A/B 0.88
Child Labor (CL) 0.18 A 1
Fair Salary (FS) 0.05 A 1
Equal Opportunity (EO) 0.04 B 0.84
Health and Safety (HS) 0.38 B 0.90
Forced Labor (FL) 0.04 B 0.91
Working Hours (WH) 0.17 B 0.67
Social Benefits (SB) 0.08 B 0.47
Aggregated score 0.846
Community Access to Material Resources (AMR) 0.09 B 0.70
Access to Immaterial Resources (AIR) 0.05 A/B 0.68
Delocalization and Migration (DM) 0.19 C 0.25
Cultural Heritage (CH) 0.12 B 0.35
Safe and Healthy Living Conditions (SH) 0.21 C 0.05
Respect of Indigenous Rights (RIR) 0.13 C 0.15
Community Engagement (CE) 0.02 A/B 0.75
Local Employment (LE) 0.05 A 1
Secure living conditions (SL) 0.15 B 0.5
Aggregated score 0.345
Society Commitments to Sustainability (CS) 0.12 A 1
Contribution to Economic Development (ED) 0.07 A 1
Corruption (Cor) 0.36 B 0.33
Prevention and Mitigation of Conflicts (PMC) 0.40 B 0.40
Technology Development (TD) 0.05 A 1
Aggregated score 0.521

*A, proactive behavior by promoting good practices; B, consistent with the base requirement; C, non-compliant conditions for operating in negative operation
contexts; D, non-compliant conditions for operating in positive operation contexts.
**The score for each category represents the normalized value for the corresponding classification levels (A–D). The process of translating the classification
levels into these scores is documented in section S1.2 in Supporting Information S1, and the value function for each category indicator is shown in Figure S2
and Table S3 in Supporting Information S2.

profiles, and having environmental management plans. Company Y also contributes significantly to the local economic development. Company Y
has prevention and mitigation plans for conflicts and corruption (Sadewo, 2015).
The overall society performance of Company Y is calculated and shown by the aggregated score for each stakeholder category in Table 1. These
scores are calculated by the sum of the products of weights and assessed scores for each stakeholder category. They represent the overall perfor-
mance of Company Y in worker, community, and society categories: the closer the score to 1, the better the performance is. Generally, Company Y
has a satisfactory social performance as it scores greater than or equal to B in most examined categories. Company Y especially has a good score in
mitigating impacts on workers, which was largely attributed to their compliance with standards in health and safety, working hours, and child labor.
However, Company Y receives a poor score in community impacts. Even though various community development efforts were reported by Com-
pany Y, these efforts often overlooked the impacts on indigenous livelihoods, especially the impacts on nearby communities other than Sorowako.
As to impacts on society, Company Y does not receive a satisfactory score because of the importance of Corruption (Cor) and Prevention and Mit-
igation to Conflicts (PMC) indicators and the convex shape of value function of these indicators, implying that meeting the national average level
may not equal lower impacts.

3.3 Environmental impact assessment

Environmental LCA of the nickel mining process has been extensively studied for cumulative energy demand (CED) and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions , with the consideration of different geographical locations, processing routes, ore grades, and refined products (Ma et al., 2019; Wei
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AGUSDINATA ET AL . 7

F I G U R E 3 Environmental performance of nickel mining of Company Y (Underlying data for Figure 3 are available in Table S4 of Supporting
Information S2)

FIGURE 4 Remote sensing mapping of nickel mining operations and other land uses in Sulawesi, Indonesia

