Future Risk from Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks for the Resource Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article proposes a framework integrating Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), scenario planning, and sensitivity analysis to assess the sustainability performance of the alumina industry, particularly focusing on evaluating environmental and social impacts beyond carbon reduction. Overall, the article is innovative and practical but has room for improvement in application specifics, data support, and comprehensiveness. The following is an evaluation of the article:

 

1. The article mentions that "ghost indicators" (such as biodiversity and cultural heritage, which are challenging to quantify) are overlooked in the current framework. It is recommended that the authors add relevant quantitative analysis methods, for example, by using existing ecological and social impact modeling techniques when selecting KPIs. This would help incorporate these “ghost indicators” into the framework to ensure a comprehensive assessment. For instance, remote sensing data could monitor land use changes (like biodiversity and habitat loss), or survey data could quantify local community perceptions of land degradation.

 

2. The article proposes three scenarios (Business-as-Usual, Net-Zero, and Accelerated Net-Zero) but lacks specific data on energy transition. It is recommended to further specify the energy transition roadmap and numerical targets within each scenario, such as including the share targets and anticipated emission reduction effects of each energy source (e.g., wind, solar, hydrogen) for 2030 and 2040. Providing data-supported implementation paths would enhance the model’s practical applicability.

 

3. Water consumption and pollution in alumina production are significant environmental impacts. It is suggested that the authors provide more detailed numerical targets and reduction paths for indicators like water pollution and consumption. For instance, setting mid-term (2030) and long-term (2050) threshold targets for E-3.1 (freshwater contamination) and E-3.2 (water consumption) and conducting sensitivity analyses on water usage and pollution reduction under different scenarios could clarify the framework’s potential improvements in water resource management.

 

4. It is recommended to provide more specific baseline data and future targets for economic and social KPIs (such as contributions to the local economy, community investment, and job creation). For example, the article could include annual GDP contribution figures for different regions, community investment ratios, and specific numbers for new jobs created each year in the alumina industry. Analyzing the data variations of these indicators across scenarios would demonstrate the actual economic and social benefits or risks of decarbonization, increasing the framework’s value.

 

5. It is recommended to further quantify and refine the risks and benefits of different emission reduction measures within scenario planning. For instance, a more detailed risk assessment of technologies in the Net-Zero scenario (such as mechanical vapor recompression and hydrogen calcination) could provide comparative data on costs, emission reductions, energy consumption, and potential social impacts, helping the industry understand the cost-benefit ratios of different technology combinations. This approach could enhance the model’s practicality, better guiding the industry in making optimal decisions under future uncertainties.

Author Response

1. Quantification of "Ghost Indicators”

Feedback: The article should include more detailed methodologies for quantifying "ghost indicators" like biodiversity and cultural heritage, using ecological and social impact modelling techniques.

Changes Made:

• Section 2.4 (Gap Analysis for Indicator Selection): Expanded the discussion on incorporating "ghost indicators" through advanced methodologies, such as remote sensing for land use changes (biodiversity and habitat loss) and community surveys for social impacts.
• Section 4.3 (Unaddressed Environmental and Social Impacts): Added a discussion on potential methods to address these indicators, including ecosystem services valuation for biodiversity and structured community surveys for social impacts.

2. Energy Transition Scenarios

Feedback: The energy transition roadmap and numerical targets for each scenario (e.g., shares of wind, solar, and hydrogen energy) should be more specific.

Changes Made:

• Section 3.2 (Scenario Analysis): Added specific numerical amounts for energy sources in the Net-Zero and Accelerated Net-Zero scenarios.

3. Water Consumption and Pollution

Feedback: Provide more detailed targets for water pollution and consumption and conduct sensitivity analysis on water usage.

