Resources, Conservation & Recycling 149 (2019) 12–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Nexus between economy-wide metal inputs and the deterioration of T

sustainable development goals
Keisuke Nansaia,b, , Yasushi Kondoc, Damien Giurcod, David Sussmane, Kenichi Nakajimaa,
⁎

Shigemi Kagawaf, Wataru Takayanagia, Yosuke Shigetomig, Susumu Tohnoh

a
Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, 305-8506, Japan
b
Integrated Sustainability Analysis (ISA), School of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia
c
Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University, 1-6-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-8050, Japan
d
Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, 2007, Australia
e
Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, 44 Teele Avenue, Somerville, MA, 02144, USA
f
Faculty of Economics, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nish-ku, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan
g
Faculty of Environmental Science, Nagasaki University, 1-14, Bunkyo-machi, Nagasaki, 852-8521, Japan
h
Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study investigates, at the country level, the adverse effects of changes in metal inputs on the achievement of
Sustainable development sustainable development goals (SDGs). It also highlights the relationships between metals use and various socio-
Social impact economic consequences that urgently require decoupling in order to achieve the SDGs. We performed panel data
Scarce metals analysis to evaluate, on a national scale and over a ten-year period (2004–2013), the impact of changes in the
International trade
material flows of 11 metals on 96 SDG indicators corresponding to the 17 SDGs defined by the UN. On average,
Mining
Material flow
an increase in the material flow of the targeted metals was found to be correlated with a deterioration in
approximately 10% of the 96 indicators. Among the affected SDGs, the adverse impact of metals on SDG 3
(Health), SDG 8 (Economic Growth), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) was particularly
noteworthy. More SDGs were negatively impacted in metal-mining countries than in metal-importing countries.

1. Introduction essential to establish “responsible mining” that promotes coordination

Society’s current approach to sustainable material use (Bruckner
et al., 2012; Giljum et al., 2014; O’Rourke and Lollo, 2015; Schandl
et al., 2016; UNEP, 2011) appears broken, as rising populations and
deepening industrialization lead to modern society’s ever-growing ap-
petite for raw materials, reflected notably in an eightfold rise in ex-
traction over the past century (Krausmann et al., 2009). Establishing
sustainable material use requires increased focus on decoupling mining-
related production and consumption activities from negative environ-
mental and social impacts (Bebbington et al., 2008; Franks et al., 2014).
Mining industries have been tackling such decoupling via the concept of
a “social license to operate” (Demuijnck and Fasterling, 2016; Dare
et al., 2014; Prno and Slocombe, 2012) designed to avoid, in advance,
environmental pollution and social impacts on the communities around
mining sites that may impede the mining operation. Today, extending
this same concept to the entire mining supply chain is becoming
with downstream industries, i.e. those using the materials in manu-
facturing, in order to mitigate social and environmental impacts
(Giurco et al., 2014).
Practical attempts to minimize the adverse social and environ-
mental effects of extraction are being propelled forward by the policies
and actions of various actors on multiple scales. For example, the 2003
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) encourages ac-
countability by countries, international financial institutions, compa-
nies, and civil society actors in order to reduce social and environ-
mental harms from mining, while the 2010 National Resource Charter
outlines principles for resource governance (EITI, 2017; Natural
Resource Governance Institute, 2014). The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act en-
acted in the US is an example of legislation requiring corporations to
mitigate social impacts generated during resource extraction (Ayogu
and Lewis, 2011).
The 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

⁎
Corresponding author at: Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki, 305-8506, Japan.
E-mail address: nansai.keisuke@nies.go.jp (K. Nansai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.017
Received 12 February 2019; Received in revised form 9 May 2019; Accepted 16 May 2019
Available online 28 May 2019
0921-3449/ © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
K. Nansai, et al.
(United Nations, 2015) represent a shared recognition by governments
around the world of the imposing challenges of sustainable develop-
ment by establishing 17 goals with 169 targets. To accomplish these
goals and meet these targets, the supply chain of materials use needs to
be tied in some way (Tseng et al., 2019), directly or indirectly, to all the
SDGs. Some recent research papers have mapped these connections,
although without providing quantitative measures (Columbia Center on
Sustainable Investment (CCSI), 2016). However, several recent sys-
tematic literature reviews have found that most investigations con-
necting mining to SDGs focused on the environmental aspect, leaving a
significant gap with respect to the social goals of sustainable develop-
ment (Fernandes de Mesquita et al., 2017), with the social impacts of
mining relating mainly to three areas: land use and territorial aspects,
environmental impacts affecting health, and human rights (Mancini and
Sala, 2018). Another review (Tost et al., 2018) on environmental sus-
tainability in mining concluded that the mining industry is at risk of
falling behind society’s expectations with regard to climate change. The
little research that does address these social issues often considers only
a single country or region (Antwi et al., 2017; Yakovleva et al., 2017).
One sound approach to identifying factors impeding the achieve-
ment of SDGs within the material use supply chain is bottom-up surveys
on individual mining sites and industrial groups (Bebbington and
Humphreys Bebbington, 2018), which can yield highly detailed and
accurate assessment (Amirshenava and Osanloo, 2018, 2019; Dialga,
2018; van den Brink et al., 2019). Given the wide spectrum of SDG
targets, however, this approach would be neither comprehensive nor
rapid, and would be prohibitively expensive on a global scale. In ad-
dition, such narrowly focused efforts cannot be aggregated or relied on
to draw broader conclusions about the impact of material flows on
SDGs. Taking an opposite approach to make up for these shortcomings,
this study aims to identify materials associated with a deterioration in
various SDGs. It then addresses efficient prioritization of the environ-
mental and social impacts that should be decoupled from material use
from a global and macroscopic perspective. Specifically, focusing on
base and scarce metals, we adopt a top-down approach in which the
relationship between metal use and various indicators corresponding to
the SDGs is statistically determined using panel data (cross sectional
time-series data) for the targeted 10-year period.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Panel data analysis
This study used panel data analysis to demonstrate the association
between metal use on a national scale and a wide range of issues related
to SDGs. Specifically, to quantify the status of the SDGs, we assembled
panel data on the quantitative indicators included in the Sustainable
Development Goals Database (WB-SDGs) developed by the World Bank
(The World Bank, 2017). This database provides multiple quantitative
indicators corresponding to each SDG, with scores for each indicator
broken down by country and year.