et al., 2020). Considering the major goal of this study is providing a framework to link LCSA to SDGs, instead of offering an accurate assessment, we
only provide an estimation of environmental impacts for Company Y by reviewing the results from existing studies.
Environmental impacts of Company Y are estimated according to the existing studies of LCA on nickel production. The estimated range of energy
demand and carbon emissions are shown in Figure 3, which implies environmental footprints for products containing 1 t of nickel content (i.e., the
functional unit). The plot is based on the energy demand and carbon emissions of nickel matte in existing studies (data are in Supporting Information
S2 Table S4) to provide a visual summary of the data. The boxes show the range from the first quantile to the third quantile of the data. Studies report
the cradle-to-gate impacts of nickel matte, Company Y’s major product, ranging from 114 GJ/t Ni content and 11.4 t CO2 eq/t Ni content (Norgate
& Rankin, 2000) to 485 GJ/t Ni content and 40 t CO2 eq/t Ni content (Wei et al., 2020). Wei et al. (2020) studied nickel production in Indonesia and
used Company Y as one of the case studies, providing a comparatively accurate representation of the environmental performance of Company Y.
It is worth noting that most existing studies are not specifically for company Y, which brings in uncertainties in the estimation of the impacts.
The differences in ore grade, processing routes, fuel choice, electricity mix, and heat recovery are important factors affecting the overall impacts. In
general, calcination and smelting were found to be the most energy-intensive and carbon-intensive processes, and the majority of impacts are from
electricity use and fossil fuels combustion.
Except for these impacts, reports about the conflicts between nickel production and local livelihoods also reveal various impacts of water pollu-
tion, air pollution, deforestation, soil contamination, and health issues like asthma and rhinitis (EJ Atlas, 2019). Studies providing a full assessment of
indicators are limited. Acidification potential (TA) was assessed between 0.011 and 0.41 t SO2 eq/t Ni content for ferronickel production in Greece,
which is largely attributed to the fugitive emissions from smelter and fossil fuel usage (Bartzas & Komnitsas, 2015). Ma et al. (2019) assessed the full
life cycle impact of ferronickel production in China and reported impacts such as water use (WU) (1521 m3 /t Ni content), freshwater eutrophication
(Feu) (0.31 kg PO4 − eq/t Ni content), land use (LU) (0.021 ha/year/t Ni content), respiratory organics (159 kg NMVOC eq/t Ni content), and inor-
ganics (26.25 kg PM2.5 eq/t Ni content). Although these results may vary with ore grade, energy source, technology process, and local electricity
mix, they still offer a valuable insight into the impacts of nickel production in our study area.
Considering the prevalent social concerns on land conflicts and destructions as stated in the previous section, along with the lack of site-specific
ELCA studies on land impacts, we provided a remote sensing analysis on land use land change to gain some insights. We analyzed two geographical
factors that affect human livelihoods and the health of the environment: land use and vegetation coverage (Figure 4). Analysis of satellite images
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 AGUSDINATA ET AL .

F I G U R E 5 Profitability and community development program (CDP) of Company Y (Underlying data for Figure 5 are available in Table S8 of
Supporting Information S2)

over 1997–2020 reveals expanding mining activities, a slight increase in human settlement, and a large increase in shrubs/ grassland, all at the
expense of reduced forest coverage (Supporting Information S1, Figure S5). This trend is confirmed using the Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index (NDVI) indicator (Pettorelli, 2013), which is a commonly used indicator to show the response of vegetation to the environmental disturbance
with a valid range from −1 to 1 (−1 indicates no vegetation or presence of water body; 1 indicates dense canopy). The analysis shows a decreas-
ing trend in vegetation coverage (Supporting Information S1, Figure S5), implying a degrading and deforestation trend. Deforestation affects
ecosystem services particularly the availability and quality of water resources and loss of biodiversity.

3.4 Life cycle costing and community development program

We analyzed the revenue and cost flows of Company Y to identify the cost of production, profitability, and the scope of investments to local com-
munities and greater society. On average, over the last 5 years, in terms of mining cost drivers, Company Y spent 19% of the cost of production on
fuel and lubricant, 21% on depreciation and amortization, 18% on supplies for plant and mining equipment maintenance, 13% on employee costs,
14% on contractor services, 7% on coal for the combustion process in drying kilns and reducing kilns, 2% on royalties, and 1% on others (Supporting
Information, Figure S4). Tax expenditures, as a proxy of societal obligation at a local and national level, only take a small 5%. The tax percentage on
the cost of production is relatively consistent with the company’s contribution to the country. The tax increase in 2020 stems from an increase in
taxes due to the increased use of the quarries.
Furthermore, the proportion of funds allocated for community development programs is in line with profitability trends (Figure 5). In carrying
out the community development program, Company Y has a 5-year master plan as a reference for social programs in East Luwu Regency. In the
past 5 years, Company Y has carried out community empowerment programs consistently to support sustainable agriculture practices, sustainable
livestock production, and infrastructure support (Supporting Information S1, Table S1). Company Y also actively participated in disaster response
and recovery as well as provided assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.5 Integrated SDGs assessment

Combined results from SLCA and supporting data and analysis provide a comprehensive basis for SDGs assessment associated with nickel mining
activities. Our SDGs assessment has implications for policymakers in establishing social priorities for development. As shown in Table 2, three areas
of SDGs particularly stand out: decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and peace, justice, and strong institutions
(SDG16).
The nickel mining industry in Sulawesi, Indonesia, contributes positively to the achievement of SDG 8 by creating local jobs (SDG 8.3), providing
fair wages regardless of gender (SDG 8.5), eliminating forced and child labor (SDG 8.7), and protecting labor rights (SDG 8.8). Mining and quarrying
contribute significantly to the regional development in this area, amounting to 45% of the regional GDP in 2020 (BPS-Statistics of Luwu Timur
Regency, 2021). It should be noted that these contributions are largely restricted to the mining town, neglecting the livelihoods in surrounding
villages.
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AGUSDINATA ET AL . 9