Changes Made:

• Section 2.3 (Scenario Planning and Sensitivity Analysis): Expanded the scenario planning to include quantitative targets and sensitivity analysis on water usage and pollution reduction across different scenarios. Specifically, the 2030 and 2050 targets for water consumption and freshwater contamination were introduced (15% reduction in 2030 and 25% reduction by 2050).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper under review aims to introduce a comprehensive sustainability assessment framework integrating Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) with Scenario Planning and Sensitivity Analysis, using the alumina industry as a case study. While the ambition to create a more holistic approach to sustainability in the resource sector is commendable, the paper falls short in several critical areas that undermine its contribution to the academic discourse on sustainability assessment.

 

1. Narrow Focus on Carbon Emissions: The paper's predominant focus on carbon reduction is a significant limitation. Despite acknowledging the importance of environmental and social impacts beyond carbon, such as biodiversity loss and community health risks, the proposed framework fails to provide a substantial methodological advancement in addressing these 'ghost indicators.' The overemphasis on carbon emissions risks perpetuating a myopic view of sustainability that overlooks the broader environmental and social implications of alumina production.

 

2. Insufficient Theoretical Rigor: The integration of LCSA with Scenario Planning and Sensitivity Analysis is presented as a novel approach, yet the paper lacks a robust theoretical foundation to support this integration. The absence of a clear theoretical framework leaves the reader questioning the underpinnings of the proposed methodology and its ability to yield meaningful, actionable insights.

 

3. Methodological Shortcomings: The methodology section is underdeveloped, lacking detail on the specific techniques used for scenario planning and sensitivity analysis. The paper fails to provide a clear methodology for how the LCSA framework is operationalized in conjunction with these tools, which is crucial for academic rigor and practical application.

 

4. Data and Indicator Limitations: The paper's reliance on region-specific quantifiable indicators limits its global applicability. The selection process for indicators is not sufficiently justified, and the exclusion of critical environmental and social indicators due to data limitations is a significant flaw. This undermines the comprehensiveness of the framework and its ability to capture the true sustainability performance of the alumina industry.

 

5. Lack of Stakeholder Engagement: A glaring omission in the paper is the lack of engagement with external stakeholders, particularly local communities and Indigenous groups. Sustainability assessments must incorporate diverse perspectives to be considered comprehensive. The paper's failure to address this critical aspect is a major shortcoming.

 

6. Simplistic Modeling Approach: The paper's modeling approach is overly simplistic and does not account for the complexities of alumina production, including market fluctuations, geopolitical dynamics, and varying regulatory environments. This simplification limits the framework's ability to provide a nuanced assessment of sustainability risks and opportunities.

 

7. Inadequate Address of Environmental and Social Impacts: Despite acknowledging the importance of addressing environmental and social impacts, the paper does not offer a satisfactory methodology for incorporating these aspects into the sustainability assessment. The exclusion of 'ghost indicators' such as land degradation, water pollution, and social displacement is a significant oversight that compromises the paper's contribution to sustainable development discourse.

 

8. Weak Linkage to Policy and Regulation: The paper's discussion on policy and regulatory changes is superficial and does not delve into how the proposed framework can inform or be influenced by policy-making. This is a critical gap, as sustainability assessments should be closely linked to regulatory frameworks to drive meaningful change.

 

Therefore, the paper fails to meet the standards required for publication. The limitations in theoretical development, methodological clarity, and comprehensiveness of the sustainability assessment framework are too significant to be overlooked. The paper's narrow focus on carbon emissions, coupled with its failure to adequately address broader environmental and social impacts, results in a piece that does not contribute substantively to the field of life cycle assessment or sustainability assessment more broadly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Academic English should be improved.

Author Response

1. Narrow Focus on Carbon Emissions

Feedback: The paper's predominant focus on carbon reduction is a significant limitation. Despite acknowledging the importance of environmental and social impacts beyond carbon, such as biodiversity loss and community health risks, the proposed framework fails to provide a substantial methodological advancement in addressing these 'ghost indicators.'

Changes Made:

• Section 2.4 (Gap Analysis for Indicator Selection): Expanded the discussion to include more substantial methodological advancements for addressing ghost indicators like biodiversity loss, land degradation, and community health risks.
• Section 4.3 (Unaddressed Environmental and Social Impacts): Added more specific methods for integrating these ghost indicators, such as the use of ecosystem services valuation models and structured social impact assessments.