In this study, a formulation of panel data analysis has been devel-
oped that fits within and builds on the literature concerning the asso-
ciation between macroeconomic variables and socio-economic in-
dicators such as the Sustainable Development Goals. This relationship
can be assessed on a variety of scales. While there is value in examining
relevant indicators on a per capita basis (El-Maghrabi et al., 2018), it is
also worthwhile to consider SDG measures at the national level (Kanbur
et al., 2018). Other research has focused on the interconnections and
interrelationships among the SDGs (Pradhan et al., 2017).
A number of macroeconomic indicators have been compared with
social outcomes. There is a recognized link between economic growth
and human development (Ranis et al., 2000). However, GDP, which
serves as one numerical yardstick, cannot capture all the intricacies of
an economy, such as inequality or sustainability (Stiglitz et al., 2018).
Some researchers have promoted the use of other indicators for
13
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 149 (2019) 12–19
measuring human prosperity, or moving on from GDP altogether
(Stiglitz et al., 2018). Population, for its part, is more often considered
in terms of the SDGs’ impact on population, rather than vice versa
(Abela et al., 2016). Studies have also shown governance (e.g., effec-
tiveness, regulations, and the rule of law) and development to be po-
sitively correlated (Keser and Gökmen, 2018) (Ayre and Callway,
2013). In addition, some research has considered the relationship be-
tween the energy needed to support the development of human socie-
ties and the impact of its use on global sustainability (Brand-Correa and
Steinberger, 2017). These concerns about energy use and sustainability
have led to a focus on decoupling (Akizu-Gardoki et al., 2018).
Most relevant to this investigation, there is potential for mining, and
the raw materials thereby accessed, to play a constructive role in
helping countries meet the defined Sustainable Development Goals
(World Economic Forum, 2016). Yet there is still uncertainty regarding
how exactly to measure their association. This research need occurs at a
time of rapidly growing evidence of aggregate adverse human influence
on the planet, including concerns about resource limits, especially given
the fact that minerals and metals remain essential for sustainable
technologies and lifestyles (Arrobas et al., 2017). Overall, there is a
need to develop further means of comparing the influence of macro-
economic variables, particularly those relating to metals, on SDGs.
The literature cited motivated us to formulate Eq. (1) to describe the
relationship between these factors along with the material flow of
metals and the aforementioned WB-SDG indicators. A regression ana-
lysis using Eq. (1) and the country-level panel data that we developed
was performed to identify metals for which increasing material flows
were significantly related to a worsening of SDG indicators. Of the
various material flow indicators available, direct material input (DMI)
(Eurostat, 2001) was adopted here as an indicator of the amount of
metal directly input into a given country, because of its widespread use
for analyzing economy-wide material flows (Fischer-Kowalski et al.,
2011), and the ease of data compilation for continuous calculation and
management by individual countries. Here, a separate DMI was calcu-
lated for each metal. Given that the social and environmental impacts
occurring at the time of mining have received considerable attention in
the past, we separated the DMI pathway into domestically mined metal
and metal imported from elsewhere:
yit = + 1log(GDPit ) + 2 log(POPit ) + 3log(GOVit ) + 4 log(ENEit )
0
M M T
+ k=1 k
MINEkit + k=1 M+k
IMPORTkit + D + ui
s = 2 s st
+ vit (i = 1, …, N ; t = 1, …, T ) (1)
where i is the economic entity (country or region); t is the fiscal year; j ,
k , and s are parameters to be estimated; yit is an indicator of the WB-
SDGs; and GDPit , POPit , GOVit , and ENEit are the indicators for GDP,
population, political governance score, and primary energy consump-
tion, respectively; MINEkit and IMPORTkit are the DMI (mined and im-
ported amounts) for metal k = 1, …, M ; Dst is a time dummy for year s
such that Dst = 1 when s = t , and Dst = 0 otherwise; ui is an unobserved
(time-constant) effect; and vit is an idiosyncratic error term. Letting x it
refer to the vector of all the explanatory variables above, we assumed
that E(vit x it , ui) = 0 (t = 1, …, T ), E(vit2 xit , ui ) = v2 (t = 1, …, T ), and
E(vis vit x it , ui) = 0 (s, t = 1, …, T ; s t ). Whereas parameters j , k , and
s are constant across economic entities and over time, they are allowed
to vary with the WB-SDG indicators. We applied the fixed-effects
method to estimate the parameters (Wooldridge, 2010), where the ef-
fects of time-invariant variables are controlled and whatever effects
those variable have are assumed to be more or less the same across
countries because of random assignment.
For each of the indicators, we first used all the explanatory variables
and estimated the parameters. Next, we eliminated from Eq. (1) the
metal-related explanatory variables for which the p-values were larger
than 0.3 and then re-estimated the parameters. We considered an ex-
planatory variable to affect the indicator under study when its coeffi-
cient was significant at the 5% level. The same procedure was repeated
K. Nansai, et al.
for every indicator. Analyses were performed with Matlab2018a using
the panel analysis function developed by Alvarez et al. (Álvarez et al.,
2017)
2.2. Data compilation
2.2.1. Explained variables
The WB-SDG database contains 316 indicators pertaining to 17
SDGs for 263 countries and regions for every year between 1990 and
2017. However, some of the indicators are lacking data for certain
countries and regions or fiscal years. Given that the most recent year
with usable data for all explanatory variables was 2013, we chose the
10-year period from 2004 to 2013 as the observation period for this
study. As dependent variables, we only used indicators with multi-year
data within the observation period for 20 countries or more (i.e., an
unbalanced panel). Many of the 316 indicators in the WB-SDG database
are similar or related to other indicators. By de-selecting such re-
dundancies, we ended up with 96 indicators as dependent variables.
Descriptive statistics and the corresponding SDGs for each of the in-
dicators are provided in Table S1 in Supporting Information (SI).