TA B L E 2 Summary of SDGs assessment of nickel mining in Sulawesi, Indonesia

Most importantly, these contributions also largely vary by the individual practice of the company. Lack of work security, forced labor, unfair
salary, unequal employment opportunities are frequently occurring in the nickel mining industry. As for SDG 10, as a land-destructive industry, it
generally lacks planned and well-managed migration policies to mitigate their impacts on farmlands and displaced farmers (SDG 10.7). Its potential
contribution to multiple targets of SDG 10 (10.1–10.3) by reducing inequity in income, job opportunities, and salary for its workers also largely
depends on the individual practice of the company. In terms of SDG 16, corruption and bribery events are frequently found in the nickel mining
industry (e.g., building without an environmental permit) (SDG 16.5), as well as violence due to local demonstrations or protests against its mining-
related impacts (SDG 16.1). Overall, these negative contributions may largely offset some positive contributions from community engagement
efforts (SDG 16.7).
After screening the results of the media analysis, it is worth mentioning that some impacts that are not systematically assessed by this case study
or not directly captured by LCSA indicators may still provide valuable insights into the SDG performance of the nickel mining industry in Indone-
sia. Although only impacts of carbon emission and fossil fuel consumptions are estimated in the case study, relevant reports about environmental
impacts are wide-ranging, which can impair the achievement of SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and produc-
tion), and SDG 15 (life on land). Such impacts include soil and water contamination by mining acidic waste (SDG 12.4, 12.5, 6.3), soil erosion and
degradation (Prematuri et al., 2020; SDG 15.3), biodiversity loss (Ashley, 2019; SDG 15.5), and land degradation and deforestation by opencast
operations (SDG 15.2), which is also confirmed by our remote sensing analysis in Section 3.5.
Without proper management, these environmental impacts can directly degrade human health and social livelihoods, thereby diminishing the
achievement of SDG 3 (good health and well-being) and SDG 2 (zero hunger). Air pollution has been found to correlate with more cases of respira-
tory (asthma, rhinitis) and skin health conditions (skin tumors) in the communities surrounding the mine sites and smelter facility (Glynn, 2006), as
well as the increasing concerns on mental health issues like stress, depression, and suicide (EJ Atlas, 2019). Crop damage caused by degraded soil
quality can impede the progress of ensuring food security and agricultural productivity, especially for indigenous peoples and family farmers (SDG
2.3). Together with the social impacts identified in the SLCA assessment, poor recognition and mitigation of these impacts can lead to social unrest
and conflicts, even hampering the progress of SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions).

4 DISCUSSION

The study has several implications for life cycle actors. For mining companies, the framework can facilitate the identification of societal needs,
understanding the complex dynamics of the social and biophysical systems in which they are embedded, and engagement with many stakeholders
through their corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to address sustainable development issues beyond their direct and exclusive control.
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 AGUSDINATA ET AL .