2. Insufficient Theoretical Rigor

Feedback: The integration of LCSA with Scenario Planning and Sensitivity Analysis is presented as a novel approach, yet the paper lacks a robust theoretical foundation to support this integration.

Changes Made:

• Section 2.1 (Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Framework): Revised to provide a clearer theoretical justification for combining LCSA with these tools. We now discuss the theoretical underpinnings in more detail, highlighting how scenario planning and sensitivity analysis align with sustainability theory to create forward-looking, risk-sensitive assessments.

3. Methodological Shortcomings

Feedback: The methodology section is underdeveloped, lacking detail on the specific techniques used for scenario planning and sensitivity analysis.

Changes Made:

• Section 2.3 (Scenario Planning and Sensitivity Analysis): Expanded the explanation of the techniques used for scenario development and sensitivity analysis. We describe how various energy transitions, technology adoption rates, and regulatory changes are modelled in the scenarios, along with the techniques used to assess their impacts.

4. Data and Indicator Limitations

Feedback: The paper’s reliance on region-specific quantifiable indicators limits its global applicability.

Changes Made:

• Section 2.1 (Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Framework) now includes a more robust discussion of how the indicator selection process incorporates both global and regional datasets, ensuring greater scalability and applicability to diverse geographical and industrial contexts.
• We have also discussed how region-specific thresholds for indicators, such as water consumption and biodiversity conservation, can be adapted for different geographical regions, making the framework more globally relevant.

5. Lack of Stakeholder Engagement

Feedback: A glaring omission in the paper is the lack of engagement with external stakeholders, particularly local communities and Indigenous groups.

Changes Made:

• Section 4.3 (Unaddressed Environmental and Social Impacts) includes a more detailed discussion of how stakeholder engagement and participatory methods are integral to addressing social and environmental impacts in future studies.

6. Simplistic Modelling Approach

Feedback: The paper's modelling approach is overly simplistic and does not account for the complexities of alumina production.

• We agree that a more sophisticated modelling approach is necessary to capture the complexities of alumina production. This research did not have access to the sources required to perform this detailed assessment. The paper has expanded on the limitations of this work to address this comment.

7. Inadequate Address of Environmental and Social Impacts

Feedback: Despite acknowledging the importance of addressing environmental and social impacts, the paper does not offer a satisfactory methodology for incorporating these aspects into the sustainability assessment.

Changes Made:

• We agree that the treatment of social and environmental impacts could be expanded, however, it wasn’t in this paper due to resource and data availability. Section 2.4 (Gap Analysis for Indicator Selection) has been revised to propose specific methodologies for incorporating ghost indicators, such as biodiversity loss, land degradation, and community health risks.
• We have also added more detailed approaches for quantifying and integrating these indicators using advanced tools like social life cycle assessments (S-LCA) and ecological valuation models.

8. Weak Linkage to Policy and Regulation

Feedback: The paper's discussion on policy and regulatory changes is superficial and does not delve into how the proposed framework can inform or be influenced by policymaking.

Changes Made:

• Section 4.2 (Limitations of the Framework) now includes a more thorough discussion of how the framework can be integrated with policy and regulatory processes.
• We also propose the framework’s potential role in informing policy decisions through detailed cost-benefit analyses of various decarbonisation strategies, alongside the broader sustainability objectives (e.g., biodiversity preservation, and community engagement).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. When calculating the carbon emission reduction, authors need to clarify if the CO2 of the renewables productions and installations were accounted for.

2. Authors need to clarify for Figure 3 and 4 the meaning of the scale 1~5 for readability for the audience

3. The authors mentioned a few limitations of the LCSA, but for 4.3.1~4.3.4, part of the impacts are still quantifiable and are considered in the generatl LCA framework. For example NOx, SOx emissions are oftne calculated for the air quality assessment

Author Response

1. Carbon Emission Reduction Clarification

Feedback: Clarify if the CO₂ emissions from renewable production and installations are accounted for in the reduction calculations.