For indicators whose histograms indicated that their distribution
was substantially skewed, we used the log-transformed indicator score
as an explained variable, yit , in Eq. (1). In all other cases, we did not log-
transform indicators and used their levels as explained variables. In
Table S1, indicators for which the log-transformed score was used are
identified as “log.”
2.2.2. Explanatory variables
For individual countries, we used real GDP values (at constant 2005
prices) from UNstat, and populations as published by the UN in World
Population Prospects. For governance, we used Political Stability and
Absence of Violence/Terrorism scores from the Worldwide Governance
Indicators issued by the World Bank (World Bank Development
Research Group, 2016). This indicator measures “perceptions of the
likelihood of political instability and/or politically-motivated violence,
including terrorism.” For primary energy consumption, we used tonnes
of oil equivalent (1toe = 41.868 GJ) values from the International En-
ergy Agency (IEA).
For DMI (mined and imported amounts), which we used as a mea-
sure of the material flows of metal in individual countries, we in-
dependently compiled time series data. For mined metal amounts, we
included metals recovered from ‘urban mines’ (i.e., discarded items). In
light of data availability for compiling time series, we selected five base
metals (Fe, Cu, Pb, Zn, and Al) and six scarce metals (Nd, Co, Pt, Ni, Cr,
and Mo). The base metals have long been in widespread use in multiple
applications, while the scarce metals are presently being used in small
quantities in specific applications in connection with new energy
technologies. For example, neodymium (Nd) is a key element of para-
ment magnets necessary for electric and hybrid vehicle motors (Alonso
et al., 2012b; Nansai et al., 2015, 2014), while cobalt (Co) is needed for
the lithium-ion batteries embedded in these vehicles and various mobile
electric appliances(Nansai et al., 2015, 2014; Simon et al., 2015; Zeng
and Li, 2015). Platinum (Pt) is used as an electrode catalyst for fuel cells
(Alonso et al., 2012a; Nansai et al., 2015, 2014). Nickel (Ni) and
chromium (Cr) are added to steel mainly to increase corrosion re-
sistance (Nakajima et al., 2017, 2013). Molybdenum (Mo) improves the
strength and hardness of steel at high temperatures (Nakajima et al.,
2013). Wind power and high-efficiency fossil-fuel-based power gen-
eration as well as carbon capture and storage require steel with such
characteristics (Kleijn et al., 2011). Hence, demand for the these metals
is expected to rise substantially in the future as progress in carbon
mitigation develops apace in the nations of the world (de Koning et al.,
2018; Deetman et al., 2018; Kleijn et al., 2011; Månberger and
Stenqvist, 2018; Tokimatsu et al., 2018; Vidal et al., 2013).
To establish the mined amounts of each metal, we used the USGS
values (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018) for the metal contents of
14
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 149 (2019) 12–19
unprocessed ore. For regenerated metals, we estimated amounts using
USGS estimates (Fe, Cu, Pb, Zn, Al), market survey data (Pt) (O’Connell
et al., 2018), recycled stainless (Ni, Cr) (World Bureau of Metal
Statistics (WBMS), 2015; Daigo et al., 2010) and recycling rates (Co in
the US only) from USGS(U.S. Geological Survey, 2018). No regenerated
volumes were estimated for Nd or Mo, and for Co in the US only. Metals
in the mined waste rocks were not included, because DMI focuses on
resources entering the industrial economy for further processing
(Adriaanse et al., 1997).
We attempted to comprehensively capture the amount of metal used
in a given country by including not only ore and unprocessed metal, but
also the amount contained in raw materials and products that are im-
ported. Because no database exists that would enable direct assessment
of the amounts of metals imported, we estimated the amounts of metals
contained in materials and products that are transferred between
countries through trade using existing methods (Nakajima et al., 2017;
Nansai et al., 2014) and created time-series data for imported metals.
Descriptive statistics for the explanatory variables are provided in Table
S2 of the SI.
2.3. Identification of positive and negative contributions to SDG indicators
The coefficient, k , for a material flow-related explanatory variable
represents its marginal effect on the explained variable — either a WB-
SDG indicator or its log-transformed value; that is, an increase (or de-
crease) in the indicator associated with a unit (for metals, 1 t = 106g)
increase in material flow. The direction of change, or the sign of the
marginal effect, is of considerable interest and varies according to the
indicator. Specifically, there are indicators such as the Primary com-
plete rate for which a decrease in score indicates a worsening of an
issue, and indicators such as Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day, for
which a decrease in score indicates an improvement. In this study, to
determine the impact of increasing the material flow of a given metal in
a given country on social indicators based on the coefficient estimates,
ˆ , obtained from panel data analysis, we grouped the indicators into
k
those where a positive coefficient indicates a worsening of the social
issue and those where a negative coefficient indicates a worsening of
the social issue. The direction of change and estimated parameters ( j ,
k ) for each indicator are shown in Table S3 in the SI.
We also performed the following two calculations using ˆk to de-
termine the breadth and strength of the impact of each metal on SDGs.
First, to quantify the breadth of impact of each metal on SDG-related
issues, we counted the number of negatively significant indicators. The
greater the number of indicators impacted, the broader the impact of
the material flow of a given metal on SDG-related issues. The number of
indicators impacted was summed separately for each of the 17 SDGs. In
addition, to investigate the breadth of impact of different metal cate-
gories on SDGs, we divided the metals into categories and calculated
the mean impact by dividing the number of adversely impacted in-
dicators by the number of explanatory variables in each category. The
categories were: Metal (= all metals), Base (= base metals), Scarce (=
scarce metals), Mine (= mined metals from both terrestrial and urban
mines), and Import (= imported metals).
Second, to quantify the strength of impact of each metal on each
indicator, we focused on the metal with the largest absolute value of k
as identified above (p < 0.05, with sign indicating adverse impact) on
each indicator among all mined and imported metals. In short, only one
mined metal or imported metal was selected as the metal having the
greatest adverse impact on each indicator. By adding up the number of
indicators on which the various metals had the greatest impact, sorted
by their associated SDGs, we summarized the relationship between a
unit increase in the DMI of mined or imported metals and the SDGs
whose deterioration should receive the greatest attention.