Currently, the dominant thinking is to consider CSR as risk management for companies (Kytle & Ruggie, 2005; Lu et al., 2022). As a result, most
mining companies tend to invest in areas that pose the greatest threat and not on where the development needs are the greatest (Frederiksen, 2018)
and therefore have failed to translate their promises to communities into action plans (Responsible Mining Foundation, 2020). Given companies’
high awareness of SDGs (Izzo et al., 2020), there is an opportunity to adapt existing corporate measurement and evaluation systems and improve
CSR engagement in a way that contributes to sustainable development.
A myriad of reporting frameworks have been developed to serve the purpose of sustainability reporting while creating new challenges in
reporting fatigue, fragmentation, and incomparability (Fonseca et al., 2014; RMI, 2020). Global reporting initiatives (GRI), for example, has been
criticized for “cherry-picking” issues and manipulating the reporting process to portray an image of a socially and environmentally responsible
company (Adams & Evans, 2004; MacLean & Rebernak, 2007; Boiral, 2013). Similar challenges could come with the new trend of incorporating
SDGs in reporting (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2021). Without an effective framework, these efforts could be co-opted to exaggerate the positive
contributions while concealing the negative externalities of mineral suppliers.
For EVs consumers, information about local impacts of minerals extractions should be factored into the life cycle cost of EVs ownership
(Mitropoulos et al., 2017). Current studies of LCC and externalities of EVs reveal mostly the impacts from fuel consumption (Sen et al., 2017). In
addition, consumers can mobilize and engage in actions to pressure supply chain actors for sustainable and responsible sourcing of minerals (Liu
et al., 2022). Other supply chain actors have a role to play. EVs and batteries manufacturers have a major gatekeeper role, as some manufacturers
have declared bans on some forms of extraction (e.g., seabed mining) (Reuters, 2021). Recyclers can invest at the end of product life to recycle and
recover materials through ways such as urban mining (Tesfaye et al., 2017). These will not only decouple mineral uses and their negative impacts
but secure supply by reducing dependence on virgin minerals.
In assessing the sustainability impacts of mining activities, it is important to account for the perspectives of local indigenous peoples (LIPs) as
many critical mineral extractions take place in territories where indigenous people live (Landmark, 2021). Local knowledge may be particularly
critical to capture in relation to the social-cultural and more intangible values and interests affected by mineral-related activities. Although the
rights and interests of indigenous communities affected by mining have been acknowledged, their involvement and inputs in the process are still
lacking in a meaningful and systematic way (Agusdinata et al., 2018). Efforts to comply with national and international regulations and codes of
conduct rely heavily on external sources of formal data and information provided by experts and authorities, thereby neglecting local and tradi-
tional (Indigenous) sources of knowledge and practices (Bavinck & Gupta, 2014). LIPs’ role has been mostly in the periphery—where they are being
spoken to as “consumers” of completed research and they have few avenues and options to voice their concerns and share their knowledge (Sosa &
Zwarteveen, 2014). There is, therefore, a need for LIPs to have a voice in the co-creation of knowledge related to and decisions affecting their lands
and livelihoods.
Lastly, although the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda is mostly top-down driven and takes place mainly at the national level, the achieve-
ment of SDGs depends heavily on progress made at the local level (Oosterhof, 2018). The impacts of local projects will need to be accounted
for in the national SDG reporting system (Bexell & Jönsson, 2019) and be linked to other ongoing initiatives. Aligning local initiatives with the
national/global context requires developing shared narratives on how a locally specific life cycle stage (e.g., mining) creates pathways toward achiev-
ing national/global goals. The development of the pathways entails an understanding of how regional/national socio-economic drivers influence
local sustainability and vice versa. The theory of change provides a framework to establish plausible causal relationships and assumptions between
interventions and desirable outcomes (Mayne, 2015). Particularly, to reduce poverty at the household level in a rural context, the sustainable liveli-
hood framework can be used to capture the complexity of livelihood factors: vulnerabilities, assets, governance structures and processes, and
strategies (Pandey et al., 2017)

5 CONCLUSION

SDGs as a global agenda serve as a reference framework that can support mining companies in improving their CSR (Schönherr et al., 2017). Our
study shows that mining operations and their interactions with local communities and the environment illustrate the wide-range effects that mineral
extractions could have on sustainable developments. Supplemented by analysis of remote sensing, media, and stakeholders data, the integrated
LCSA and SDGs assessment framework points to social and environmental justice issues at local communities that have been mostly overlooked in
existing life cycle assessment studies (Fortier et al., 2019). The SLCA study complements the existing social LCI such as the social hotspot database
(Benoit-Norris et al., 2013) by providing site-specific data for nickel extraction in Indonesia.
With the increasing awareness of sustainability and sustainable consumption among investors and consumers, mineral supply chains are
expected to provide a comprehensive disclosure of their production impacts. Such expectation is increasingly driving companies to disclose beyond
the traditional sustainability reporting on social and environmental impacts to incorporate how their performance aligns with SDGs. Not all com-
panies, however, report to the same extent, with a serious and systemic reporting deficit among private companies compared to publicly listed
multi-national companies (Chen & Hamilton, 2020).
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AGUSDINATA ET AL . 11