Changes Made:

• Section 4.1 (Benefits of the Framework): Added a clarification that CO₂ emissions from renewable energy production and installation are considered in the emission reduction calculations. This includes the lifecycle emissions associated with manufacturing and transporting renewable energy infrastructure.

2. Clarify Figures 3 and 4 Scales

Feedback: Provide a clearer explanation of the scales (1-5) in Figures 3 and 4 for better readability.

Changes Made:

• Figures 3 and 4: Added explanation for the Likert scale.

3. NOx, SOx Emissions

Feedback: Further clarify the inclusion of NOx and SOx emissions in the LCSA framework.

Changes Made:

• Section 2.1 (Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Framework): Clarified the treatment of NOx and SOx emissions in the framework.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the reviewed article with great interest. The authors address an important and timely issue of effectively planning, implementing, and monitoring the process of sustainable development. The content of the article corresponds well to the title. The paper analyzes current sustainability assessment frameworks in the resource sector and highlights their limitations and potential risks for the future. It presents an integrated approach combining Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) with scenario planning and sensitivity analysis to create a more comprehensive evaluation model. The proposed solutions and analyses directly address the risks and challenges arising from existing assessment methods.

Based on the content of the article, I conclude that the authors have largely achieved their intended goal. They introduced a new model integrating LCSA with other methods to address the gaps in existing sustainability assessment frameworks. They proposed concrete solutions and tested them using the example of the Australian aluminum industry. At the same time, they identified the limitations of their approach, such as the lack of full adaptability on a global scale and insufficient consideration of some social and environmental indicators. Highlighting these limitations demonstrates that the authors have a good understanding of the shortcomings in current methods and propose specific directions for their improvement. I believe that the authors showed innovation in their proposal by introducing several unique aspects to the approach for assessing sustainability in the resource sector.

The abstract includes most of the key elements assigned to this section of the article. It provides an introduction to the problem, the research objective, a description of the methodology, results, and implications. However, strengthening the precision, providing specific results, and adding a clear summary of the findings could significantly improve its clarity and readability for the audience.

The introduction provides readers with theoretical and practical foundations for analyzing the problem of sustainable development and ways to monitor the effectiveness of this process. It includes quantitative data, references to the literature, and clearly defines the industrial context and the importance of the study undertaken by the authors. Its structure introduces the reader to the problem and justifies the need for the new approach proposed by the authors.

The Materials and Methods section provides a detailed description of the research approach, from the development of sustainability assessment frameworks through the process of scenario building to sensitivity analysis. The authors refer to literature, industry data, and examples of applications, which strengthen the credibility of their methodology. The only potential weakness is the limitation of the data applied to the specificity of Australia, which may hinder the adaptability of the approach in other regions.

In the Results section, the authors demonstrated that their approach allows for significant improvements in emissions reduction and energy efficiency. However, they emphasized the need for a more comprehensive inclusion of biodiversity, land rehabilitation, and social impacts. The results highlight the potential of the proposed framework but also the necessity for further development.

In the discussion of results, the authors analyze the effectiveness of their approach compared to existing assessment frameworks, highlighting its key strengths and limitations. They address technological, environmental, and social aspects, proposing improvements and emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive sustainability assessment model.

Recommendations to Enhance the Article’s Value:

1. Improving the structure of the article:
• Refine the abstract to make it more specific and precise.
• Clearly separate the Results section (which could include a more precise summary of data) from the Discussion section (where conclusions regarding the strengths and limitations of the proposed methods could be distinctly addressed).
2. Expanding the discussion:
• Provide a more detailed discussion of why current indicators are insufficient (e.g., challenges in measuring biodiversity or social impacts of industrial activities). Suggest specific improvements for the indicators, such as introducing monitoring systems or more advanced data collection methods.
• Expand practical implications with a more detailed analysis of the potential impact of the results on the industry, for example: How companies can implement the proposed solutions, How the proposed technologies might influence production costs and profits.
3. Strengthening conclusions about future research:
• Propose methods for better measuring biodiversity.
• Indicate how governments or international institutions can support the implementation of such frameworks, e.g., through regulations, financial incentives, or technological support.