K. Nansai, et al.
3. Results
3.1. Comparison of metals and key socio-economic factors
Fig. 1 shows the number of SDG indicators that have worsened with
increases in selected socio-economic factors (GDP, population, gov-
ernance level, and primary energy consumption) and metal inputs. The
greater the value (shown on the vertical axis), the broader is the role of
a given socio-economic factor or metal input to the country in nega-
tively influencing SDGs. The colors in the bar graph indicate the sig-
nificantly affected SDG, while the numbers indicate the specific SDG-
related indicators. (There are no numbers for the “metals” category
since it represents an average value for all the metals studied). The
graph clearly illustrates which SDGs warrant the greatest concern in
countries where metals and the four key socio-economic factors are
increasing. At the same time, the factors and SDG indicators appearing
in the graph are those for which decoupling should be given top
priority.
Because the number of SDG indicators associated with each SDG
differs, it would not be appropriate to directly compare impacts across
SDGs based on the number of indicators that worsened for each SDG.
Rather, in this study, we used the number of indicators that worsened in
response to increasing the DMI of the metal for each SDG as a reference
for comparing the impacts of key socio-economic factors (GDP, popu-
lation, governance level, and primary energy consumption). In doing
so, we found that metal inputs warrant greater concern than the other
socio-economic factors.
On average, increasing the DMI of metals was significantly corre-
lated with the worsening of 9.4, or roughly 10%, of the 96 SDG in-
dicators. These results indicate the importance of implementing mea-
sures to mitigate adverse effects on SDGs in countries where metal
inputs are increasing. The other socio-economic factors were found to
impact a broader range of SDG indicators than did metal inputs, with
GDP, population, and primary energy consumption impacting 29, 13,
and 12 indicators, respectively. The impact of governance, which was
correlated with a worsening of 9 SDG indicators, was found to be of
similar magnitude to that of metal inputs to an economy.
Increasing the material flows of metals, when considered collec-
tively, was correlated with a worsening of indicators within each SDG
studied. However, there was insufficient data in WB-SDGs to enable
analysis for SDG 10 (Inequality), SDG 15 (Biodiversity, Forests,
Desertification), and SDG 13 (Climate Change).
15
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 149 (2019) 12–19
Fig. 1. Number of SDG indicators that wor-
sened in response to an increase in GDP, po-
pulation, governance level, primary energy
consumption, and metal input. The 17 goals
correspond to 1: Poverty, 2: Hunger and food
security, 3: Health, 4: Education, 5: Gender
equality and women’s empowerment, 6: Water
and Sanitation, 7: Energy, 8: Economic
Growth, 9: Infrastructure, industrialization, 10:
Inequality, 11: Cities, 12: Sustainable con-
sumption and production, 13: Climate Change,
14: Oceans, 15: Biodiversity, forests, desertifi-
cation, 16: Peace, justice and strong institu-
tions, 17: Partnerships.
Across the SDGs, increasing metal input was correlated with a
worsening (in average terms) of 0.05–2.45 indicators, with the impacts
on SDG 3 (Health), SDG 8 (Economic Growth), and SDG 16 (Peace,
Justice and Strong Institutions) of greatest concern. In the case of SDG
3, increasing metal input was correlated with an average worsening of
1.5 indicators, indicating a narrower impact than population (4 in-
dicators) but a broader impact than GDP or governance (both 1 in-
dicator). In the case of SDG 8, while GDP was correlated with a wor-
sening of five indicators, increasing metal use (considered as the
average of all metals) was correlated with the worsening of 1.14 in-
dicators and had a broader impact than population, governance level,
or primary energy consumption. As for SDG 16, although the impact of
increasing metal inputs to an economy was extremely small (0.05 in-
dicators), given that the other socio-economic factors have no impact,
the relationship of metal inputs to this SDG cannot be ignored.
3.2. Mined metal vs. imported metal
Fig. 2(a) shows the effect of increasing material inputs of mined
(from both terrestrial and urban mines) and imported metals on SDG
indicators (average number of indicators that worsened). To compre-
hensively capture the amount of metal used in an individual country,
imported metals here includes not only ore and unprocessed metal, but
also the amount contained in raw materials and products that are im-
ported. The colors in the bar graph indicate the SDG that is significantly
related. On average, increasing the input of mined metals was corre-
lated with the worsening of 10.3 indicators, while increasing use of
imported metals was correlated with the worsening of 8.6 indicators.
This demonstrates that use of mined metals has a broader adverse im-
pact on SDGs than use of imported metals.
The difference between the two can be attributed to differing im-
pacts on SDG 3 (Health) and SDG 8 (Economic Growth). In the case of
SDG 3 (Health), increasing use of mined metals impacted 1.8 indicators,
compared with 1.2 indicators for imported metals: a difference of 0.6
indicators. The greatest difference in impact between mined (1.6 in-
dicators) and imported (0.64 indicators) metals was observed for SDG 8
(Economic Growth). Compared with the impact of GDP and the other
socio-economic factors shown in Fig. 1, increased input of mined metals
had a broader adverse impact on SDG 3 (Health) than GDP or gov-
ernance, and a broader adverse impact on SDG 8 (Economic Growth)
than population, primary energy consumption, or governance. While
these results mirror those obtained for increased use of all metals
K. Nansai, et al.
Fig. 2. Number of SDG indicators that worsened in response to expansion of metal input: (a) comparison of mined and imported metals, (b) comparison of base and
scarce metals, and (c) comparison among elements. The 17 goals are the same as in Fig. 1.
described above, the impact of mined metals on SDG 7 (Energy) was
found to be similar in magnitude (1 indicator) to that of GDP. Mean-
while, the impact of imported metals was found to be similar in mag-
nitude to GDP and governance only in the case of SDG 3 (Health). Al-
though “social license to operate” is becoming a requirement for
existing mining sites, greater efforts to mitigate adverse impacts on
SDGs are required in countries where the use of mined metals is in-
creasing.
