Assessing Impacts:

Overview on
Sustainability Indicators
and Metrics
As sustainable devel- urement of sustain-
opment is put into Tools for implementing ability. The term
operation in our so- “indicators,” how-
ciety and industry, sustainable development in the ever, is typically
there emerges the used more broadly,
need to understand chemical industry—and encompassing both
the pertinent key in- quantitative meas-
dicators and how elsewhere urements and nar-
they can be meas- rative descriptions
ured to determine if of issues of impor-
progress is being tance as well as, in
made. The ability to measure sustainability be- certain cases, the key aspects that need to be
comes even more crucial—as the business adage of managed. The term “metrics,” on the other hand,
“only what gets measured gets managed” sug- is used almost solely in referring to quantitative
gests—as we make decisions and navigate toward or semiquantitative measurements or indices.
the sustainability development goals.
Efforts to develop sustainability indicators and Framing Sustainability Indicators and
metrics have been made at various scales, ranging Metrics
from global down to local community, business Since the “Earth Summit” in 1992, there has
unit, and technology levels. In general, indicators been a global consensus that sustainable develop-
and metrics are designed to capture the ideas in- ment encompasses at least economic growth, so-
herent in sustainability and transform them into cial progress, and stewardship of the environment.
a manageable set of quantitative measures and in- As these so-called three dimensions of sustainable
dices that are useful for communication and deci- development have long been separately managed,
sion making. This article provides an overview of the significance of the concept lies primarily in the
sustainability indicators and metrics, especially as integration of the various concerns.
they relate to the chemical industry.
The terms “indicators” and “metrics” are
often used interchangeably in referring to meas- Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff

© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/tqem.20101 Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2006 / 41
 Various metrics within each of the three di- nected to all three. Environmental degradation or
mensions of sustainability have long been well improvement, for example, is one important factor
developed and used. Gross Domestic Product related to how economic activities affect societal
(GDP) per capita, literacy and poverty rates, and well-being (a socioeconomic consideration). Simi-
ambient concentration of urban air pollutants are larly, socioenvironmental impacts have their re-
some examples of economic, social, and environ- lated cost and economic implications.
mental metrics employed at the national level. In Further, judicious consideration of eco-effi-
businesses, financial metrics such as return on in- ciency, along with efforts to reduce absolute im-
vestment, as well as certain metrics that reflect pacts, may result in various societal advantages, in-
employee well-being and environmental per- cluding the benefits derived from products and
formance (such as health and safety incident services in satisfying human needs and improving
rates and regulated toxic releases) are also con- people’s livelihoods; the reduction of public health
ventionally used. and safety concerns associated with environmen-
Sustainable development, however, requires tal impacts; and the more equitable use of natural
further cross-functional integration of these met- resources enabled by their more efficient uses.
rics, as well as the inclusion of additional metrics
that facilitate more systemic and comprehensive Global and National Metrics
multidisciplinary communication and thinking. To effectively support decision making, indica-
tors and metrics must be linked to key goals of an
Integrating Economic, Social, and organization and important aspects that need to
Environmental Dimensions be managed. Global agreements, such as Agenda
Exhibit 1 illustrates how the three dimen- 21 and the more recent Millennium Development
sions of sustainable development interlink. At the Goals, both developed under the umbrella of the
intersections, one finds: United Nations, are eminent foundations for iden-
tifying the important aspects of sustainability.
• socioeconomic considerations, such as job
creation and other impacts (positive and neg-
ative) of the relationship between the econ- Exhibit 1. Three Dimensions of Sustainable
Development
omy and societal well-being;
• socioenvironmental considerations, includ-
ing effects of natural resource degradation
and environmental releases on the livelihood,
health, and safety of people today and of gen-
erations to come; and
• eco-efficiency considerations—i.e., the gener-
ation of greater (economic) value using fewer
natural resources and with less environmental
impact.

While each of the above considerations nomi- Socio-economic, socio-environmental, and eco-efficiency
considerations lie at the intersections of the triple dimensions
nally focuses on only two of the dimensions of sus- of sustainability.
tainable development, each is in fact closely con-

42 / Summer 2006 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff
 Agenda 21, adopted by over 178 nations at example is the “ecological footprint accounts”
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, calls for developed by Dr. Mathis Wackernagel and
actions to address disparities in social and eco- coworkers at the Ecological Footprint Network.
nomic development among and within nations, These aggregate the ecological impacts of
especially in terms of poverty, hunger, adequate human economic activities in terms of “biologi-
housing, and public health, as well as education cally productive land and water required to pro-
and institutional capacity. In addition, it recog- duce the resources consumed and to assimilate
nizes the need for social and economic develop- the waste generated by humanity” (Wackernagel
ment to be accompanied by the conservation and et al., 2002).
management of natural resources in terms of pro- Recent data on the ecological footprint ac-
tecting the atmosphere, forests, fragile ecosys- counts for countries with the world’s largest
tems, oceans, and freshwater resources, managing economies and populations are shown in Ex-
land use and releases of wastes and toxic chemi- hibit 2. Biologically productive land and water
cals, and conserving biodiversity. areas used and impacted by agriculture and herd-
Additional issues—such as energy, material ing, forestry, fishing, infrastructure, and the burn-
use, transportation, and global climate change— ing of fossil fuels are included in the index. While
have gained attention in the years since the Earth far from providing the entire picture of sustain-
Summit. Many of these aspects have been trans- ability, these calculations effectively highlight
lated into indicators and metrics, such as those how many countries, both developed and devel-
compiled by the United Nations Commission on oping, have overshot their ecological capacities.
Sustainable Development (UNCSD, 2001). Na- The issue of equity in the use of natural re-
tional governments may adopt these indicators sources is also evident. Developed countries such
and metrics and adapt them to their needs in as the United States, for example, use more than
order to track, manage, and report on their coun- four times the world’s average in global acres per
tries’ progress in sustainable development. person. Details on the calculation of ecological
Some useful proxy indices of sustainability footprint accounts are available elsewhere (Loh &
have also been proposed in the literature. One Wackernagel, 2004).