One agenda for a future study is to conduct an integrated SLCA and SDG assessment for EVs throughout the whole life cycle stages.
Methodology-wise, this would entail considering multiple EV minerals (cobalt, nickel, manganese, copper, lithium, aluminum, graphite, and rare
earth), multiple countries and communities, and life cycle actors (battery and car manufacturers, consumers, and recyclers). A second agenda is to
generate site-specific impact data that account for local indigenous people’s concerns and issues, employing indigenous-led research approaches
and co-designed surveys for impact assessment (Jolly & Thompson-Fawcett, 2021; Scott et al., 2020). A third agenda is to develop an automated
machine-learning processes (Ning et al., 2021; Shahi et al., 2014) to scale-up this type of analysis in order to identify and flag systematic under-
reporting from companies and to provide integrated SLCA and SDG assessments when reporting benchmarks are met. Such an approach could
in turn help guide manufacturers and consumers by exposing likely hidden costs within value chains (under-reporting) and ranking the social and
environmental performance of suppliers (LC sustainability and SDG score).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank three anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. Special acknowledgment to Hallie Eakin, and Dexter
Anderson for their valuable input to the study.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available in Supporting Information S1 and S2. These data were derived from the resources
available in the public domain.

ORCID
Datu Buyung Agusdinata https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4537-0446

NOTE
1
AHP is used to create critical weights for indicators (weights are in Table 1). In each stakeholder category, these weights represent the relative importance
of indicators in generating the performance score. More details are in Supporting Information S1 (section S1.2) and S2.

REFERENCES
Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. (2004). Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectation gap. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14, 97–115.
Agusdinata, D. B., Eakin, H., & Liu, W. (2022). Critical minerals for electric vehicles: A telecoupling review. Environmental Research Letters, 17, 013005.
Agusdinata, D. B., Liu, W., Eakin, H., & Romero, H. (2018). Socio-environmental impacts of lithium mineral extraction: Towards a research agenda. Environmental
Research Letter, 13(12), 123001.
Agusdinata, D. B., Zhao, F., Ileleji, K., & DeLaurentis, D. (2011). Life cycle assessment of potential biojet fuel production in the United States. Environmental
Science & Technology, 45(21), 9133–9143.
Ali, S. H., Giurco, D., Arndt, N., Nickless, E., Brown, G., Demetriades, A., Durrheim, R., Enriquez, M. A., Kinnaird, J., Littleboy, A., Meinert, L. D., Oberhänsli, R.,
Salem, J., Schodde, R., Schneider, G., Vidal, O., & Yakovleva, N. (2017). Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature,
543(7645), 367–372.
Ambrose, H., & Kendall, A. (2020). Understanding the future of lithium: Part 2, temporally and spatially resolved life-cycle assessment modeling. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 24(1), 90–100.
Arodudu, O., Helming, K., Wiggering, H., & Voinov, A. (2017). Towards a more holistic sustainability assessment framework for agro-bioenergy systems—A
review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 61–75.
Arvidsson, R., Hildenbrand, J., Baumann, H., Islam, K. M. N., & Parsmo, R. (2018). A method for human health impact assessment in social LCA: lessons from
three case studies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 690–699.
Ashley, S. (2019). Shift to renewable energy could have biodiversity cost, researchers caution. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/shift-to-renewable-energy-
could-have-biodiversity-cost-researchers-caution/
Bartzas, G., & Komnitsas, K. (2015). Life cycle assessment of ferronickel production in Greece. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 113–122.
Bavinck, M., & Gupta, J. (2014). Legal pluralism in aquatic regimes: A challenge for governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 11, 78–85.
Bazilian, M. D. (2018). The mineral foundation of the energy transition. The Extractive Industries and Society, 5(1), 93–97.
Benoit-Norris, C., Cavan, D. A., & Norris, G. (2012). Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: Overview and application of the social hotspot
database. Sustainability, 4, 1946–1965.
Benoit-Norris, C., Norris, G., & Aulisio, D. (2013). Social hotspots database. http://socialhotspot.org
Bexell, M., & Jönsson, K. (2019). Country reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals—The politics of performance review at the global-national nexus.
Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 20(4), 403–417.
Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–
1071.
BPS-Statistics of Luwu Timur Regency. (2021). Kabupaten Luwu Timur Dalam Angka 2021. [Luwu Timur Regency in Figures 2021]. https://luwutimurkab.bps.
go.id
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 AGUSDINATA ET AL .