3.3. Base metals vs. scarce metals
Fig. 2(b) shows the relationship between increasing the DMI of base
and scarce metals and the various SDG indicators (number of indicators
that worsened, averaged for base and scarce metals). Increasing the use
of base and scarce metals impacted 9.3 and 9.5 indicators, respectively;
unlike the above-described categorization of mined and imported me-
tals, no substantial difference was observed between the two metal
categories. Although the quantity of base and scarce metal inputs in a
given country may differ by an order of magnitude or more, metals in
the two categories have a similar impact on SDGs per unit mass. This
result suggests that future increases in demand for scarce metals, as
anticipated with the spread of new energy technologies, may hinder
attempts to achieve many or all of the SDGs.
Although the relative impacts of metals in the two categories vary
somewhat by SDG, they are generally of similar magnitude. The
greatest difference in impact was observed for SDG 12 (Sustainable
Consumption and Production), for which the impact of base metals (a
worsening of 0.3 indicators) was 3.6 times that of scarce metals (0.08
indicators), followed by SDG 3 (Health), for which the impact of base
metals (1.8 indicators) was approximately 1.4 times that of scarce
metals (1.25 indicators). Considering that the impact on SDG 3 (Health)
of GDP or governance was 1 (Fig. 1), this result suggests that, in
countries where use of base metals is increasing, priority should be
16
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 149 (2019) 12–19
given to monitoring social indicators related to SDG 3 (Health).
3.4. Individual metals
Fig. 2(c) shows the number of SDG indicators and corresponding
SDGs negatively correlated by increasing inputs of individual metals
broken down by source (mined and imported). The characteristics of
some metals are described briefly below.
Increasing use of Fe was significantly correlated with a worsening of
sustainable development indicators, with mined Fe (10 indicators)
having a more extensive impact than imported Fe (8 indicators). SDGs
impacted only by mined Fe include SDG 2 (Hunger and Food Security),
SDG 6 (Water and Sanitation), SDG 7 (Energy), and SDG 8 (Economic
Growth). In contrast, SDGs impacted only by imported Fe include SDG 5
(Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment), SDG 12 (Sustainable
Consumption and Production), and SDG 17 (Partnership). Thus, im-
pacts warranting attention were found to differ substantially between
mined and imported Fe. The only SDGs impacted by both mined and
imported Fe were SDG 3 (Health) and SDG 4 (Education). However,
among the individual indicators associated with these SDGs, none were
impacted by both mined and imported Fe.
Increasing use of Cu had the broadest impact among base metals,
with mined and imported Cu being correlated with a worsening of 14
and 10 indicators, respectively. Similarly to Fe, only a small number of
SDGs (SDG 4 (Education) and SDG 7 (Energy)) were impacted by both
mined and imported Cu. These results suggest that, in economies where
use of Cu is increasing, steps should be taken to mitigate adverse im-
pacts on not just this one indicator, but on overall educational quality.
Besides Cu, of all the metals investigated in this study, increasing
use of Co had the greatest impact on SDGs, with both mined and im-
ported Co being correlated with a worsening of 12 indicators. However,
none of the indicators were impacted by both mined and imported Co.
Of the SDGs impacted by mined Co, SDG 4 (Education) and SDG 8
K. Nansai, et al.
(Economic Growth) contained numerous indicators related to un-
employment. Although Co is not designated as a ‘conflict mineral’, child
labor is known to exist, suggesting that recent efforts by companies to
ensure ethical procurement of materials are justified (Umicore, 2017).
Increasing use of mined and imported Pt was correlated with a
worsening of 6 and 12 indicators, respectively, with no common in-
dicators impacted. Mined Pt was found to adversely impact only one
SDG, namely SDG 1 (Poverty). A responsible procurement scheme si-
milar that for Co is needed to ensure that the increasing demand for Pt
for fuel cells to improve sustainability does not come at the expense of
increased poverty in countries where this metal is mined.
3.5. Strength of impact on SDGs
Fig. 3 indicates the number of indicators to which a metal causes the
largest adverse change, totalized for each SDG. If we interpret the figure
as focusing on a particular base or scarce metal (mined or imported),
the figure shows with red flags the SDGs most negatively associated
with an increase in the DMI of each particular metal. The metals with
multiple red flags for a particular SDG imply an extensive effect on that
goal.
Because in Fig. 3 the comparison is on a per unit mass of DMI basis,
rather than on the basis of RME (Raw Material Equivalent) (Eurostat,
2001), which converts the metal’s mass to a raw material basis, a
greater number of red flags tends to be associated with scarce metals.
Producing a gram of a scarce metal requires a greater volume of ex-
tracted mineral than in the case of base metals. The metal with the
greatest number of red flags (18 in total) was Pt, which was found to
have an adverse impact on 12 SDGs. Mined Pt strongly impacted SDGs
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8, while imported Pt affected SDGs 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and
17. The second most negatively associated metal was Nd (17 red flags),
with mined Nd having a red flag on SDGs 4, 7 and 17, and imported Nd
having a red flag on SDGs 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 17. In particular, SDG 3 had
the highest number of red flags (five in total), and is therefore the social
indicator that is most correlated with imported Nd. While mined Co had
a red flag only on SDGs 4 and 8, imported Co had a red flag on SDGs 2,
3, 4, 8, 9, and 14. There is a tendency to focus on social issues in
countries where Co is mined, but the results for imported Co, with eight
red flags, show that it also has a potentially high impact on SDGs, as
was seen with Pt and Nd. In contrast, imported Mo impacted only two
17
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 149 (2019) 12–19
Fig. 3. The number of SDG indicators by SDGs
to which mined and imported, base and scarce
metals cause the largest adverse change. Each
red flag represents one indicator. The 17 goals
are the same as in Fig. 1. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this
article).
SDGs, 3 and 7, with one flag for each; however, mined Mo had the
greatest number of red flags (seven in total) among the mined metals,
on SDGs 4, 6, 7, and 8. Following Mo, the metals Ni and Cr showed the
next largest number of red flags: six and five, respectively. Mined Ni
had a red flag on SDG 17 only, while imported Ni had a red flag on
SDGs 6, 9 and 17. Similarly to Ni, mined Cr was strongly associated
only with SDG 17, but with imported Cr a strong relationship with SDGs
4, 9 and 12 was found.