Overall, the article is valuable and makes a significant contribution to the development of sustainability assessment tools in the resource sector. Its innovative approach, based on integrating LCSA with scenario planning, has the potential to support the transformation of industries towards sustainability.

Author Response

1. Abstract Refinement

Feedback: The abstract could be more precise and include specific results and findings.

Changes Made:

• Abstract: Refined to provide a clear summary of key findings, such as a 97% emissions reduction under the Net-Zero scenario, and more specific details on the implications of the research.

2. Discussion of Indicator Limitations

Feedback: Expand on why current indicators (such as biodiversity and social impacts) are insufficient and suggest specific improvements.

Changes Made:

• Section 4.2 (Limitations of the Framework): Expanded the discussion to include limitations in measuring biodiversity and social impacts, proposing methods such as remote sensing and participatory surveys for future research.

3. Global Applicability and Adaptability

Feedback: The article’s focus on Australia may limit its global applicability. More discussion is needed on how the framework could be applied to other regions.

Changes Made:

• Section 2.1 (Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Framework): Addressed the framework’s scalability and adaptability to other regions, including the use of global datasets and region-specific studies to inform indicators.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the authors' point-by-point response to my initial critique, I remain compelled to uphold my recommendation for the rejection of the manuscript. While the authors have made efforts to address the concerns raised, the changes fall short of the rigorous standards expected in the field of life cycle assessment and sustainability studies. Below, I provide a detailed critique of the authors' responses:

 

For beginning, the authors' response to the peer-review comments lacks the necessary precision and respect for the reviewers' efforts. They fail to provide specific line numbers where revisions have been made, which is essential for a clear and efficient review process. This omission not only complicates the task of identifying changes but also undermines the collaborative spirit of scholarly discourse.  

 

• Narrow Focus on Carbon Emissions:

The authors claim to have expanded the discussion on methodological advancements for addressing' ghost indicators. However, the addition of generic statements about the use of ecosystem services valuation models and social impact assessments without concrete examples or case studies does not suffice to demonstrate a substantial methodological advancement. The response lacks specificity and does not provide a clear roadmap for how these methods will be operationalized within the framework.

 

• Insufficient Theoretical Rigor:

The authors have revised Section 2.1 to provide a clearer theoretical justification. However, the revision does not offer new theoretical insights or engage with the existing body of literature that critiques the limitations of LCSA. The discussion remains superficial and does not adequately ground the integration of LCSA with scenario planning and sensitivity analysis in a robust theoretical framework.

 

• Methodological Shortcomings:

While the authors have expanded Section 2.3 to describe the techniques used for scenario development and sensitivity analysis, the details provided are still not sufficient to assess the academic rigor of the methodology. The lack of transparency in the modeling process undermines the credibility of the findings and their applicability in real-world contexts.

 

• Data and Indicator Limitations:

The authors argue that they have incorporated both global and regional datasets into their indicator selection process. However, the paper does not provide evidence of this integration, nor does it demonstrate how these datasets have been used to enhance the framework's scalability and applicability. The claim of a more globally relevant framework remains unsubstantiated.

 

• Lack of Stakeholder Engagement:

The authors have added a discussion on stakeholder engagement in Section 4.3. Yet, this addition is more of a token gesture than a substantive commitment to incorporating diverse perspectives. The lack of specific strategies or case studies showing successful stakeholder engagement significantly weakens this part of the manuscript.

 

 

• Simplistic Modelling Approach:

The authors acknowledge the need for a more sophisticated modeling approach but attribute the simplification to data limitations. This justification is unacceptable in academic research, especially when the paper aims to provide a comprehensive sustainability assessment framework. The absence of a nuanced modeling approach is a critical flaw that cannot be overlooked.