Chen, Z., & Hamilton, T. (2020). What is driving corporate social and environmental responsibility in China? An evaluation of legacy effects, organizational
characteristics, and transnational pressures. Geoforum, 110, 116–124.
Cole, M. J., & Broadhurst, J. L. (2021). Measuring the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in mining host communities: A South African case study. The
Extractive Industries and Society, 8(1), 233–243.
Conde, M., & Le Billon, P. (2017). Why do some communities resist mining projects while others do not?. The Extractive Industries and Society, 4(3), 681–697.
Corona, B., Bozhilova-Kisheva, K. P., Olsen, S. I., & San Miguel, G. (2017). Social life cycle assessment of a concentrated solar power plant in Spain: A
methodological proposal. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(6), 1566–1577.
de Haan, J., Dales, K., & McQuilken, J. (2020). Mapping artisanal and small-scale mining to the sustainable development goals. Minerals, Materials and Society
program in partnership with Pact, University of Delaware. https://sites.udel.edu/ceoe-mms/
Dominish, E., Florin, N., & Teske, S. (2019). Responsible minerals sourcing for renewable energy. In Report Prepared for Earthworks by the Institute for Sustainable
Futures, University of Technology Sydney.
EJ Atlas. (2019). Karonsi’e Dongi people and Vale mine in Sorowako, Sulawesi, Indonesia. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/karonsie-dongi-people-and-vale-mine-in-
sorowako-sulawesi-indonesia
Endl, A., Tost, M., Hitch, M., Moser, P., & Feiel, S. (2019). Europe’s mining innovation trends and their contribution to the sustainable development goals: Blind
spots and strong points. Resources Policy, 74, 101440.
Farjana, S. H., Huda, N., Mahmud, M. P., & Saidur, R. (2019). A review on the impact of mining and mineral processing industries through life cycle assessment.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 231, 1200–1217.
Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309–3322.
Fonseca, A., McAllister, M. L., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2014). Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: A constructive critique of the GRI approach. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 84, 70–83.
Fortier, M. O. P., Teron, L., Reames, T. G., Munardy, D. T., & Sullivan, B. M. (2019). Introduction to evaluating energy justice across the life cycle: A social life
cycle assessment approach. Applied Energy, 236, 211–219.
Frederiksen, T. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, risk and development in the mining industry. Resources Policy, 59, 495–505.
GeoRIMA. (2021). Potensi Mineral Logam Provinsi Sulawesi Tenggara. https://georima.esdm.go.id
Glynn, T. (2006). Community-based research on the environmental and human health impacts of a laterite nickel mine and smelter in Sorowako, Indonesia [Doctoral
dissertation]. Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & Van Zelm, R. (2009). ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which
comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, 1–126. Den Haag.
Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Urbieta, L., & Boiral, O. (2021). Organizations’ engagement with sustainable development goals: From cherry-picking to SDG-washing?.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29, 316–328.
Huntington, J. L., Hegewisch, K. C., Daudert, B., Morton, C. G., Abatzoglou, J. T., McEvoy, D. J., & Erickson, T. (2017). Climate engine: Cloud computing and visu-
alization of climate and remote sensing data for advanced natural resource monitoring and process understanding. Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 98(11), 2397–2410.
Izzo, M. F., Ciaburri, M., & Tiscini, R. (2020). The challenge of sustainable development goal reporting: The first evidence from Italian listed companies.
Sustainability, 12(8), 3494.
Jiang, S., Zhang, L., Li, F., Hua, H., Liu, X., Yuan, Z., & Wu, H. (2020). Environmental impacts of lithium production showing the importance of primary data of
upstream process in life-cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 262, 110253.
Jolly, D., & Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2021). Enhancing Indigenous impact assessment: Lessons from indigenous planning theory. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 87, 106541.
Kennedy, S. R. L., Toledano, P., Rietbergen, J., & Villiers-Piaget, D. (2020). Mining and the SDGs: A 2020 status update. Columbia Center for Sustainable
Investment, Responsible Mining Foundation.
KESDM. (2015). Dampak Pembangunan Smelter di Kawasan Ekonomi Khusus Provinsi Sulawesi Tenggara.
Kolotzek, C., Helbig, C., Thorenz, A., Reller, A., & Tuma, A. (2018). A company-oriented model for the assessment of raw material supply risks, environmental
impact and social implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 566–580.
Kytle, B., & Ruggie, J. G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as risk management: A model for multinationals. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working
Paper 10. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Landmark. (2021). https://www.landmarkmap.org//
Liu, W., & Agusdinata, D. B. (2020). Interdependencies of lithium mining and communities sustainability in Salar de Atacama, Chile. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 260, 120838.
Liu, W., Agusdinata, D. B., Eakin, H., & Romero, H. (2022). Sustainable minerals extraction for electric vehicles: A pilot study of consumers’ perceptions of
impacts. Resources Policy, 75, 102523.
Liu, W., Agusdinata, D. B., & Myint, S. W. (2019). Spatiotemporal patterns of lithium mining and environmental degradation in the Atacama Salt Flat, Chile.
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 80, 145–156.
Lu, H., Liu, X., & Falkenberg, L. (2022). Investigating the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on risk management practices. Business & Society, 61(2),
496–534.
Ma, X., Yang, D., Zhai, Y., Shen, X., Zhang, R., & Hong, J. (2019). Cost-combined life cycle assessment of ferronickel production. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 24(10), 1840–1850.
MacLean, R., & Rebernak, K. (2007). Closing the credibility gap: The challenges of corporate responsibility reporting. Environmental Quality Management, 16,
1–6.
Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2014). Application challenges for the social life cycle
assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 34–48.
Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change Models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(2), 119–142.
Mitropoulos, L. K., Prevedouros, P. D., & Kopelias, P. (2017). Total cost of ownership and externalities of conventional, hybrid and electric vehicle. Transportation
Research Procedia, 24, 267–274.
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AGUSDINATA ET AL . 13