4. Discussion
In this study we performed a regression analysis using panel data on
material flows of metals and SDG indicators for each of the WB-SDGs.
By analyzing changes in metal demand across the economies of in-
dividual countries, the overall influence on different SDGs was em-
pirically evaluated. We examined 11 types of metal and 96 indicators.
In cases where increasing the DMI of a metal was found to adversely
impact an indicator, we investigated the relationship in more detail,
including the specific contributions to adverse impacts arising from
mining and importing metal.
While the use of metals is essential for realizing sustainable devel-
opment goals, this paper sought to highlight the oft-overlooked detri-
mental impacts from both imported metals and metal mining (from
both terrestrial and urban mines). We identified the role of increased
use of base and scarce metals on specific SDGs. This more compre-
hensive analysis is essential if global impacts from metal use are to be
better understood and responsibly managed along the supply chain. It
was found that material consumption has an impact on SDGs compar-
able with that of economic growth and population growth.
Consequently, in countries or regions where metal demand is in-
creasing, these empirical results indicate the need to better monitor
adverse impacts on SDGs and, importantly, to adopt policies and reg-
ulations to decouple metal use from SDGs, in addition to increasing
consumer awareness of the impacts of metal use. The study revealed
that whereas base metals and scarce metals impact a similar number of
SDG indicators, with respect to the DMI pathway, mined metals have a
more extensive impact than imported metals. In terms of the magnitude
of the adverse impact on indicators per unit mass of DMI (strength of
impact), scarce metals have a greater impact on SDGs than base metals,
with the majority of SDGs impacted being impacted strongly. This
K. Nansai, et al.
result would indicate a strong need to decouple metal input from
achieving SDGs in countries where metal mining is increasing.
Scarce metals are key inputs to new energy technologies such as fuel
cells and electric vehicles, which are essential for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions (Grandell et al., 2016; Helbig et al., 2018). If the mining
of scarce metals continues to increase as part of the global effort to
transition to a low-carbon society, international attention should be
paid to ensuring that countries where scarce metals are mined are able
to achieve SDGs in their own right, rather than simply supporting
countries that install new energy technologies to do so. As revealed by
an analysis of environmental accounts (Peters, 2008) based on con-
sumer standards such as the material footprint (Wiedmann et al., 2013),
the important fact here is that the countries where the metals are used
are different from those where they are mined, with the two connected
by complex international supply chains.
When metal-mining countries are unable to resolve social problems
such as poverty, hunger, and health- or education-related issues on
their own, the metal-using countries should take steps to ensure that the
entire international supply chain supports sustainability in the mining
countries by providing technological assistance and monetary support,
and adopting responsible regulations regarding metal procurement.
Whilst the need for international resource governance to support sus-
tainable development has already been established (Ali et al., 2017),
this paper has quantified the empirical relationship between metals and
SDGs. In doing so, it helps unify several distinct alarms proposed by Ali
et al. in relation to sustainable resource management — namely gov-
ernance, environmental, social, geopolitical — by linking them to
achievement of the sustainable development goals.
Although this study supports the necessity of comprehensive re-
source governance for a sustainable society (Ali et al., 2017), this does
not necessarily mean that we fully understand the causal relationships.
Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms through which
elements of the metal use supply chain adversely impact SDGs and to
identify which cooperative solutions would be most effective for each of
the stakeholders along the supply chain and in different countries. The
wider adoption of consumption-based accounting (Lenzen et al., 2007;
Munksgaard and Pedersen, 2001; Peters, 2008; Sudmant et al., 2018)
practices can provide a common approach to monitoring progress
against goals. Doing so, in conjunction with the analytical framework
presented in this paper, will provide a compelling evidence base to
advance efforts to decouple metal resources and SDGs, informed by a
life cycle approach. Importantly, it will also provide a comprehensive
data set that stakeholders from across government, industry and civil
society can use to understand and engage with appropriate trade-offs as
decoupling strategies are pursued — both with respect to specific SDGs
and between countries. This paper presented an analysis of combined
metal flows from both mined and recycled sources; in the future,
however, developments in digitizing supply chains and extending
chain-of-custody certification may allow the analysis to be refined to
differentiate between mined and recycled sources. At the same time, the
analysis will contribute to the creation of a circular economy
(Foundation, 2018) and optimize the value of metals over their lifecycle
by recovering value that is being lost through metal use.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Research
(No. 18KT0056) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology and the Environment Research &
Technology Development Fund (1-1601, 2-1801) of the Environmental
Restoration and Conservation Agency, Japan.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.017.
18
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 149 (2019) 12–19
References
Abela, G.J., Barakat, B., Samir, K.C., Lutz, W., 2016. Meeting the Sustainable
Development Goals leads to lower world population growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.
S. A. 113 (50), 14294–14299.
Adriaanse, A., Bringezu, S., Hammond, A., Moriguchi, Y., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D.,
Schutz, H., 1997. Resource Flows: the Material Basis of Industrial Economies. World
Resources Institute, US.
Akizu-Gardoki, O., Bueno, G., Wiedmann, T., Lopez-Guede, J.M., Arto, I., Hernandez, P.,
Moran, D., 2018. Decoupling between human development and energy consumption
within footprint accounts. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 1145–1157.
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., Oberhansli, R., Salem, J.,
Schodde, R., Schneider, G., Vidal, O., Yakovleva, N., 2017. Mineral supply for sus-
tainable development requires resource governance. Nature 543 (7645), 367–372.
Alonso, E., Field, F.R., Kirchain, R.E., 2012a. Platinum availability for future automotive
technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (23), 12986–12993.
Alonso, E., Sherman, A.M., Wallington, T.J., Everson, M.P., Field, F.R., Roth, R., Kirchain,
R.E., 2012b. Evaluating rare earth element availability: a case with revolutionary
demand from clean technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (6), 3406–3414.
Álvarez, I.C., Barbero, J., Zofío, J.L., 2017. A panel data toolbox for MATLAB. J. Stat.
Softw. 76 (6), 1–27.
