SpringerLink
Log in

An Integrated Framework for Prioritizing Sustainability Indicators for the Mining Sector with a Multicriteria Decision-Making Technique

  • Research
  • Published:
Operations Research Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustainable development challenges are nowhere more relevant than in the natural resource sectors, most importantly coal mining, due to environmental and societal challenges, which are a known fact. A plethora of frameworks and indicators for assessing sustainable development are available in the literature. The GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) is one such instrument that is predominantly adopted by various sectors. However, the large number of GRI indicators often draws concern about the accuracy of measurements and management of the variables. The present study aims to prioritize the 78 GRI indicators for the mining sector on four attributes—practicality, relevance, reliability, and importance—to enhance the accuracy of measurements. A survey-based methodology in line with the Delphi method and the multicriteria decision-making methods (MCDM) TOPSIS, MOORA, and SAW combined with criteria weight calculation by the entropy method is applied to rank the GRI indicators. The study enables the prioritization of 78 indicators into 20 indicators based on stakeholder perception using a perceptual map and ranks them through the application of MCDM. Second, the larger Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of TOPSIS with MOORA and SAW shows better agreement between these three MCDM methods. The study demonstrates the usefulness of the MCDM methods either individually or in combination as a tool to support the decision-making process for prioritizing the indicators, assessing sustainability at coal mine sites, and benchmarking between adjacent mine sites.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. There is no personal data about the research participants other than their views on the research questions provided to them; hence, this information is not publicly available.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Bridge G (2004) Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:205–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Younger PL (2004) Environmental impacts of coal mining and associated wastes: a geochemical perspective. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 236(1):169–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Saini V (2018). Impact of coal mining and mine fires on the local environment in Jharia coalfield, Jharkhand. LIII. 18–22

  4. Timofeeva SS, Murzin MA (2019) Man-made risks of coal mining enterprises. In IOP Conference series: earth and environmental science 229(1):012028. IOP Publishing

  5. Zhengfu BIAN, Inyang HI, Daniels JL, Frank OTTO, Struthers S (2010) Environmental issues from coal mining and their solutions. Min Sci Technol (China) 20(2):215–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhao L, Ren T, Wang N (2017) Groundwater impact of open cut coal mine and an assessment methodology: a case study in NSW. Int J Min Sci Technol 27(5):861–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aneja VP, Isherwood A, Morgan P (2012) Characterization of particulate matter (PM10) related to surface coal mining operations in Appalachia. Atmos Environ 54:496–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jena S, Perwez A, Singh G, Kumar Dubey A (2015) Investigation of impacts of mining and transportation activities on ambient air quality of Dhanbad City. Curr World Environ 10(3):1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roy D, Singh G (2014) Chemical characterization and particulate distribution of PM10 and PM2. 5 at critically polluted area of Dhanbad/Jharia coalfield. Int J Eng Res Appl 4(3)

  10. Roy D, Singh G, Yadav P (2016) Identification and elucidation of anthropogenic source contribution in PM10 pollutant: insight gain from dispersion and receptor models. J Environ Sci 48:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nayak T, Chowdhury IR (2018) Health damages from air pollution: evidence from opencast coal mining region of Odisha, India. Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 1(1):43–65

  12. Jenkins WD, Christian WJ, Mueller G, Robbins KT (2013) Population cancer risks associated with coal mining: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hendryx M (2009) Mortality from heart, respiratory, and kidney disease in coal mining areas of Appalachia. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 82:243–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-008-0328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Werner AK, Watt K, Cameron C, Vink S, Page A, Jagals P (2018) Examination of child and adolescent hospital admission rates in Queensland, Australia, 1995–2011: a comparison of coal seam gas, coal mining, and rural areas. Matern Child Health J 22(9):1306–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kholod N, Evans M, Pilcher RC, Roshchanka V, Ruiz F, Coté M, Collings R (2020) Global methane emissions from coal mining to continue growing even with declining coal production. J Clean Prod 256:120489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Singh PK, Singh R, Bhakat D, Singh G (2010) Impact of climate change in mining region—a case study. Asia Pac Bus Rev 6(1):128–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Singh AK, Kumar J (2016) Fugitive methane emissions from Indian coal mining and handling activities: estimates, mitigation and opportunities for its utilization to generate clean energy. Energy Procedia 90:336–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J (2012) Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 30(1):53–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hilson G, Basu AJ (2003) Devising indicators of sustainable development for the mining and minerals industry: an analysis of critical background issues. Int J Sust Dev World 10(4):319–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500309470108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalua E, Anderbergd S, Olssona L (2007) Categorising for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508