Mohr, M., Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., & Weil, M. (2020). Toward a cell-chemistry specific life cycle assessment of lithium-ion battery recycling processes. Journal
of Industrial Ecology, 24(6), 1310–1322.
Monteiro, N. B. R., da Silva, E. A., & Neto, J. M. M. (2019). Sustainable development goals in mining. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 509–520.
Muhammad, S., Muhammad, R., & Radjab, M. (2019). Social movement in a mining project: Contentious politics of Sorowakoan towards PT. Vale Indonesia,
Tbk. South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Democracy and Social Transformation: Global-Local Tensions, Contestations and Collaborations, 1.
Ning, X., Yim, D., & Khuntia, J. (2021). Online sustainability reporting and firm performance: Lessons learned from text mining. Sustainability, 13(3), 1069.
Norgate, T. E., & Rankin, W. J. (2000). Life cycle assessment of copper and nickel production. In International Conference on Minerals Processing and Extractive
Metallurgy (pp. 133–138). Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Omotehinse, A., & De Tomi, G. (2019). Impact of mining activities on the achievement of sustainable development goals. In 9th International Conference on
Sustainable Development in the Minerals Industry (SDIMI 2019).
Oosterhof, P. D. (2018). Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The Governance Brief, 33, 1–14.
Pandey, R., Jha, S. K., Alatalo, J. M., Archie, K. M., & Gupta, A. K. (2017). Sustainable livelihood framework-based indicators for assessing climate change
vulnerability and adaptation for Himalayan communities. Ecological Indicators, 79, 338–346.
Pettorelli, N. (2013). The normalized difference vegetation index. Oxford University Press.
Pongsibanne, L. K., Napping, H., Hamdat, S., & Arifin, A. (2018). Social cultural transformation in attitude and behavior of Padoe Community (A case study of
Padoe community in mining area of Pt. Vale, Tbk. in Wasuponda, Luwu District, South Sulawesi Province). International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology
Research, 4, 1–19.
Prematuri, R., Turjaman, M., Sato, T., & Tawaraya, K. (2020). The impact of nickel mining on soil properties and growth of two fast-growing tropical trees
species. International Journal of Forestry Research, 2020, 8837590.
PTVI. (2016). Get to know our hydroelectric power plants in Indonesia. http://www.vale.com/en/aboutvale/news/pages/get-know-hydroelectric-power-plants-
indonesia.aspx
PTVI. (2020). Sustainability Report 2020. PT Vale Indonesia Tbk. http://www.vale.com/indonesia/EN/aboutvale/sustainability/Pdfs/2020-Sustainability-
Report-PT-Vale-Indonesia-Tbk.pdf
Rebitzer, G., & Hunkeler, D. (2003). Life cycle costing in LCM: Ambitions, opportunities, and limitations. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
8(Article), 253–256.
Responsible Mining Foundation. (2020). Responsible Mining Index Report 2020. https://2020.responsibleminingindex.org/en
Reuters. (2021). https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/google-bmw-volvo-samsung-sdi-sign-up-wwf-call-temporary-ban-deep-sea-
mining-2021-03-31/
RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute). (2020). The next frontier of carbon accounting: A unified approach for unlocking systemic change. https://rmi.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/06/The-Next-Frontier-of-Carbon-Accounting-June-2020.pdf
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.
Sadewo, J., (2015). Kapolda Sultra: Ada Pelanggaran Pembangunan Dermaga Khusus [Southeast Sulawesi Regional Police Chief: There is a violation of the
construction of a special pier]. Republika. https://nasional.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/daerah/15/12/04/nyt66j318-kapolda-sultra-ada-pelanggaran-
pembangunan-dermaga-khusus
Santillán-Saldivar, J., Gaugler, T., Helbig, C., Rathgeber, A., Sonnemann, G., Thorenz, A., & Tuma, A. (2020). Design of an endpoint indicator for mineral resource
supply risks in life cycle sustainability assessment: The case of Li-ion batteries. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(4), 1051–1062.
Schaubroeck, T., & Rugani, B. (2017). A revision of what life cycle sustainability assessment should entail: Towards modeling the net impact on human well-
being. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(6), 1464–1477.
