Toward an Overall Analytical Framework for the Integrated Sustainability Assessment of the Production and Supply of Raw Materials and Primary Energy Carriers

Abstract

SummaryThe sustainable production and supply of raw materials ("nonenergy raw materials") and primary energy carriers ("energy raw materials") is a core element of many policies. The natural resource base for their production and supply, and the access thereto, are limited. Moreover, raw material supply is high on environmental and social impact agendas as well. A broad, quantitative framework that supports decision makers is recommended so as to make use of raw materials and primary energy carriers more sustainably. First, this article proposes a holistic classification of raw materials and primary energy carriers. This is an essential prerequisite for developing an integrated sustainability assessment framework (ISAF). Indeed, frequently, only a subset of raw materials and primary energy carriers are considered in terms of their source, sector, or final application. Here, 85 raw materials and 30 primary energy carriers overall are identified and grouped into seven and five subgroups, respectively. Next, this article proposes a quantitative ISAF for the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers, covering all the sustainability pillars. With the goal of comprehensiveness, the proposed ISAF integrates sustainability issues that have been covered and modeled in quite different quantitative frameworks: ecosystem services; classical life cycle assessment (LCA); social LCA; resource criticality assessment; and particular international concerns (e.g., conflict minerals assessment). The resulting four areas of concerns (i.e., environmental, technical, economic, and social/societal) are grouped into ten specific sustainability concerns. Finally, these concerns are quantified through 15 indicators, enabling the quantitative sustainability assessment of the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers.

Review of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Potential for Its Adoption at an Automotive Company

“…The main research needs in this rather diverse set of publications were identified to be more testing of the developed methods [63,64,66], refinement and ranking of indicators [61,70], and the incorporation of input-output analysis [60].…”

“…They followed up their assessment with a revised method, employing 16 indicators that followed LCA for environmental impacts but own deliberations regarding economic and social impacts to identify the most sustainable energy mix for the UK in 2070 [65]. Similarly, the assessment of primary energy carriers was the focus of the Integrated Sustainability Assessment Framework (ISAF) in which 15 indicators for four sustainability dimensions (adding "technology" to the three conventional ones) were suggested [66]. Energy sources were also assessed by Hirschberg and Burgherr [67] who based their indicators on the NEEDS framework.…”

Toward a Framework for Resource Efficiency Evaluation in Industry: Recommendations for Research and Innovation Projects

“…However, it has been shown that resource availability highly depends on socio-economic parameters such as geopolitical issues, market stability and international regulations [37]. These considerations can only be accounted for in a criticality assessment, which is typically conducted outside of the LCA framework.…”

“…Consistent definitions are also important when choosing the method used to quantify targets, as some methods consider fossil fuels to be materials and some separate both resources. We are in favour of shifting fossil fuels from the raw materials category into the energy carriers category, as it would allow for a more detailed analysis of resource consumption and also enhance the consideration of abiotic renewable resources, which cannot be considered in the raw materials category [37].…”

“…Renewable resources are able to regenerate within a human lifetime but can be exhausted if consumed beyond their regeneration capacity [37]. They can be biotic (i.e., "derived from presently living organisms"; e.g., wood) or abiotic (i.e., a "product of past biological or physical/chemical processes"; e.g., wind energy) [36].…”