Amirshenava, S., Osanloo, M., 2018. Mine closure risk management: an integration of 3D
risk model and MCDM techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 184, 389–401.
Amirshenava, S., Osanloo, M., 2019. A hybrid semi-quantitative approach for impact
assessment of mining activities on sustainable development indexes. J. Clean. Prod.
218, 823–834.
Antwi, E.K., Owusu-Banahene, W., Boakye-Danquah, J., Mensah, R., Tetteh, J.D., Nagao,
M., Takeuchi, K., 2017. Sustainability assessment of mine-affected communities in
Ghana: towards ecosystems and livelihood restoration. Sustain. Sci. 12 (5), 747–767.
Arrobas, D.L.P., Hund, K.L., Mccormick, M.S., Ningthoujam, J., Drexhage, J.R., 2017. The
Growing Role of Minerals and Metals for a Low Carbon Future. Washington, D.C.The
Growing Role of Minerals and Metals for a Low Carbon Future. Washington, D.C.
Ayogu, M., Lewis, Z., 2011. Conflict Minerals: An Assessment of the Dodd-Frank Act, Op-
Ed at Brookings, October 3. pp. 2011. (Accessed 09-04 2018). https://www.
brookings.edu/opinions/conflict-minerals-an-assessment-of-the-dodd-frank-act/.
Ayre, G., Callway, R., 2013. Governance for Sustainable Development: a Foundation for
the Future. Earthscan, London/Sterling, VA.
Bebbington, A., Hinojosa, L., Bebbington, D.H., Burneo, M.L., Warnaars, X., 2008.
Contention and ambiguity: mining and the possibilities of development. Dev. Change
39 (6), 887–914.
Bebbington, A., Humphreys Bebbington, D., 2018. Mining, movements and sustainable
development: concepts for a framework. Sustain. Dev. 26 (5), 441–449.
Brand-Correa, L.I., Steinberger, J.K., 2017. A framework for decoupling human need
satisfaction from energy use. Ecol. Econ. 141, 43–52.
Bruckner, M., Giljum, S., Lutz, C., Wiebe, K.S., 2012. Materials embodied in international
trade - Global material extraction and consumption between 1995 and 2005. Glob.
Environ. Change 22 (3), 568–576.
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI), 2016. Mapping Mining to the
Sustainable Development Goals: an Atlas, White Paper Produced With UNDP. UN
Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and the World Economic Forum.
Daigo, I., Matsuno, Y., Adachi, Y., 2010. Substance flow analysis of chromium and nickel
in the material flow of stainless steel in Japan. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54 (11),
851–863.
Dare, M., Schirmer, J., Vanclay, F., 2014. Community engagement and social licence to
operate. Impact Assess. Proj. A 32 (3), 188–197.
de Koning, A., Kleijn, R., Huppes, G., Sprecher, B., van Engelen, G., Tukker, A., 2018.
Metal supply constraints for a low-carbon economy? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129,
202–208.
Deetman, S., Pauliuk, S., van Vuuren, D.P., van der Voet, E., Tukker, A., 2018. Scenarios
for demand growth of metals in electricity generation technologies, cars, and elec-
tronic appliances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (8), 4950–4959.
Demuijnck, G., Fasterling, B., 2016. The social license to operate. J. Bus. Ethics 136 (4),
675–685.
Dialga, I., 2018. A sustainability index of mining countries. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 278–291.
EITI, 2017. Statement of Support to the EITI from Financial and Lending Institutions.
(Accessed 09-04 2018). https://eiti.org/document/statement-of-support-to-eiti-
from-financial-lending-institutions.
El-Maghrabi, M.H., Gable, S.E., Osorio-Rodarte, I., Verbeek, J., 2018. Sustainable
Development Goals Diagnostics: An Application of Network Theory and Complexity
Measures to Set Country Priorities, Policy Research Working Paper 8481.
Washington, D.C.
Eurostat, 2001. Economy-wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators - a
Methodological Guide. Eurostat, Luxembourg.
Fernandes de Mesquita, R., Xavier, A., Klein, B., Ney, Regina, Matos, F., 2017. Mining and
the sustainable development goals: a systematic literature review. Geo Resour.
Environ. Eng. 2.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Mayer, A., Bringezu, S.,
Moriguchi, Y., Schutz, H., Schandl, H., Weisz, H., 2011. Methodology and indicators
of economy-wide material flow accounting. J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (6), 855–876.
Foundation, E.M., 2018. What Is a Circular Economy. https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy.
Franks, D.M., Davis, R., Bebbington, A.J., Ali, S.H., Kemp, D., Scurrah, M., 2014. Conflict
translates environmental and social risk into business costs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.
S. A. 111 (21), 7576–7581.
K. Nansai, et al.
Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Lieber, M., Lutter, S., 2014. Global patterns of material flows and
their socio-economic and environmental implications: a MFA study on all countries
world-wide from 1980 to 2009. Resources 3 (1), 319–339.
Giurco, D., McLellan, B., Franks, D.M., Nansai, K., Prior, T., 2014. Responsible mineral
and energy futures: views at the nexus. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 322–338.
Grandell, L., Lehtila, A., Kivinen, M., Koljonen, T., Kihlman, S., Lauri, L.S., 2016. Role of
critical metals in the future markets of clean energy technologies. Renew. Energy 95,
53–62.
Helbig, C., Bradshaw, A.M., Wietschel, L., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., 2018. Supply risks as-
sociated with lithium-ion battery materials. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 274–286.
Kanbur, R., Patel, E., Stiglitz, J.E., 2018. Sustainable development goals and measurement
of economic and social progress, Ch. 1. For Good Measure: Advancing Research on
Well-being Metrics beyond GDP. Paris.
Keser, A., Gökmen, Y., 2018. Governance and human development: the impacts of gov-
ernance indicators on human development. J. Public Adm. Gov. 8 (1).
Kleijn, R., van der Voet, E., Kramer, G.J., van Oers, L., van der Giesen, C., 2011. Metal
requirements of low-carbon power generation. Energy 36 (9), 5640–5648.
Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.H., Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M.,
2009. Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century.
Ecol. Econ. 68 (10), 2696–2705.