Exhibit 2. Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity, per Person by Country*

Population Ecological Footprint Biological Capacity Ecological Deficit

(2002) (1999) (2002) (if negative)
[million] [global acres/pers] [global acres/pers] [global acres/pers]

WORLD 6,210.1 5.6 4.5 -1.1

Brazil 174.5 6 15 9
China 1,284.2 4 2.6 -1.3
France 59.3 13 7 -6
Germany 82.2 12 5 -7
India 1,053.4 1.9 1.6 -0.3
Indonesia 217.3 3 4.4 1.4
Japan 127.2 11 2 -9
United Kingdom 60.2 14 4 -10
United States of America 288.3 24 15 -9
* Provided by Dr. Mathis Wackernagel, Global Footprint Network (www.footprintnetwork.org). Numbers may not always add up due to
rounding. Note that ecological footprint results are based on 1999 data, since consumption data reporting has a longer time lag. How-
ever, ecological footprint numbers change only slowly over time.

Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2006 / 43
 Corporate-Level Metrics companies to identify aspects that need to be
Indicators and metrics of sustainability have considered in developing sustainability indicators
also been identified and developed at the com- and metrics. By necessity, this list will differ
munity, corporate, business unit, or even process somewhat among companies and organizations.
or technology levels. Information regarding sus- How sustainability aspects get prioritized in
tainability indicators at the community level may terms of relevance and importance is a function
be found, for instance, at the International Sus- of many factors, including differences in types of
tainability Indicators Network’s Web site business, operational conditions, history, com-
(www.sustainabilityindicators.org). The remain- munity issues, and other aspects specific to a
der of this discussion will focus on sustainability company or an organization. Generally, resource
indicators and metrics used by companies in use and waste, monetary costs and benefits inter-
tracking and managing their performance and in nal and external to the company, and well-being
assessing alternatives. of people in the workplace and in the community
A list of important aspects of sustainability affected by the company’s operations are the en-
shown in Exhibit 3 offers a starting point for vironmental, economic, and social aspects rele-

Exhibit 3. Identifying the Important Aspects of Sustainability in a Company

Environmental Resources • Material intensity

Stewardship • Energy intensity
• Water usage
• Land use
Pollutants and Waste • Wasted resources
• Releases to air, water, and land
• Material recycling
• Impacts on human health
• Impacts on ecosystem and biodiversity
Economic Internal • Eco-efficiency
Development • Internal costs to the company
• Revenue opportunities
• Access to capital and insurance
• Shareholder value
External • Costs of externalities
• Benefits to local community
• Benefits to society
Social Progress Workplace • Workplace conditions
• Employee health, safety, and well-being
• Security
• Human capital development (education and training)
• Aligning company values with employee values
Community • Social impacts of operations
• Stakeholder engagements
• Quality of life in community
• Human rights
General/Institutional Sustainability • Commitment to triple bottom line
Management • Product stewardship and supply-chain leadership programs
• Accountability and transparency
• Product and service development
• Employees' impact on environment
Source: BRIDGES to Sustainability.

44 / Summer 2006 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff
vant to most companies. In addition, the com- Development of Sustainability Metrics in the
pany’s strategy, structure, and processes for man- Chemical and Manufacturing Industry
aging sustainability underlie the company’s per- Efforts have been made to develop sustain-
formance in all aspects of sustainability. ability metrics for various purposes and industry
sectors, such as urban planning (e.g., Shane &
Leading vs. Lagging Graedel, 2000), green building (e.g., Olgay &
Effective management of sustainability in an Herdt, 2004), and sustainable tourism (e.g.,
organization requires the use of both lagging and Hughes, 2002; Li, 2004).
leading indicators and metrics. A lagging metric Manufacturing companies, including chemi-
is reported after an impact has occurred, and re- cal manufacturers, have also kept track of the var-
flects past (including recent) outcomes in rela- ious elements that make up sustainability met-
tion to the organization’s performance goals. rics. This includes resource uses that carry
Leading metrics and indicators, on the other economic costs, as well as emissions and wastes,
hand, assess activities that occur prior to the im- as mandated by regula-
pact and affect the future performance of the or- tion. Over the past
ganization, usually identified through a cause- decade, the industry
and-effect analysis. has also begun to view Effective management of
Operational metrics that quantify a com- their resource con- sustainability in an organization
pany’s environmental, health, and safety (EHS) sumption and envi- requires the use of both lagging
and sustainability performance are usually con- ronmental release data and leading indicators and metrics.
sidered lagging. In contrast, management met- in terms of broader
rics, which include the characterization of a com- sustainability.
pany’s EHS and sustainability management
system, are commonly regarded as leading met- Evolution Toward Sustainability Metrics
rics. Examples of management metrics include The development and use of environmental
the number of audits performed and the incorpo- indicators and metrics in the manufacturing in-
ration of global EHS and sustainability manage- dustry followed a learning curve summarized in
ment standards. the five evolutionary levels described by Veleva
However, as pointed out by Epstein and Wis- and Ellenbecker (2001):
ner (2001), leading and lagging are relative
terms in a continuum of cause-and-effect rela- • Level 1—Facility compliance/conformance
tionships. For instance, incorporation of an en- metrics, which are compliance-focused (e.g.,
vironmental management system is a leading number of reportable spills and violations,
indicator of environmental performance, which amount of fines, and injury rates).
in turn can be a leading indicator of a com- • Level 2—Facility material use and perform-
pany’s reputation, employee morale, and finan- ance metrics, which are efficiency measures,
cial performance. Thus, both types are impor- usually expressed as amounts of inputs and
tant for a company in navigating toward outputs (e.g., energy use, Toxic Release Inven-
sustainable development. Many of the efforts to tory emissions) normalized by mass of prod-
date in developing sustainability metrics, how- ucts, monetary revenue, and value added.
ever, have focused on measuring the operational • Level 3—Facility environmental and human
dimensions of sustainability. health effect metrics, which go beyond the

Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2006 / 45
 quantities of inputs and outputs and look are defined as ratios, with resource use and envi-
into their potential effects on human health ronmental impacts in the numerators, and value
and the environment (e.g., human toxicity generation in the denominator, or vice versa.
potential, global warming potential, acidifica- Informed by the above efforts, eco-efficiency
tion potential). metrics were further refined for application at the
• Level 4—Supply-chain and product life-cycle operational level through the “sustainability met-
metrics, which extend Level 3 indicators to rics” work of the American Institute of Chemical
consider impacts along the supply chain and Engineers (AIChE, www.aiche.org/cwrt/projects/
the entire life-cycle of the products. sustain.htm). In collaboration with the BRIDGES
• Level 5—Sustainability metrics, which further to Sustainability Institute (formerly known as
extend the scope to cover long-term issues BRIDGES to Sustainability), a nonprofit group
such as material depletion and the use of re- based in Houston, heuristics and decision rules
newable resources. were developed and tested in industry pilots and
for over 50 chemical processes based on the re-
Further integration with social and economic spected Process Economic Program (PEP) data
dimensions of sustain- from SRI International (Menlo Park, California)
ability is also com- (Beaver, Schwarz, & Beloff, 2002; Schwarz, Beaver,
monly considered as a & Beloff, 2000). Efforts to develop sustainability
As compliance has historically been
criterion of sustain- metrics were also undertaken by Britain’s Institu-
a primary driver, conventional EHS
ability metrics. tion of Chemical Engineers (IChemE, 2002), re-
metrics typically focus on
As compliance has sulting in an expanded set that includes eco-
compliance-driven Level 1 metrics.
historically been a pri- nomic and societal metrics in addition to those
mary driver, conven- focused on eco-efficiency.
tional EHS metrics typ- Development of these metrics sets typically
ically focus on compliance-driven Level 1 began by focusing primarily on the amounts of
metrics. While ensuring conformance with laws material and energy flows. Measures of potential
and regulations, these metrics offer little business impacts, such as toxicity potential, were soon rec-
competitive advantage to companies implement- ognized as more meaningful and rigorous than
ing them. Level 2 to Level 5 metrics, on the other simple quantity measures, and thus became part
hand, begin to address efficiency and value gen- of standard metrics.
eration while minimizing undesirable impacts Extensions to supply-chain, life-cycle, and
and related costs to the company, the commu- broader sustainability considerations, however,
nity, and the environment. have been more limited, especially in progress
Early work in this evolution toward sustain- tracking and management decision making,
ability metrics includes the development of eco- where such data are more difficult to obtain rela-
efficiency metrics by Canada’s National Round tive to the company’s own resource use and envi-
Table on the Environment and the Economy ronmental release data. Nevertheless, these more
(NRTEE, 1999) and the World Business Council extensive sustainability considerations are in-
for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (Verfaillie creasingly applied in assessing products and
& Bidwell, 2000). Supported by participation processes during research and development
from their member companies, the organizations (R&D), such as through the use of standard as
recommended eco-efficiency measurements that well as streamlined life-cycle assessment.

46 / Summer 2006 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff
Criteria for Selecting Sustainability Metrics gorized usually into a few basic areas based on re-
Consensus on the criteria for effective sus- source uses and impacts to the environment:
tainability metrics has also emerged from the
above efforts (Bakshi & Fiksel, 2003; Beaver et al., • Material consumption—The use of materials,
2002; Beloff & Beaver, 2000; Schwarz et al., 2000; especially nonrenewable and finite resources,
Sikdar, 2003). It is generally accepted that sus- affects the availability of the resources and re-
tainability metrics should satisfy the following sults in environmental degradation both in
criteria (Beloff & Beaver, 2000): the extraction of the materials and when they
are converted to wastes.
• simple and understandable to a variety of • Energy consumption—In addition to being an-
audiences; other important area of resource use and avail-
• reproducible and consistent in comparing dif- ability, energy use results in various environ-
ferent time periods, business units, or deci- mental impacts. The burning of fossil fuels,
sion alternatives; specifically, relates to impacts such as global
• robust and nonperverse (i.e., “better” met- warming, photochemical ozone oxidation, and
rics must indeed indicate more sustainable acidification. Renewable energy, such as hy-
performance); dropower, relates to a different set of impacts.
• complement existing regulatory programs; • Water consumption—Freshwater is essential to
• cost-effective in terms of data collection— life and to almost
making use largely of data already collected/ all economic activi-
available for other purposes; ties. With increas- Reducing solid wastes is important
• useful for decision making; ing anthropogenic for certain industries, especially
• stackable along the supply chain or the prod- demands and short- in regions with no or very limited
uct life cycle; ages in many water- landfill capacity, such as Europe,
• scalable for multiple boundaries of analysis; and stressed parts of the Japan, and the northeastern
• protective of proprietary information. world, water con- United States.
sumption becomes
Defining the Metrics: Eco-efficiency an increasingly im-
As described earlier, the development of sus- portant consideration.
tainability metrics requires one to first identify the • Toxics and pollutants—Toxics and other pol-
key aspects that need to be managed and included lutants released in the form of air emissions
in the metrics. Equally important, however, one and wastewater effluents may result in dam-
must define how the metric is calculated. For ex- age to human health and the environment
ample, when expressed as a ratio, one must identify and financial liability to pollutant sources.
aspects that are to be included in the numerator • Solid wastes—Reducing solid wastes is impor-
and in the denominator. Furthermore, one must tant for certain industries, especially in re-
decide how the metric is bounded (e.g., which sup- gions with no or very limited landfill capacity,
porting processes are included) and any heuristics such as Europe, Japan, and the northeastern
and decision rules to be used in the calculation. United States.
In terms of eco-efficiency, the critical aspects • Land use—Land is another finite resource that
that need to be captured by the sustainability met- provides a variety of ecological and socioeco-
rics have been largely recognized. They are cate- nomic services.

Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2006 / 47
 Basic Eco-efficiency Metrics consumed within the boundaries of a company, a
The above-listed eco-efficiency categories can facility, or a chemical process. A facility that in-
be captured by a small number of metrics. For il- cludes an efficient on-site cogeneration of heat
lustration, let us consider the set of “basic metrics” and power, for example, would fare worse than a
adopted by BRIDGES to Sustainability (Beaver et al., similar facility that purchases the heat and power
2002; Schwarz et al., 2000), shown in Exhibit 4. off-site. In the latter, generation of steam and elec-
Informed by the work of NRTEE (1999) and tricity occurs outside the facility boundary, and
WBCSD (Verfaillie & Bidwell, 2000), the metrics thus its inefficiency in fuel use is not considered.
were chosen as ratios. Impacts are placed in the Thus, the basic energy metric in Exhibit 4 is
numerators and a measure of output is in the de- reported in the equivalence of primary fuels, such
nominator. The denominator can be mass or that losses in generation and transmission of sec-
other unit of product, functional unit, sales rev- ondary energy sources, such as electricity and
enue, monetary value-added, or a certain measure steam, are accounted for regardless of whether
of societal benefits. Expressing the metrics as ra- they are generated on-site or purchased. This also
tios allows them to be compared and used in makes the basic energy metric more representa-
weighing decision alternatives and comparing tive of the energy cost and the amount of green-
operational units. Defined in this manner, the house-gas emissions associated with energy use.
lower metrics are better as they reflect lower im- Land use is not shown among the basic metrics
pacts per unit of value generation. in Exhibit 4; it represents a category that is less de-
A metric’s robustness can be very much af- veloped and may not fit into the impact-per-unit-
fected by how decision rules, boundaries, and output format of the other eco-efficiency metrics.
heuristics are set. The energy metric, for instance, IChemE (2002) proposes a land-use metric ex-
can become perverse when defined solely in terms pressed in terms of total area of land occupied and
of direct energy use—i.e., the energy content of affected per annual revenue. However, heuristics
fuel, electricity, steam, and other energy sources and decision rules for the land-use metric, espe-

Exhibit 4. BRIDGES’ Basic Sustainability Metrics

Output: Material Intensity:

Mass of raw materials – Mass of products
Mass of Product Output

or Water Intensity:
Volume of fresh water used
Sales Revenue Output

or Energy Intensity:
Net energy used as primary fuel equivalent
Value-Added Output

Toxic Release:
Total mass of recognized toxics released
Output
Solid Wastes:
Total mass of solid wastes
Output

Pollutant Effects

48 / Summer 2006 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff
cially in relation to impacts on biodiversity and • metrics that cover elements not usually in-
the ecosystem, require further development. cluded in the basic metrics (e.g., the trans-
portation energy metric complements basic
Complementary Metrics energy metrics); and
Some of the basic metrics shown in Exhibit 4 • metrics that weigh the inputs and outputs
should be accompanied by other metrics. The with respect to their impact potential (e.g.,
toxic release metric, defined in terms of total re- toxicity and global warming potential).
lease of toxics recognized by regulatory systems
such as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), may Examples of complementary metrics for var-
lead to inaccurate representation when used only ious basic metric categories are provided in
by itself, as a lower quantity of toxics does not Exhibit 5.
necessarily correlate with less impact.
The value of this metric lies primarily in its Impact Assessment
broad recognition and long-time use in the in- Those developing sustainability metrics have
dustry. Certain measures of potential toxicity, increasingly made use of methodologies devel-
however, are necessary to complement this basic oped for life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA). This
toxic release metric. In the case of other pollu- includes methodologies to assess potential
tants not designated as toxic, rather than having human and ecosystem toxicity, as well as other
a less useful basic metric in terms of total mass impacts of resource use and pollution. Udo de
quantity, they are reported similarly in terms of Haes et al. (2002) provide an extensive discussion
various potential impacts. on these methodologies. Each impact is esti-
Therefore, in addition to the basic metrics, mated by multiplying individual material flow
complementary metrics may be developed to ad- with a “characterization factor.”
dress specific needs. They include: LCIA differentiates the impact assessment
methodologies as “end-point” and “mid-point.”
• metrics that emphasize certain elements of The end-point methodology estimates the mag-
the basic metrics (e.g., the toxic raw materials nitude of impacts at the end of environmental
metric emphasizes an element of the basic cause-and-effect mechanisms. For example, Eco-
material metric); Indicator 99, a widely used impact assessment

Exhibit 5. Examples of Complementary Metrics Under BRIDGES’ Basic Sustainability Metric Categories

Material Toxic release

• Packaging materials • Toxic release under each TRI category
• Nonrenewable materials • Human toxicity (carcinogenic)
• Toxics in product • Human toxicity (noncarcinogenic)
• Toxics in raw materials • Ecosystem toxicity

Water Pollutant effects

• Rainwater sent to treatment • Global warming potential
• Water from endangered ecosystem sources • Tropospheric ozone-depletion potential
• Water use relative to water availability • Photochemical ozone-creation potential
• Air-acidification potential
Energy • Eutrophication potential
• Energy consumed in transportation
• Nonrenewable energy

Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2006 / 49
 methodology developed by the Pré Consultants cupational Exposure Limits (OELs) set by the U.K.
(Goedkoop & Spriensma, 1999), calculates the Health and Safety Executive. TLV, specifically,
impacts of resource uses and environmental re- constitutes the threshold concentration at which
leases on three separate end-points: human a worker may be exposed to a substance over a
health (in terms of disability-adjusted life years, 40-hour workweek with no adverse effects. Thus,
or DALY), ecosystem health (in terms of species lower TLV denotes greater threat to human
diversity), and resource availability (in terms of health.
energy required for future mining efforts). In this case, the inverse of TLV (or OEL) serves
Mid-point analysis, however, appears to be as the characterization factor in weighting the
gaining broader acceptance for use in sustainabil- human toxicity potential of different substances.
ity metrics, partly due to the less complex model- Due to its simplicity and foundation on standard
ing and analytical requirements compared to human health and safety regimes, this approach
end-point analysis. Impacts are calculated at cer- has gained relatively broad acceptance in compa-
tain “mid-points” before end-points of environ- nies and is incorporated as part of the ICI Envi-
mental mechanisms, ronmental Burden System, among others.
such as human and Exposure factors are also included in many of
Perhaps the simplest approach for ecosystem health, are the more recently developed characterization fac-
assessing toxicity potential is to reached. tors for human toxicity. These characterization
weigh different toxic substances TRACI, or Tool for factors are obtained through more complex mod-
according to their permissible the Reduction and As- els that incorporate factors such as persistence,
exposure limits. sessment of Chemical pollutant fate, and exposure pathways. Although
and other environ- involving greater complexity in its development,
mental Impacts, devel- end-users may simply employ the more complex
oped by the U.S. Envi- characterization factors already calculated by ex-
ronmental Protection Agency (Bare, Norris, isting impact-assessment models such as TRACI.
Pennington, & McKone, 2003), is an example of Similarly, characterization factors have been
a mid-point approach. In TRACI, impacts are calculated through complex models for ecosys-
characterized in terms of impact categories that tem toxicity (based on toxicity to representative
include human toxicity (cancerous and non- plant and animal species) as well as other pollu-
cancerous), ecosystem toxicity, ozone depletion, tant impacts. International consensus exists on
global warming, acidification, smog formation, the characterization of global warming potential
eutrophication, and so forth. An earlier work by (Houghton et al., 2001) and stratospheric ozone-
ICI group in Britain (Wright, Allen, Clifi, & Sas, depletion potential (World Meteorological Orga-
1998), called the ICI Environmental Burden Sys- nization, 1999). Competing methodologies, how-
tem, is another example, and includes a similar ever, exist for other impact categories, including
set of impact-assessment categories. human and ecosystem toxicity.
Perhaps the simplest approach for assessing In addition to the LCIA methodology, one
toxicity potential is to weigh different toxic sub- may report substances of priority concern. Glaxo-
stances according to their permissible exposure SmithKline, for example, reports substances iden-
limits, such as the Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) tified as persistent and bioaccumulative toxics
defined by the American Conference of Govern- (PBTs) as a separate metric (Constable et al., 2001;
mental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) or the Oc- Constable, Curzons, Duncan, Jiménez-Gonzaléz,

50 / Summer 2006 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff
& Cunningham, 2005; Curzons, Constable, Mor- wastes can all be expressed as the total consump-
timer, & Cunningham, 2001). tion or loss of exergy, or energy available to do
work (Bakshi & Fiksel, 2003). Alternatively, the
Aggregating Metrics metrics may be expressed in terms of land use, or
Aggregating metrics into a single performance “ecological footprint.” Land-use impacts of en-
index is often desirable to facilitate easy compar- ergy sources and common household materials
ison. By converting all metrics into the same unit, have been reported (Chambers, Simmons, &
one may assess the relative importance of differ- Wackernagel, 2000). It is unclear, however,
ent impacts and, hence, determine the focus of whether proxies such as exergy and land use ade-
future impact-reduction efforts. quately represent overall sustainability impacts.
Economic and panel approaches are arguably
the most common methodologies in aggregating Integrating the Socioeconomic
metrics. In the economic approach, metrics are Considerations
weighted in terms of their associated monetary As discussed above, eco-efficiency considera-
costs and benefits, both internal and external to tions are tightly linked with the social dimension
the company. AIChE’s Total Cost Assessment of sustainability. Greater efficiency in the use of
methodology (TCA) and the “Environmental Pri- natural resources would allow them to be more eq-
ority Strategy in product development” (EPS) uitably distributed among nations and between
(Steen, 1999) are tools that may be used to assess current and future gen-
environmental and sustainability costs and ben- erations. Reduction in
efits. environmental releases
The panel approach, on the other hand, in- may also relieve the While eco-efficiency is certainly an
volves normalization and weighting, as outlined loads placed on human important element of sustainability,
in the ISO 14042 standards on LCIA. The total health and safety. The it is by no means a representation
impact from each category (e.g., total energy use panel approach dis- of the whole picture.
or total global warming potential) is first normal- cussed above, which in-
ized to a reference value. The reference value can corporates community
be the impact within a geographical boundary priorities by assigning
(i.e., local, regional, or global), or other bench- values to the different metrics through a panel of
mark values (e.g., companywide total, industry stakeholders, provides one way to integrate the so-
average). Weighting values (usually in percent) cial dimension more explicitly into eco-efficiency
may be determined by a panel of stakeholders metrics.
and applied to the normalized impacts to pro- While eco-efficiency is certainly an important
duce a single-value impact score. A slightly mod- element of sustainability, it is by no means a rep-
ified version of the LCIA normalization and resentation of the whole picture. Although not as
weighting methodology is used in generating ag- well developed as eco-efficiency metrics, separate
gregate indices in the eco-efficiency analysis of sets of social and economic metrics of sustain-
BASF (Saling et al., 2002; Schmidt et al., 2004; ability have been developed, such as by IChemE
Schwanhold, 2005). (2002). Exhibit 6 lists examples of social metrics
Other aggregation methodologies have also developed by IChemE, which capture a variety of
been proposed in the literature. One approach is workplace and safety issues, as well as societal is-
based on thermodynamics: materials, fuels, and sues (such as number of stakeholder meetings,

Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2006 / 51
 Exhibit 6. Social Metrics Developed by the Institution of Chemical Engineers*

Workplace (Employment) Society

• Benefits as percentage of payroll expense (%) • Number of stakeholder meetings per unit
• Employee turnover (%) value-added
• Promotion rate (%) • Indirect community benefit per unit
• Working hours lost as percent of total hours worked value-added
• Income + benefit ratio (top 10%/bottom 10%) • Number of complaints per unit value-added
• Number of legal actions per unit value-added
Workplace (Health and safety)
• Lost-time accident frequency (number per million
hours worked)
• Expenditure on illness and accident prevention
relative to payroll expense
* Source: IChemE (2002).

number of complaints, and so forth) expressed the corporate level. In addition, with the capabil-
per unit value-added. ity to stack the metrics along the product’s life
cycle, it encourages life-cycle thinking in man-
Automated Sustainability Metrics agement decision making.
Management Tools
As sustainability metrics have developed to Using Sustainability Metrics
include the assessment of potential impacts and While sustainability metrics have become in-
life-cycle considerations, the challenges in calcu- creasingly sophisticated in content and method-
lating and managing the metrics have increased. ology, they continue to consolidate disparate data
However, this challenge can be reduced through into meaningful measures that provide insights
the use of automated sustainability metrics man- for decision making. Metrics can be used to sup-
agement software tools, such as BRIDGESworks™ port various decision-making activities, including:
Metrics (Tanzil, Ma, & Beloff, 2004).
This software tool incorporates the basic and • evaluating alternatives, such as:
complementary set of metrics shown in Exhibits ❖ technical alternatives (e.g., different raw
4 and 5, along with their heuristics for calcula- materials and process improvement op-
tion, as well as providing the capability to con- tions) and
struct a customized set of metrics. In addition, a ❖ business alternatives (e.g., different sup-
robust set of impact-assessment methodologies is plier and acquisition options);
included for use in identifying the potential ef- • comparing facilities/business units;
fects of toxics and pollutants. An example screen • identifying environmental aspects and im-
capture from the tool is shown in Exhibit 7. pacts of an industrial operation; and
The availability of such automated tools will • tracking performance over time.
further facilitate the incorporation of sustainabil-
ity metrics for management and progress track- When desired, the metrics may also be em-
ing, especially when integrated into a company’s ployed to communicate with stakeholders, such
internal management information system. The as in external reports.
tool will help companies collect data at the Two company examples on the use of sustain-
process or facility level, as well as aggregating ability metrics are reported in the book Transforming
metrics from process, facility, and all the way to Sustainability Strategy into Action: The Chemical Indus-

52 / Summer 2006 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff
 Exhibit 7. Data Input Screen for BRIDGESworks™ Metrics, an Automated Metrics Management Tool

try, from which this article is adapted. These exam- similar to the basic sustainability metrics shown
ples are summarized in the sections that follow. in Exhibit 4.

The GlaxoSmithKline Example The BASF Example

Constable et al. (2005) describe the use of sus- Schwanhold (2005) describes an eco-effi-
tainability metrics in product and process devel- ciency analysis methodology developed at BASF.
opment at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a pharmaceu- Based on standard life-cycle assessment, the
tical company. To fit the metrics to their own analysis involves the use of metrics for various re-
needs, GSK has developed specific green chem- source uses and environmental, health, and
istry metrics (such as mass productivity, reaction safety impacts. The use of normalization and
mass efficiency, and total solvent recovery en- weighting methodologies to generate a single-
ergy) for evaluating chemical synthetic processes. value environmental performance score is also il-
To evaluate chemical-processing technolo- lustrated in great detail. The discussion also cov-
gies, GSK uses green technology metrics that in- ers extension of the eco-efficiency analysis to
cludes mass efficiency, percent purity, and heat- “socio-efficiency” by including various social as-
ing and cooling energy, in addition to metrics pects of sustainability (Schmidt et al., 2004).

Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2006 / 53
 While the methodology is primarily used in prod- This can be performed by mapping a com-
ucts and process development, it has also been pany’s operations and identifying environmental
applied to strategy development, as well as to and other sustainability concerns for each opera-
communication with industrial customers and tion. Then, a larger set of metrics can be piloted
other value-chain partners of BASF. at representative facilities or business units to
identify the most relevant ones.
Company-Specific Metrics For example, a pilot was recently conducted
Sustainability metrics also play an important using BRIDGES’ sustainability metrics at The
role in management decision making, especially Stanley Works, a worldwide manufacturer and
in progress tracking. As noted by the National Re- provider of tools, hardware, and security products
search Council (1999), “The ability to gauge im- (Nelson, 2003). Comparison of metrics for similar
provement in any endeavor is critically depend- manufacturing facilities within The Stanley
ent on establishing valid methods of measuring Works led to the identification of improvement
performance. Tracking progress toward an estab- opportunities in facilities that perform less effi-
lished goal serves to ciently than others. When applied to stages in
influence behavior by the value chain (production of raw materials,
In developing a metrics program, providing continual manufacturing processes, and transportation),
one must first identify the important feedback, and it re- the metrics provided insights on the relative con-
issues and impacts that are most quires reliable and tribution of the different stages to impacts such
significant and relevant to a consistent metrics as energy use, waste generation, and greenhouse-
company. against which per- gas emissions. Issues regarding data sources and
formance can be com- reliability were also identified in this pilot.
pared.” Once the most important metrics are identi-
Many of the eco-ef- fied, one may construct a system for periodic
ficiency and socioeconomic metrics described tracking and establish measurable goals at the
here are used in companies (see, e.g., GEMI, 1998; corporate, business, and facility levels to drive
NRC, 1999) and tracked on a quarterly, annual, or improvement toward sustainability.
other periodical basis. Metrics used for routine
progress tracking, however, tend to be simpler Summary and Challenges
and far less complex than those used in product In the past decade, we have witnessed consid-
and process development. The use of impact as- erable progress in the development of sustain-
sessment, in particular, is only gradually gaining ability metrics, especially in the chemical indus-
acceptance in management use. try. Metrics, especially those focused on
In developing a metrics program for a com- eco-efficiency, have gained acceptance for use in
pany, it is important to realize that “one size management, progress tracking, and marketing,
doesn’t fit all” (GEMI, 1998). Each company has as well as in the assessment of a company’s prod-
its own distinct set of concerns due to its unique ucts and processes. Progress has also been made
combination of operational, geographical, tech- in extending the eco-efficiency analysis to work-
nological, and community factors. Therefore, in place and community well-being, as well as in
developing a metrics program, one must first identifying separate social and economic metrics
identify the important issues and impacts that are of sustainability. Availability of automated met-
most significant and relevant to a company. rics management tools should further facilitate

54 / Summer 2006 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff
the use of sustainability metrics, especially when termine what is green—A corporate perspective. Green Chem-
istry, 3(1), 1-6.
integrated into a company’s management infor-
Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001, Winter). Using a balanced
mation system. scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental Quality
Several issues, however, need further explo- Management, 11(2), 1-10.

ration. While considerable efforts have been Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI). (1998).
Measuring environmental performance: A primer and survey
made in developing performance metrics, leading of metrics in use. Washington, DC: Author.
metrics such as management metrics still require Goedkoop, M. J., & Spriensma, R. S. (1999). The Eco-Indicator
99 methodology report: A damage oriented LCIA method. The
additional development. Such metrics, however,
Hague, The Netherlands: VROM.
may differ considerably from one company or or- Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der
ganization to another due to the varying cause- Linden, P. J., Dai, X., et al. (Eds.) (2001). Climate change
2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
and-effect relationships within each company or versity Press.
organization. Moreover, while anecdotal evi- Hughes, G. (2002). Environmental indicators. Annals of
dence exists that links various impacts to a com- Tourism Research, 29, 457–477.
pany’s financial performance, further studies are Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). (2002). The sus-
tainability metrics: Sustainable development progress metrics
needed to more explicitly link sustainability met- recommended for use in the process industries. Rugby, UK:
rics to a company’s exposure to risks and oppor- Author.

tunities. Li, W. (2004). Environmental management indicators for eco-

tourism in china’s nature reserves: A case study in Tian-
mushan Nature Reserve. Tourism Management, 25, 559-564.
References Loh, J., & Wackernagel, M. (Eds.). (2004). Living Planet Report
2004, Gland, Switzerland: WWF–World Wide Fund For Nature
Bakshi, B. R., & Fiksel, J. (2003). The quest for sustainability:
(formerly World Wildlife Fund).
Challenges for process system engineering. AIChE Journal, 49,
1350-1358. National Research Council (NRC). (1999). Industrial environ-
mental performance metrics. Washington, DC: National
Bare, J. C., Norris, G. A., Pennington, D. W., & McKone, T.
Academy Press.
(2003). TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of
chemical and other environmental impacts. Journal of Indus- National Round Table on the Environment and the Econ-
trial Ecology, 6(3-4), 49-78. Software available at http:// omy (NRTEE). (1999). Measuring eco-efficiency in business:
epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/std/sab/traci/index.html Feasibility of a core set of indicators. Ottawa: Renouf Pub-
lishing Co.
Beaver, E., Schwarz, J. M., & Beloff, B. R. (2002, July). Use sus-
tainability metrics to guide decision-making. Chemical Engi- Nelson, K. (2003). Applying sustainability metrics at the Stan-
neering Progress, 98(7), 58-63. ley Works. Presented at the 11th International Conference of
the Greening of Industry Network, San Francisco, October
Beloff, B., & Beaver, E. (2000). Sustainability indicators and
12-15.
metrics of industrial performance. Paper SPE 60982. Presented
at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Olgay, V., & Herdt, J. (2004). The application of ecosystems
Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Sta- services criteria for green building assessment. Solar Energy,
vanger, Norway, June 26-28. 77, 389-398.
Chambers, N., Simmons, C., & Wackernagel, M. (2000). Shar- Saling, P., Kicherer, A., Dittrich-Krämer, B., Wittlinger, R.,
ing nature’s interest: Using ecological footprints as an indica- Zombik, W., Schmidt, I., et al. (2002). Eco-efficiency analysis
tor of sustainability. London: Earthscan. by BASF: The method. International Journal of Life-Cycle As-
sessment, 7(4), 203-218.
Constable, D. J. C., Curzons, A., Duncan, A., Jiménez-
González, C., & Cunningham, V. L. (2005). The GSK approach Schmidt, I., Meurer, M., Saling, P., Kicherer, A., Reuter, W., &
to metrics for sustainability. In B. Beloff, M. Lines, & D. Tanzil Gensch, C.-O. (2004). SEEbalance®: Managing sustainability
(Eds.), Transforming sustainability strategy into action: The of products and processes with the socio-eco-efficiency
chemical industry (Section 6.1.2), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. analysis by BASF. Greener Management International, Issue
45, 79-94.
Constable, D. J. C., Curzons, A. D., Freitas dos Santos, L. M.,
Geen, G. R., Kitteringham, J., Smith, P., et al. (2001). Green Schwanhold, E. (2005). The Eco-efficiency analysis developed
chemistry measures for process research and development. by BASF. In B. Beloff, M. Lines, & D. Tanzil (Eds.), Transform-
Green Chemistry, 3(1), 7–9. ing sustainability strategy into action: The chemical industry
Curzons, A. D., Constable, D. J. C., Mortimer, D. N., & Cun- (Section 6.1.3). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
ningham, V. L. (2001). So you think your process is green, Schwarz, J., Beaver, E., & Beloff, B. (2000). Sustainability met-
how do you know—Using principles of sustainability to de- rics: Making decisions for major chemical products and facili-

Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2006 / 55
 ties. Final report to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
Industrial Technologies. Houston: BRIDGES to Sustainability. (2001). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and
Shane, A. M., & Graedel, T. E. (2000). Urban environmental methodologies. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/
sustainability metrics: A provisional set. Journal of Environ- natlinfo/indicators/isdms2001/isd-ms2001isd.htm
mental Planning and Management, 43, 643–663. Veleva, V., & Ellenbecker, M. (2001, December). Indicators of
Sikdar, S. K. (2003). Sustainable development and sustainabil- sustainable production: Framework and methodology. Journal
ity metrics. AICHE Journal, 49, 1928–1932. of Cleaner Production, 9, 519–549.

Steen, B. (1999). A systematic approach to environmental pri- Verfaillie, H. A., & Bidwell, R. (2000). Measuring eco-efficiency:
ority strategies in product development (EPS), Version 2000— A guide to reporting company performance. Geneva: World
General System Characteristics, Report 1999:4, Centre for En- Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
vironmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Wackernagel, M., Schultz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares, A. C.,
Göteborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology. Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., et al. (2002). Tracking the ecological
Tanzil, D., Ma, G., & Beloff, B. R. (2004). Automating the sus- overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the Na-
tainability metrics approach. Presented at the AIChE Spring tional Academy of Sciences, 99, 9266–9271.
Meeting, New Orleans, April 25-29. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). (1999). Scientific
Udo de Haes, H. A., Finnveden, G., Goedkoop, M., Hauschild, assessment of ozone depletion: 1998. Report No. 44, Geneva:
M., Hertwich, E.G., Hofstetter, P., et al. (Eds.) (2002). Life-cycle Author.
impact assessment: Striving towards best practice. Pensacola, Wright, M., Allen, D., Clifi, R., & Sas, H. (1998). Measuring cor-
FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry porate environmental performance: The ICI Environmental
(SETAC). Burden System. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1(4), 117-127.

Dicksen Tanzil, PhD, is technical specialist and project manager at BRIDGES to Sustainability, Golder Associates Inc. He
has advised companies on the integration of sustainability considerations into business and technical decision making, in-
cluding the use of sustainability metrics for management and engineering design. He received his PhD from Rice Univer-
sity and BS from Purdue University, both in chemical engineering.

Beth R. Beloff is the director of BRIDGES to Sustainability, a newly acquired division of Golder Associates, and president
and founder of the nonprofit organization, BRIDGES to Sustainability Institute, which is dedicated to the practical imple-
mentation of sustainability in businesses and industry. She is an expert in integrating sustainable development with other
critical business aspects, and in particular is a thought leader in how to measure sustainability performance. Ms. Beloff has
coauthored many publications on environmental accounting and sustainability performance assessment, and has received
awards and grants from a variety of industrial, government, and nonprofit sources.

This article is adapted from Section 6.1.1 of Transforming Sustainability Strategy into Action: The Chemical Industry, ed-
ited by Beth Beloff, Marianne Lines, and Dicksen Tanzil, © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

56 / Summer 2006 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem Dicksen Tanzil and Beth R. Beloff