 

• Inadequate Address of Environmental and Social Impacts:

The authors have revised Section 2.4 to propose methodologies for incorporating ghost indicators. However, the proposed methodologies are not accompanied by empirical data or case studies that validate their effectiveness. The revision does not provide sufficient evidence that the framework can adequately address environmental and social impacts.

 

• Weak Linkage to Policy and Regulation:

The authors have added a discussion in Section 4. 2 on how the framework can inform policy decisions. However, this discussion is still general and does not provide specific examples or detailed analyses of how the framework's findings can be translated into policy recommendations. The linkage between the framework and policy remains tenuous at best.

 

In conclusion, while the authors have made some efforts to address the concerns raised, the changes are insufficient to meet the high standards of academic rigor and practical applicability required for publication in this journal. The manuscript continues to suffer from a narrow focus on carbon emissions, insufficient theoretical rigor, methodological shortcomings, and a weak linkage to policy and regulation. I maintain my recommendation for rejection. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be improved continuously.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Following your second review of our paper, the paper and review comments were addressed by the Editor-in-Chief, who has decided to rescind the rejection of our paper and allow the process to continue. Their comments are as follows:

I have now reviewed the entire file for this paper. I find the appeal by the authors compelling and well thought out. The authors addressed the concerns raised well. I find most of the concerns raised are acknowledged by the authors in the paper as limitations, but that the overall paper has merit. I also see that three of the reviewers were supportive of the paper.

So I am willing to rescind the decision and allow the paper processing to continue. The authors are asked to please revise the paper to account for any remaining points they wish to address in it, if there are any.

To address the concerns raised by Reviewer 2 and provide a background of the changes made for the other reviewers, the commentary for all changes made, along with their section, line and page numbers are included below.

• Narrow Focus on Carbon Emissions: We agree that addressing 'ghost indicators' such as biodiversity loss and social equity is critical. However, this study had to exclude certain ghost indicators due to a limitation in data availability. The limitations in data availability were listed as a criterion on Line 169 (pg.5), mentioned secondary in Line 320 (pg.8) and described in more detail on Line 594 (pg.17) – mentioning the limitations were in part to NDA requirements that would restrict publication.
  • In response to all reviewer comments, we expanded our discussion on the methodologies that could be employed in future research for incorporating these indicators, including ecosystem services valuation models, additional social indicators, and integrated modelling techniques (Line 327 to 351, pg.9).
  • The revised manuscript provides examples of how these methods will be operationalised in future work, and we have outlined the limitations that currently hinder a more detailed assessment due to data accessibility in Section 4.3 Line 647 to Line 699 (pg. 18-19).
  • Concerning Reviewer 2 during Round 2 of reviews, commentary was given on the specificity of including valuation models and impact assessments for indicators that were previously addressed in the Round 1 Review amendments. It was addressed that these indicators could not be assessed due to data limitations and were taken out of the scope of this paper.
• Insufficient Theoretical Rigor: While we respect Reviewer 2’s view, we believe the revised manuscript presents a more robust theoretical foundation. Sections 2.1 to 2.3 (Line 109 to 309, pg. 3-8) have been expanded to provide greater justification for integrating LCSA with scenario planning and sensitivity analysis, with references to the existing literature that support requirements for assessing future risk during sustainability analyses (Line 277, pg.8). We contend that this combination of methodologies is innovative and offers a forward-thinking way to assess sustainability in industries like alumina production and fully answers the concerns of Reviewer 2.
• Methodological Shortcomings: We acknowledge the need for more detailed explanations of our scenario planning techniques. In response, Section 2.3 (Line 271-309, pg.8) and Section 3.1 (Line 355-439, pg.9-11) now describe in more depth the processes and assumptions used to model various scenarios. Furthermore, these sections also described the major sensitivities used to demonstrate how different variables could impact sustainability outcomes.
  • Mentioned Specifically:
    • Energy Transition Scenarios: The roadmap should include numerical targets for each renewable energy option in the scenarios (addressed in Section 3.1 – Line 368-382; Line 402-410; Line 430-435, pg.9-11) alongside more detailed numerical targets for water consumption (addressed in Section 2.3 – Line 304-309, pg.8).
    • Clarification of Likert Scales: How to read the Likert Scales was not clear and was addressed in Section 3.3 Line 519-523, pg.15).
    • Treatment of NOx and SOx: NOx and SOx were excluded from this study as participants in the questionnaire did not view this as a priority for alumina’s production footprint. However, as emissions from alumina refining are quite small, they would be better placed in an assessment for the aluminium sector’s sustainability assessment. This was addressed on Line 229-233, pg.6.
    • With regards to Reviewer 2 during Round 2, we have expanded on the methods and main sensitivities used for this research in this section. We believe that this provides a clear picture of how the scenarios were assessed. With regards to the modelling itself, the spreadsheet used is part of the PhD to be submitted by the student and therefore could not be released before their submission. If providing the modelling is the only way to appease this critique, it can be discussed between the author(s) and the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Lack of Stakeholder Engagement: We recognise the importance of engaging with local communities and other stakeholders. For this research, the participatory approach was undertaken to determine the indicators. However, we were unable to gain access to the contacts for the local communities specific to Western Australia and Queensland due to the NDA requirements that would have to have been signed.
    • Section 4.3 Line 665-677 (pg.18) was revised to include ways stakeholder engagement could be addressed in future research, e.g., structured community surveys and stakeholder workshops.
    • Furthermore, we acknowledge that empirical case studies are necessary and added this discussion in Section 4.4.2 (Line 701-732, pg.19) as part of the recommendations for enhancing global adaptability.
    • With regards to Reviewer 2 Round 2, case studies to demonstrate successful stakeholder engagement were considered out of the scope of this paper as it discusses the integration of the LCSA and Scenario Planning methodologies alongside the benefits and limitations of this process.
  • Data and Indicator Limitations: A critique of the paper from one reviewer was that the paper’s reliance on region-specific quantifiable indicators was a limitation for global applicability.
    • With regards to Reviewer 2 Round 2, it was specified in the methodology that this paper was focused on Australian Alumina Production. Furthermore, this limitation was also addressed in the paper under Section 4.2 (Line 627-638, pg.17-18) with potential mitigation options.
  • Simplistic Modelling Approach: It was critiqued that this paper adopts simplistic modelling that would not account for the complexities of alumina production.
    • We agree that a more sophisticated modelling approach is necessary to capture the complexities of alumina production (addressed in Section 4.2 Line 617-626, pg.17).
    • With regards to Reviewer 2 Round 2, it is understood that a more sophisticated modelling approach would be useful for this type of model. This research is part of a student’s PhD who does not have access to the funding required to perform this type of detailed assessment.
    • Inadequate Address of Environmental and Social Impacts: Reviewer 2 Round 2 specified that without case studies or empirical data, the methods provided to assess ghost indicators cannot be validated. The authors agree with this point, but as specified earlier, conducting additional assessments for these ghost indicators could not be undertaken due to the limitations in data availability for the PhD student.
  • Weak Linkage to Policy and Regulation: For Reviewer 2 Round 2, they have specified that discussion for policy and regulations is still general and not specific enough. The linkage points were made in the conclusion as part of future work, as it was deemed to not be a part of the scope of this work but instead to use this work on writing a separate paper on policy and regulation development.

Conclusion

While we respect the reviewers' viewpoints, we suggest that the perceived shortcomings are not due to a lack of academic rigour but rather constraints related to data availability and the evolving nature of sustainability assessment in resource-intensive sectors.

In light of the revisions made, the additional data provided, and the clarification of our methodologies, we respectfully request that the manuscript be reconsidered for publication. We believe the changes significantly improve the paper and address all reviewers' concerns, contributing valuable insights for the integration of environmental, social, and economic dimensions into sustainability assessments. We are sincerely grateful for all reviewers’ comments.

We believe the revised manuscript meets the quality and academic rigour expectations for publication in Sustainability.

 

Kind regards,

Marcus Byrne

Author Response File: Author Response.docx