  21. Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0508-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Štreimikienė D, Girdzijauskas S, Stoškus L (2009) Sustainability assessment methods and their application to harmonization of policies and sustainability monitoring. Environ Res Eng Manag = Aplinkos tyrimai, inžinerija ir vadyba 48(2):51–62. Kaunas, Technologija. ISSN 1392–1679

  23. Mudd G (2007) Sustainable mining – an oxymoron? Chem Eng (TCE), December 2007/January 2008, pp 27–29

  24. Peterie T, Cohen B, Stewart M (2007) Decision Support Frameworks and matrices for sustainable development of minerals and metals. Clean Technol Environ Policy 9:133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod 48:10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lozano R (2018) (2018) Proposing a definition and a framework of organisational sustainability: a review of efforts and a survey of approaches to change. Sustainability 10(4):1157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Böhling K, Murguía DI, Godfrid J (2019) (2019) Sustainability reporting in the mining sector: exploring its symbolic nature. Bus Soc 58(1):191–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fonseca A, McAllister ML, Fitzpatrick P (2014) Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach. J Clean Prod 84:70–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jenkins H, Yakovleva N (2006) Corporate social responsibility in mining industry: exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. J Clean Prod 14:271–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Que S, Wang L, Awuah-Offei K, Chen Y, Yang W (2018) The status of the local community in mining sustainable development beyond the triple bottom line. Sustainability 10:1749. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061749

  31. Boiral O (2013) Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Account Audit Account J 26:1036–1071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Boiral O, Henri J-F (2017) Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Bus Soc 56(2):283–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315576134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yu CC, Quinn JT, Dufournaud CM, Harrington JJ, Roger PP, Lohani BN (1998) Effective dimensionality of environmental Indicators: a principal component analysis with bootstrap confidence intervals. J Environ Manag 53(1):101–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Falck WE, Spangeberg JH (2014) Selection of social demand-based indicators: EO-based indicators for mining. J Clean Prod 84:193–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dahl AL (2012) Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol Indic 17:14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sitorus F, Cilliers JJ, Brito-Parada PR (2019) Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: applications and trends. Expert Syst Appl 121:393–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Turoff M, Linstone H (2002) The Delphi method-techniques and application

  38. Ogbeifun E, Agwa-Ejon J, Mbohwa C, Pretorius JHC (2016) The Delphi technique: a credible research methodology. Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on industrial engineering and operations management. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 8–10, 2016

  39. Feng SC, Joung CB (2009) An overview of a proposed measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 7th global conference on sustainable manufacturing. Chennai, India (Vol. 355, p. 360)

  40. Popovic T, Kraslawski A, Barbosa-Póvoa A, Carvalho A (2017) Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of society and product responsibility aspects in supply chains. J Int Stud 10(4):9–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wang J, Zionts S (2015) Using ordinal data to estimate cardinal values.J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 22(3–4):185–196. Published online 4 Jul 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1528

  42. Majumdar BB, Dissanayake D, Rajput AS, Saw YQ, Sahu PK (2020) Prioritizing metro service quality attributes to enhance commuter experience: TOPSIS ranking and importance satisfaction analysis methods. Transp Res Rec 2674(6):124–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shirouyehzad H, Dabestani R (2011) evaluating projects based on safety criteria; using TOPSIS. In 2011 2nd International conference on construction and project management IPEDR 15:69–73