Lenzen, M., Murray, J., Sack, F., Wiedmann, T., 2007. Shared producer and consumer
responsibility - theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 61 (1), 27–42.
Månberger, A., Stenqvist, B., 2018. Global metal flows in the renewable energy transition:
exploring the effects of substitutes, technological mix and development. Energy
Policy 119, 226–241.
Mancini, L., Sala, S., 2018. Social impact assessment in the mining sector: review and
comparison of indicators frameworks. Resour. Policy 57, 98–111.
Munksgaard, J., Pedersen, K.A., 2001. CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or
consumer responsibility? Energy Policy 29 (4), 327–334.
Nakajima, K., Nansai, K., Matsubae, K., Tomita, M., Takayanagi, W., Nagasaka, T., 2017.
Global land-use change hidden behind nickel consumption. Sci. Total Environ. 586,
730–737.
Nakajima, K., Ohno, H., Kondo, Y., Matsubae, K., Takeda, O., Miki, T., Nakamura, S.,
Nagasaka, T., 2013. Simultaneous material flow analysis of nickel, chromium, and
molybdenum used in alloy steel by means of input-output analysis. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 47 (9), 4653–4660.
Nansai, K., Nakajima, K., Kagawa, S., Kondo, Y., Shigetomi, Y., Suh, S., 2015. Global
mining risk footprint of critical metals necessary for low-carbon technologies: the
case of neodymium, cobalt, and platinum in Japan. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (4),
2022–2031.
Nansai, K., Nakajima, K., Kagawa, S., Kondo, Y., Suh, S., Shigetomi, Y., Oshita, Y., 2014.
Global flows of critical metals necessary for low-carbon technologies: the case of
neodymium, cobalt, and platinum. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (3), 1391–1400.
Natural Resource Governance Institute, 2014. Natural Resource Charter. (Accessed 09-04
2018). https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/NRCJ1193_natural_
resource_charter_19.6.14.pdf.
O’Rourke, D., Lollo, N., 2015. Transforming consumption: from decoupling, to behavior
change, to system changes for sustainable consumption. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
40, 233–259.
O’Connell, R., Alexander, C., Strachan, R., Alway, B., Nambiath, S., Wiebe, J., Li, S., Scott-
Gray, N., Aranda, D., Chan, Z., 2018. GFMS platinum group metals survey 2018.
London, UK.
Peters, G.P., 2008. From production-based to consumption-based national emission in-
ventories. Ecol. Econ. 65 (1), 13–23.
Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., Kropp, J.P., 2017. A systematic study of
sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earths Future 5 (11), 1169–1179.
Prno, J., Slocombe, D.S., 2012. Exploring the origins of’ social license to operate’ in the
mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour.
19
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 149 (2019) 12–19
Policy 37 (3), 346–357.
Ranis, G., Stewart, F., Ramirez, A., 2000. Economic growth and human development.
World Dev. 28 (2), 197–219.
Schandl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Eisenmenger, N.,
Geschke, A., Lieber, M., Wieland, H., Schaffartzik, A., Krausmann, F., Gierlinger, S.,
Hosking, K., Lenzen, M., Tanikawa, H., Miatto, A., Fishman, T., 2016. Global Material
Flows and Resource Productivity. An Assessment Study of the UNEP International
Resource Panel. Paris.
Simon, B., Ziemann, S., Weil, M., 2015. Potential metal requirement of active materials in
lithium-ion battery cells of electric vehicles, and its impact on reserves: focus on
Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recyc. 104, 300–310.
Stiglitz, J.E., Fitoussi, J.-P., Durand, M., 2018. Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for
Economic and Social Performance. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Sudmant, A., Gouldson, A., Millward-Hopkins, J., Scott, K., Barrett, J., 2018. Producer
cities and consumer cities: using production- and consumption-based carbon accounts
to guide climate action in China, the UK, and the US. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 654–662.
The World Bank, 2017. Databank: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). http://
databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx.
Tokimatsu, K., Höök, M., McLellan, B., Wachtmeister, H., Murakami, S., Yasuoka, R.,
Nishio, M., 2018. Energy modeling approach to the global energy-mineral nexus:
exploring metal requirements and the well-below 2 °C target with 100 percent re-
newable energy. Appl. Energy 225, 1158–1175.
Tost, M., Hitch, M., Chandurkar, V., Moser, P., Feiel, S., 2018. The state of environmental
sustainability considerations in mining. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 969–977.
Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S.F., Ashton, W., Moreau, V., 2019. Sustainable management of
natural resources toward sustainable development goals. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
145, 419–421.
Geological Survey, U.S., 2018. Commodiy Statistics and Information. https://minerals.
usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/.
Umicore, 2017. Due Diligence Compliance Report Cobalt Procurement 2017. (Accessed
09-04 2018). http://www.umicore.com/en/cases/sustainable-procurement-
framework-for-cobalt/compliance-report.
UNEP, 2011. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from
Economic Growth: a Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International
Resource Panel.
United Nations, 2015. UN Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our
World. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.
van den Brink, S., Kleijn, R., Tukker, A., Huisman, J., 2019. Approaches to responsible
sourcing in mineral supply chains. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145, 389–398.
Vidal, O., Goffé, B., Arndt, N., 2013. Metals for a low-carbon society. Nat. Geosci. 6 (11),
894–896.
Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moranc, D., Suh, S., West, J., Kanemoto, K.,
2013. The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Wooldridge, J.M., 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2nd ed.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Section 10.5.
World Bank Development Research Group, 2016. The Worldwide Governance Indicators.
www.govindicators.org.
World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS), 2015. Annual Stainless Steel Statistics. http://
www.world-bureau.com/services-more.asp?owner=3.
World Economic Forum, 2016. United Nations Development Programme or United
Nations Member States, Columbia center on Sustainable Investment or Sustainable
Development Solutions Network. Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Development
Goals: An Atlas. World Economic Forum, Geneva.
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. Extr. Ind. Soc. 4 (3), 426–433.
Zeng, X.L., Li, J.H., 2015. On the sustainability of cobalt utilization in China. Resour.
Conserv. Recyc. 104, 12–18.