Schomberg, A. C., Bringezu, S., & Flörke, M. (2021). Extended life cycle assessment reveals the spatially-explicit water scarcity footprint of a lithium-ion battery
storage. Communications Earth & Environment, 2(1), 1–10.
Schönherr, N., Findler, F., & Martinuzzi, A. (2017). Exploring the interface of CSR and the sustainable development goals. Transnational Corporations, 24(3),
33–47.
Scott, D. N., Atlin, C., Van Wagner, E., Siebenmorgan, P., & Gibson, R. B. (2020). Synthesis report: implementing a regional, indigenous-led and sustainability-
informed impact assessment in Ontario’s ring of fire. Articles & Book Chapters. 2807. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/2807
Sen, B., Ercan, T., & Tatari, O. (2017). Does a battery-electric truck make a difference?–Life cycle emissions, costs, and externality analysis of alternative
fuel-powered Class 8 heavy-duty trucks in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 110–121.
Shahi, A. M., Issac, B., & Modapothala, J. R. (2014). Automatic analysis of corporate sustainability reports and intelligent scoring. International Journal of
Computational Intelligence and Applications, 13(01), 1450006.
Sosa, M., & Zwarteveen, M. (2014). The institutional regulation of the sustainability of water resources within mining contexts: Accountability and plurality.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 11, 19–25.
Sovacool, B. K., Ali, S. H., Bazilian, M., Radley, B., Nemery, B., Okatz, J., & Mulvaney, D. (2020). Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon future. Science,
367(6473), 30–33.
Susmiyati, H. R., & Susanti, E. (2019). Implementasi Kewajiban Mempekerjakan Tenaga Kerja Lokal Pada Perusahaan Pertambangan Batubara Di Kabupaten Berau
Kalimantan Timur [Implementation of local workers employment obligation at coal mining companies in Berau Regency, East Kalimantan]. Risalah Hukum,
11–31. https://e-journal.fh.unmul.ac.id/index.php/risalah/article/view/82
Tesfaye, F., Lindberg, D., Hamuyuni, J., Taskinen, P., & Hupa, L. (2017). Improving urban mining practices for optimal recovery of resources from e-waste.
Minerals Engineering, 111, 209–221.
Umah, A. (2021). Ini 5 Produsen Nikel Terbesar RI, Siapa Jawaranya? [These are 5 largest nickel producers in Indonesia, who is the winner?]. CNBC Indonesia.
https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20210707161618-4-259046/ini-5-produsen-nikel-terbesar-ri-siapa-jawaranya
UNDP. (2016). Mapping mining to the sustainable development goals: An atlas [White Paper]. https://www.undp.org/publications/mapping-mining-sdgs-atlas
UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme. ISBN:978–992.
UN Indigenous Human Rights. (2021). https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html
USGS (United States Geological Survey). (2021). Mineral Commodity Summaries—Nickel. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/nickel-statistics-and-
information)
 15309290, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13317 by Universidade De Aveiro, Wiley Online Library on [09/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 AGUSDINATA ET AL .

Wei, W., Samuelsson, P. B., Tilliander, A., Gyllenram, R., & Jönsson, P. G. (2020). Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of nickel products. Energies,
13(21), 5664.
Werker, J., Wulf, C., Zapp, P., Schreiber, A., & Marx, J. (2019). Social LCA for rare earth NdFeB permanent magnets. Sustainable Production and Consumption,
19, 257–269.
Wulf, C., Zapp, P., Schreiber, A., Marx, J., & Schlör, H. (2017). Lessons learned from a life cycle sustainability assessment of rare earth permanent magnets.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(6), 1578–1590.
Yakovleva, N., Kotilainen, J., & Toivakka, M. (2017). Reflections on the opportunities for mining companies to contribute to the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals in sub–Saharan Africa. The Extractive Industries and Society, 4(3), 426–433.
Zamagni, A. (2012). Life cycle sustainability assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 373–376.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

How to cite this article: Agusdinata, D. B., Liu, W., Sulistyo, S., LeBillon, P., & Wegner, J. (2022). Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical
mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13317