  44. Dehdasht G, Ferwati MS, Zin RM, Abidin NZ (2020) A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation. PLoS ONE 15(2):e0228746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sinha S, Sadhukhan S, Priye S (2017) The role of quality assessment for development of sustainable bus service in mid-sized cities of India: a case study of Patna. Procedia Eng 198:926–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tourani S, Hassani M, Ayoubian A, Habibi M, Zaboli R (2015) Analyzing and prioritizing the dimensions of patient safety culture in emergency wards using the TOPSIS technique. Global J Health Sci 7(4):143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Asnaashari E, Doulabi RZ, Dadkhah N, Saghafi N, Ghanbariha L (2021) Identifying and ranking the occupational stressors and develo** a TOPSIS framework for project managers in Iran to cope with occupational stress. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (Eds) Proceedings of the 37th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6–7 September 2021, UK. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 199–208

  48. Azimi H (2017) Ranking the effect of services marketing mix elements on the loyalty of customers

  49. Hosseini SM, Bahadori M, Raadabadi M, Ravangard R (2019) Ranking hospitals based on the disasters preparedness using the TOPSIS technique in western Iran. Hosp Top 97(1):23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Elyazgi M, Nilashi M, Ibrahim O, Rayhan A, Elyazgi S (2016) Evaluating the factors influencing e-book technology acceptance among school children using TOPSIS technique. Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Support Systems 3(2)

  51. Nanayakkara C, Yeoh W, Lee A, Moayedikia A (2020) Deciding discipline, course and university through TOPSIS. Stud High Educ 45(12):2497–2512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ahmadi H, Salahshour M, Nilashi M, Ibrahim O, Almaee A (2013) Ranking the mirco level critical factors of electronic medical records adoption using TOPSIS method. Health Informatics-An International Journal 4:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Stojčić M, Zavadskas EK, Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Mardani A (2019) Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: a literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry 11(3):350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Caylor JP, Hanratty TP (2020) Survey of multi criteria decision making methods for complex environments. CCDC Army Research Laboratory

  55. Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsaea S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications, expert systems with applications. Expert Systems with Applications 39(1):13051–13069. (Elsevier)

  56. Ebrahim KS, Omid AN, Nasser T (2017) Application of TOPSIS method in evaluation and prioritization of social stability in rural areas (Case study: Zidasht Basin). J Appl Sci Environ Manag 21(1):49–56

    Google Scholar 

  57. Serrai W, Abdelli A, Mokdad L, Hammal Y (2017) Towards an efficient and a more accurate web service selection using MCDM methods. J Comput Sci 22:253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hussain SAI, Mandal UK (2016) Entropy based MCDM approach for Selection of material. In National Level Conference on Engineering Problems and Application of Mathematics (pp. 1–6)

  59. Moradian M, Modanloo V, Aghaiee S (2019) Comparative analysis of multi criteria decision making techniques for material selection of brake booster valve body. J Transp Eng (English Edition) 6(5):526–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Vujičić MD, Papić MZ, Blagojević MD (2017) Comparative analysis of objective techniques for criteria weighing in two MCDM methods on example of an air conditioner selection. Tehnika 72(3):422–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sarraf AZ, Mohaghar A, Bazargani H (2013) Develo** TOPSIS method using statistical normalization for selecting knowledge management strategies. J Ind Eng Manag 6(4):860–875

    Google Scholar 

  62. Odu GO (2019) Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making technique. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 23(8):1449–1457

    Google Scholar 

  63. Karmaker CL, Ahmed SMT, Rahman MS, Tahiduzzaman M, Biswas TK, Rahman M, Biswas SK (2018) A framework of faculty performance evaluation: a case study in Bangladesh. Int J Adv Res Sci Eng Technol 4(3):18–24

    Google Scholar 

  64. Pamučar DS, Božanić D, Ranđelović A (2017) Multi-criteria decision making: an example of sensitivity analysis. Serb J Manag 12(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Cakir S, Hecht R, Krellenberg K (2021) Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria evaluation of the suitability of urban green spaces for recreational activities. AGILE: GIScience Series 2:1–8

  66. Janoušková S, Hák TB (2018) Global SDGs assessments: hel** or confusing indicators? Sustainability 10:1540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051540

  67. Aires RFDF, Ferreira L (2018) The rank reversal problem in multi-criteria decision making: a literature review. Pesqui Oper 38:331–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, National Institute of Technology Durgapur, Durgapur, 713209, West Bengal, India

    Vineeta Prasad & Kalyan Adhikari

  2. Department of Management Studies, National Institute of Technology Durgapur, Durgapur, 713209, West Bengal, India

    Gautam Bandyopadhyay & Sayan Gupta

Authors
  1. Vineeta Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gautam Bandyopadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kalyan Adhikari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sayan Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

VP conceptualized the study, performed data collection and analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. KA conceptualized, supervised, and reviewed the study. GB supervised the methodologies applied in the study and reviewed the results. SG performed data analysis and prepared the figures. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kalyan Adhikari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Verbal informed consent was obtained before the interviews.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Operations Research in Applied Energy, Environment, Climate Change & Sustainability

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30

Table 19 Ranking 16 GRI social sustainability (subcategory labor practices and decent work) indicators by different methods of multicriteria decision-making
Full size table

See Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21.

Table 20 Ranking 9 GRI social sustainability (subcategory society) indicators by different methods of multicriteria decision-making
Full size table
Table 21 Ranking 9 GRI social sustainability (subcategory product responsibility) indicators by different methods of multicriteria decision-making
Full size table
Table 22 Ranking 9 GRI economic sustainability indicators by different methods of multicriteria decision-making
Full size table
Table 23 Exchange of weight for social (labor practices and decent work) indicators for four attributes
Full size table
Table 24 Exchange of weight for social (society) indicators for four attributes
Full size table
Table 25 Exchange of weight for social (product responsibility) indicators for four attributes
Full size table
Table 26 Exchange of weight for economic indicators for four attributes
Full size table
Table 27 TOPSIS ranking social (labor practices and decent work) indicators after sensitivity analysis
Full size table
Table 28 TOPSIS ranking social (society) indicators after sensitivity analysis
Full size table
Table 29 TOPSIS ranking social (product responsibility) indicators after sensitivity analysis
Full size table
Table 30 TOPSIS ranking economic indicators after sensitivity analysis
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI environmental sustainability indicators for attribute “relevance”

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI environmental sustainability indicators for attribute “reliability”

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI environmental sustainability indicators for attribute “importance”

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (labor practices and decent work) sustainability indicators for attribute “practicality”

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (labor practices and decent work) sustainability indicators for attribute “relevance”

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (labor practices and decent work) sustainability indicators for attribute “reliability”

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (labor practices and decent work) sustainability indicators for attribute “importance”

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (society) sustainability indicators for attribute “practicality”

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (society) sustainability indicators for attribute “relevance”

Full size image
Fig. 12
figure 12

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (society) sustainability indicators for attribute “reliability”

Full size image
Fig. 13
figure 13

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (society) sustainability indicators for attribute “importance”

Full size image
Fig. 14
figure 14

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (product responsibility) sustainability indicators for attribute “practicality”

Full size image
Fig. 15
figure 15

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (product responsibility) sustainability indicators for attribute “relevance”

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (product responsibility) sustainability indicators for attribute “reliability”

Full size image
Fig. 17
figure 17

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI social (product responsibility) sustainability indicators for attribute “importance”

Full size image
Fig. 18
figure 18

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI economic sustainability indicators for attribute “practicality”

Full size image
Fig. 19
figure 19

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI economic sustainability indicators for attribute “relevance”

Full size image
Fig. 20
figure 20

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI economic sustainability indicators for attribute “reliability”

Full size image
Fig. 21
figure 21

Stakeholder perceptual map** of GRI economic sustainability indicators for attribute “importance”

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prasad, V., Bandyopadhyay, G., Adhikari, K. et al. An Integrated Framework for Prioritizing Sustainability Indicators for the Mining Sector with a Multicriteria Decision-Making Technique. Oper. Res. Forum 4, 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-022-00188-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-022-00188-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation