- Email: [email protected]
Social dimensions of mining: Research, policy and practice challenges for the minerals industry in Australia
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149 www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol
Social dimensions of mining: Research, policy and practice challenges for the minerals industry in Australia Fiona Solomon, Evie Katz, Roy Lovel School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Plenty Road, Bundoora 3086, Australia Received 21 September 2007; received in revised form 30 January 2008; accepted 31 January 2008
Abstract The social dimensions of the mining industry are increasingly acknowledged as critical to business success, yet remain the least understood aspect of the business concept of sustainable development—the ‘triple bottom line’ of economy, environment and society. In this paper we present our findings on the current state of the debate on, and research into, contemporary issues in the Australian minerals industry since the pivotal 2002 Mining and Minerals Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project. We identify current themes, the diversity of mining stakeholder views, and the different ways resource policy challenges are articulated based on values, drivers, and interpretations. In other words, we provide a social map or landscape of the industry in Australia. In the final section of the paper, we identify research policy and practice gaps and the emerging challenges faced by the industry and by society. In particular, we note that ‘the social’ is broader than the concept of ‘community’ allows. Understanding this will assist in meeting these challenges at local, national and international levels. Crown Copyright r 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. JEL classification: Q30 Keywords: Minerals and mining industry; Social issues; Resources policy; Community relations
Introduction Over the last decade or so, the minerals industry internationally has become progressively concerned with the expectations and implementation of sustainable development ideas. Within this, ‘the social’ is understood as critical—in both senses of the word—but also difficult. Conflict over the development of resources, and the distribution of impacts and benefits, can be significant in both political and economic terms. For mining companies within Australia, this has led to an increasing focus on reputation, anchored in the concept of a ‘social licence to operate’ that is understood as an essential complement to a regulatory licence to mine.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9479 2021, mobile: +400 552 390.
E-mail addresses: fi[email protected] (F. Solomon), [email protected], [email protected] (E. Katz), [email protected] (R. Lovel).
The 2002 Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project is widely seen to have served as an important policy spring-board for the industry globally. Both the international report Breaking New Ground along with numerous national reviews and individual research publications,1 and the formation of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) as a global industry representative body,2 drew attention to a range of policy and practice challenges. In this paper, we review the post-MMSD landscape and ask: what shifts in issues and priorities can be seen over the last 5 years? We focus particularly on Australia to take a national-scale look at contemporary issues and priorities. We begin by reviewing the current literature on the social dimensions of mining and identify key themes and areas of 1 MMSD Project publications are archived at: http://www.iied.org/ mmsd 2 More information on the ICMM can be found at: http://www. icmm.com
0301-4207/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright r 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2008.01.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
active research. We then examine the active stakeholders of the mining industry, and their various perspectives on ‘the social’. Drawing on the literature review and workshops with social researchers, industry specialists and other stakeholders, we discuss emerging research, practice and policy gaps. Finally, we consider the policy challenges that appear to lie ahead in Australia, and perhaps elsewhere. Framing the social dimensions—an overview of the literature The social sciences are a significant intellectual access point to understanding the social dimensions of any sector. They are also a broad church. Social science disciplines commonly engaged on relevant issues in the minerals industry in Australia include anthropology (e.g. Ballard and Banks, 2003), sociology (e.g. McAllister, 2006), demography (e.g. Taylor, 2006), economics (e.g. Me´lanie et al., 2006), psychology (e.g. Heiler et al., 2000), human geography (e.g. Lawrence, 2005) and studies of law, planning and development (e.g. Joyce and Macfarlane, 2002). Each of these disciplines entails a wide variety of theories, methods and techniques. This diversity can be confusing to non-specialists, particularly when conflicting interpretations result. Indeed, one of the key characteristics of the social sciences is that they are multi-paradigmatic, that is, there are competing paradigms for understanding social issues. Our review of literature published since 2000—during and since the MMSD Project—located more than 560 references which directly relate to the social dimensions of mining with a particular focus on, or relevance to, Australia.3 Even when restricting the discussion to Australia, it is difficult to generalise about the mining industry, which is highly diverse in terms of materials, processes, places and social contexts. Keeping in mind this diversity, our review identified the following broad categories of interest in the Australian literature: 1. Mining industry features, context and changes: including implications of the current commodities boom (National Centre for Vocational Education, 2005); the globalisation of major mining companies and consequent centralising of decision making (Maher, 2006; Heiler et al., 2000); the tendency to portray mining companies as homogenous, masking their internal complexity (Trebeck, 2004). 2. Governance and regulation: including the increasing influence of a range of stakeholders on the regulatory environment (Brereton, 2003); the emergence of new forms of regulation, including voluntary initiatives and certification schemes (e.g. ICMM, 2004; MCA, 2004a, b; Solomon et al., 2006; Schiavi and Solomon, 2007); and the increasing emphasis on public reporting of environmental, social and/or sustainability reporting (e.g. Yongvanich, 2004). 3
A complete bibliography is available from the authors on request.
143
3. Indigenous and developer perspectives: including the relative power of developers and Indigenous people over resource development (O’Faircheallaigh, 2006); and the expanding emphasis on employment and training of Indigenous people for the mining industry (Trigger, 2003; Lawrence, 2005). 4. Native title and agreement making: a more specific focus on the legal context, including the increase in direct negotiation of agreements with native title holders or claimants (Harvey and Nish, 2005; Neate, 2004); the complexities of implementing agreements, particularly in terms of contribution to regional development (Crooke et al., 2006; Hrouda and Pearce, 2005); and the concept of free, prior and informed consent (Macintyre, 2004). 5. Communities, community engagement and community development: including the increasing emphasis on engagement as integrated with business planning (Kemp, 2005; Rolfe et al., 2006); the role of tools such as social impact assessment (Joyce and Macfarlane, 2002); and the lack of clarity concerning the roles and powers of communities in direct relationships with mining companies (Cheney et al., 2002). 6. Interpretations of sustainable development and social licence to operate: while definitions of sustainable development tend to converge on Brundtland (1987), interpretations of implementation differ among stakeholders (see for example, Guerin, 2006; Me`lanie et al., 2006; MCA, 2004a). 7. Labour relations, management, internal governance and industry culture: including the impacts of long working hours, shifts and rosters (Heiler, 2002; McCann, 2005; Colley, 2005; Rhodes, 2003, 2005); an increasing focus on fly-in fly-out (FIFO) practices (Beach et al., 2003, Davis, 2001; CMEWA, 2005); and struggles over the regulation of labour (Colley, 2003; Gray, 2006; Maher, 2006; Ellem, 2006). These thematic categories can be understood as a framing of the social dimensions of mining in Australia, at least in terms of active research and/or practical interest in publicly available material. Often ‘the social’ is interpreted to mean only issues relating to local communities, but it is important to recognise that the scope and range of issues that can be understood from a social perspective are far broader. Within each of these topics too, there are of course vigorous debates as to interpretation and implications of findings. Investigating social dimensions of the industry also highlights the fundamental importance of context and the difficulty of generalising from individual studies. Particular sites, commodities and/or mining practices have been controversial and have drawn criticism from some stakeholders, where relatively similar operations have not. Impacts are often context specific, which means that what is learnt at one operation may not necessarily apply to
ARTICLE IN PRESS 144
F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
another, even in the same district.4 There are relatively few studies in the Australian literature of the last 5 years or so that examine more than one case study or situation in depth. Comparative research is difficult to establish because of potential limits on access, the costs of fieldwork particularly in remote locations, cross-company confidentiality issues, and finding cases with sufficient factors in common to enable meaningful comparison. Nonetheless, there are interesting comparative or multisite studies on issues including Aboriginal employment and agreement making (Altman, 2007; Tiplady and Barclay, 2007; Langton et al., 2006; O’Faircheallaigh and Corbett, 2005; Langton and Palmer, 2003; Hunter and Hawke, 2000), experiences of mine closure on mining towns (Neil et al., 1992), methodologies for measurement of social, economic and environmental impacts (Brereton, 2006), experiences of mine site community relations work (Kemp, 2005), and community experiences of mining approval processes (Cheney et al., 2002). The majority of comparative studies have focused on Indigenous issues, enabling generalisable insights and recommendations to be developed. However, the relative scarcity of comparative studies—particularly on issues such as closure, community engagement, the measurement of impacts, and others— presents challenges for understanding key issues across contexts, and for policy making more generally. In evaluating shifts in issues within mining’s social dimensions since MMSD, uneven progress can be discerned. On issues such as local communities and mines, the Breaking New Ground report noted that ‘community demands for relevant, direct and sustained benefits from mineral wealth are a relatively recent phenomenon, so frequently neither government institutions, nor companies or communities themselves have been properly equipped to respond to them’ (MMSD, 2002, p. xx). Over the last 5 years, it is fair to say that companies and governments in Australia have increasingly invested in understanding community expectations, forming relationships and considering the distribution of impacts and benefits over the long term. In the governance area, too, a range of voluntary initiatives and schemes have been developed for the industry at varying stages of review or implementation (e.g. Solomon et al., 2006; IRMA, 2006). However, many associated practices are still emerging and there are as yet insufficient grounds for longitudinal, independent claims of progress in this area. There is active research, as discussed above, focusing in particular on outcomes of negotiated agreements for Indigenous communities. Other challenges identified in Breaking New Ground, such as evaluation and integration of social considerations in mine closure planning (MMSD, 2002, 4 See, for example, the case study of Axedale-Goornong in central Victoria, where the interviewed residents, familiar with the bluestone quarry operating in their locale, were far less prepared to consider the mining of gold which they described as a ‘‘useless commodity’’ (Cheney et al., 2001).
p. xxi) have had relatively little practical or intellectual attention. Overall, the literature suggests that shifts in conceptualisations of key issues have occurred. While most of the seven categories identified through the literature are present to some degree in the MMSD project, many of the issues have developed either in terms of new drivers (such as the resources boom), new evidence (such as research into agreement making) and/or new experiences (such as emerging forms of industry self-regulation). More generally, the increasing importance of sustainable development ideas to the industry has provided a framework for raising the perceived importance of mining’s social dimensions. Diverse perspectives—views of mining industry stakeholders Promotion of the need for a ‘social licence’ has certainly enhanced the attention paid to stakeholders. Over time, identification of stakeholders has broadened to include those whose voices may be strong, such as critical nongovernment organisations (NGOs), and those whose voices may be weak, such as those affected but who have little power over decision-making. Engaging with these stakeholders usually means articulating resource policy challenges in non-market terms. Broadly-based stakeholder dialogues must somehow encompass values that are not addressed by most economic or technical frameworks, such as social justice, ecological sustainability, economic equity and cultural diversity (Howitt, 2001). This has been one of the key challenges for multistakeholder processes designed to evaluate, establish or govern voluntary industry initiatives, such as the Mining Certification Evaluation Project (Solomon et al., 2006) or the Cyanide Code (ICMI, 2002).5 These initiatives provided forums for negotiating stakeholder expectations for standards and performance. Even for initiatives that are predominantly industry-driven, such as ICMM’s Sustainable Development Framework (ICMM, 2006) and the Minerals Council of Australia’s version ‘Enduring Value’ (MCA, 2006), consultation processes provided some opportunities for feedback in their development. In a more general sense, these quasi-regulatory instruments highlight the increasing importance companies place on corporate reputation as the key driver, while other stakeholders operate from different values and roles, such as social justice, environmental sustainability or Indigenous rights. As part of our investigation into the post-MMSD landscape, we conducted three workshops: one with industry, one with researchers, and a third, a colloquium that involved industry, researchers and a small number of other stakeholders active in this area. The purpose of these workshops was to gather contemporary perspectives on the social dimensions of the mining industry, and discuss current issues and challenges. Forty-three participants 5
http://www.cyanidecode.org/pdf/thecode.pdf
ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
overall contributed to a researchers’ workshop, an industry workshop, and a colloquium which was open to all. Both the researchers and the industry workshops discussed the nature of social research in a mining context. Industry participants understood the social dimensions of mining mainly in terms of relationships between mines and local communities, and the economic impact of the industry as a provider of employment and regional and national prosperity. For research activities, they placed an emphasis on metrics, rigorous baselines, understanding the mine’s social impact and on research to inform company decision making. Industry representatives expressed the sense that management of social issues within companies was ‘10 years behind the environment’, in terms of being embedded within company systems and culture. In general, communities too were seen as something ‘to be managed’. In this context, then, they were concerned that social research—particularly at mine sites—would act as a vehicle for dissent, or interfere in the relationship between the mine and the local community/ies. Researchers in their workshop explored the diversity of approaches offered in the social sciences, experiences and challenges of interdisciplinarity, and more generally, the difficulties of taking a critical approach in a corporate setting where ‘critical’ is often understood as a critique. There was a belief from researchers that their work was not well understood and there were often expectations that they would or should ‘take sides’; social researchers on mine sites often found themselves in an ambiguous position and experienced hostility at times. Some saw a tendency, even among researchers, to see ‘mining’ and ‘community’ as monolithic, masking their internal and relative diversity. They identified a lack of consensus on what companies need from social research, how it is used and who owns it, and saw companies’ desire for toolbox or one-size-fits-all type solutions as problematic. Social researchers at the workshop identified a range of broad thematic issues that they saw as falling within the social dimensions of mining, including human rights, gender, power, trust, governance, class and capitalist enterprises. The third workshop, a colloquium open to a range of stakeholders, used briefs on recent and in-progress research to stimulate discussion of current and emerging issues. Key themes that emerged at the colloquium were gender and diversity, workplace culture and arrangements, the role of government in mining regions, and a lack of integration and/or long-term approach to the social dimensions of mining projects. Participants were alert to the effects of the current mining boom, which include rising housing prices in mining regions and commuter cities; ‘soaking up’ of labour from alternative industries; and a perception that government has abrogated its responsibilities for service provision in mining regions. Gender emerged as a strong theme in the colloquium, with industry representatives interested in attracting and retaining women employees, while social researchers focused on the impacts of workforce arrangements such as fly-in fly-out, remoteness and
145
isolation and work-life balance upon women as employees or as part of families with a mine worker. There was a concern that while good social research on issues such as community engagement has been carried out over the last decade, implementation on the ground is far less developed. There was also concern that the most prominent social research activity, Social Impact Assessment, takes place at the start of a project with little or no ongoing monitoring or evaluation of actual impacts and their management during the project’s operating life or closure. Overall, all three workshops noted that investment in social research and operational practice was below what may be necessary to meet the industry’s challenges. In a more general sense, participants confirmed a diversity of perspectives on the social dimensions of mining, in terms of conceptualisation of issues, understanding of research approaches and identification of priorities. The most difficult problems for enabling good social research seem to be a general suspicion from industry of the impact of researchers on sites, a lack of integration of the social dimensions with company decision-making, and the tendency to see social research as an up-front hurdle to development approval or only in terms of a ‘social licence to operate’. Emerging challenges—research, policy and practice gaps The mining industry is essentially built on exploitation of resources. Usually these are understood as physical entities, the extent and availability of which are established by scientific means. However resources are more completely understood in terms of functions and relationships. In this broader interpretation, resources are simultaneously physical, economic and cultural (Howitt, 2001, p. 4). When taking this perspective, it becomes clear that different groups and societies see ‘resources’ differently. In the Australian context, this is most notable at the interface between resource-based development and Indigenous peoples, but also communities for whom mineral resource extraction is not a priority activity. It is in these situations, where the relative values stakeholders place on resources, or perhaps more accurately overlapping ‘resources’—such as cultural heritage, ecological values, identified mineral resources, agricultural activities, social cohesion—are competing. Unfortunately, it appears that, at least to date, these situations where competing values lead to conflict have had the most difficulty attracting support for social research. While investment in social science research is generally low, certainly when compared to the investment in technology R&D, controversial or conflictual issues in particular have difficulty attracting research funding. A second issue is that the perception that a company’s social context is commercial-in-confidence has meant little collaboration between companies in regional studies, which might allow more generalisable conclusions. It has also meant that singlestudy or single-site research funded by companies is often
ARTICLE IN PRESS 146
F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
not made publicly available for the use of other companies, researchers and stakeholders such as regional government. Our analysis of the literature review and the workshop discussions highlighted specific topics, which represent research and practice gaps. These include: 1. Social performance: including independent monitoring on the actual performance and impacts relative to initial social impact assessments and policy commitments; the relationship, if any, between corporate social performance and company size and/or management approach; and the barriers, constraints and enabling features to company capacity to implement higher-order social policies, such as human rights and community development. 2. Mine site functional roles: including experiences, perspectives, work, and careers of community relations practitioners in mining companies (Kemp, 2005); the perspectives, capabilities and experiences of mine site managers in the social dimensions; and identification of industry needs for social competencies and future training and education (CSRM, 2006). 3. Industry work and working conditions: including labour supply and demand and impacts on other industries; the nature of shift-work and fly-in fly-out arrangements, and their impacts on occupational health and safety, family and community life, and recruitment and retention (Davis, 2001); the role of older workers in the industry in the context of an aging population demographic; and the convergence of ICT technologies and the mining industry. 4. Indigenous employment and agreement making: including the degree of divergence and convergence between Indigenous and developer perspectives (O’Faircheallaigh, 2004; Langton et al., 2004); more knowledge of environmental provisions of negotiated agreements, and their efficacy in enhancing Indigenous participation (O’Faircheallaigh and Corbett, 2005; Langton et al., 2006); and the demographic capacity for Aboriginal people to fulfil company-set Indigenous labour targets, as well as the implications of significant proportions of Aboriginal young people employed in the resources sector (Lawson, 2005). 5. Women and the mining industry: including women as employees, with issues such as recruitment and retention, perspectives and experiences, attitudes of coworkers, company structures, cultures and career paths, and work-life balance (Stutsel, 2006); and women as partners, with issues such as partnering a mine worker, family responsibilities, life in small and/or remote communities, and frequent relocation (Rhodes, 2003, 2005). 6. Public participatory processes: including greater clarity concerning the roles and power of participants in public engagement and decision making processes (Cheney et al., 2002); and the emerging issue of free, prior and informed consent—its relationship with emerging
human rights standards relating to Indigenous peoples, how to determine consent; how to maintain consent over long time frames and potentially generations (Macintyre, 2004). 7. Community and regional development: including the relative roles and responsibilities of government and mining companies in community and regional development; more generally, how to create a more integrated/ collaborative approach between government, industry, community and researchers; knowledge of specific regional development issues such as the impact of the resources boom on other activities in regions, on social cohesion, on infrastructure and the long-term legacy of mining activities and closure. In considering gaps from the workshops and literature as a whole, two important theoretical concepts emerged— the meanings and implications of time and place, particularly for the mining industry because of the geographically constrained and capital-intensive nature of its operations.6 Time concepts relate to society and culture. In capitalist societies, time is a commodity to be bought and sold. Speed, efficiency and reliability of production are part of what makes companies competitive and new technologies are sought and applied to these ends. The current boom in demand for mineral resources has generated further pressures to increase the pace, scale, and rate of development, or more precisely, to exploit resources before prices drop. ‘‘Time is money’’ is the constant pressure, and in the mining industry this is most readily evident in the management and arrangement of labour time such as long shifts and rostered time on site. Working arrangements such as FIFO, long rosters and working hours and roundthe-clock shifts are used to cover 24-h operation, and relatively high wages attempt to address the challenges of attracting and retaining labour under these conditions and often in remote locations. Meanwhile, the timeconsuming nature of approvals processes, negotiations with traditional owners and community engagement activities, sits uneasily within this ‘time-squeeze’. Increasingly, research is being carried out into the effects of time pressures for mining employees and their families and communities. Time and place are concepts highly relevant to Aboriginal social norms and values. Aboriginal Australians place great emphasis on the meaning of place and ‘country’ in their lives. Traditional concepts of place, which still operate, view land or country as a responsibility that requires care. Under capitalist logic, land and the concept of place have to do with exclusive proprietorship. Thus ‘ownership’ is understood as the right to do with the land as one pleases within the laws of the day—like time, it is a commodity, and can therefore be bought, sold, dug up, and 6
The authors are grateful to Bev Thiele, Murdoch University, for introducing the issue of time and ‘time-squeeze’ to the discussion at the Perth colloquium.
ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
generally capitalised on. In short, the value of place for capitalist enterprises such as mining companies is commercial, whereas for Aborigines the value may be both economic and cultural, and for some Aborigines it will be mainly the latter. Non-Aboriginal people, too, often hold non-economic values, such as environmental, cultural or historical significance, for particular places. Like time, these values can sit uneasily against an economic frame for place. As theoretical constructs, time and place are highly relevant backdrops to social research activities, in terms of understanding the divergent interpretations of these. In summary, a wide range of specific topics is likely to produce insights that would be of benefit to companies, communities and governments, and represents opportunities for further research. Labour themes—working conditions, functional roles, employment of women and Indigenous people—appear to be gathering increasing attention from industry and researchers, particularly in the context of a ‘skills shortage’ for the mining industry in Australia fuelled by the continuing resources boom. The gap analysis also highlighted some general concerns about support for and approaches to social sciences in the sector, in particular sites or studies that may be controversial or deemed commercial-in-confidence. There are certainly practical difficulties associated with developing and funding larger collaborative initiatives, managing multi-stakeholder processes, and creating genuine interdisciplinary approaches. However, the general underinvestment in social research could also be attributed to an environment that does not prioritise social issues until they directly impact the business in some negative way. By this time, the politicisation of issues makes the social research environment much more complex. The development of understanding of relative roles and expectations between social researchers and companies remains a significant challenge. Conclusions The breadth and complexity of the social dimensions of mining in Australia call for research, policy and practice approaches that are both integrated and interdisciplinary. However this is not an insignificant challenge. Working across and between disciplines has been difficult, and integrating social perspectives and considerations into areas and processes from which they have historically been excluded requires no less than broad cultural change across the industry. The review described in this paper illustrates the breadth of issues that can be understood as part of the social dimensions of mining in Australia, and show that the social is much more than the idea of ‘community’ (which is often used as shorthand or interchangeably). Research that focused on clearly defined groups, such as employees and employment, Aboriginal and local communities, was more active and sophisticated in terms of volume and of being able to build on a longer history of scholarship or practice. However, many of the case studies reviewed had a
147
unique context in terms of particular places, situations and/or groups, placing limitations and caveats on overgeneralising findings. Relatively few comparative studies have been carried out to date and more are needed in order to find commonalities and differences. The field is a dynamic one. While most of the categories identified through the literature were present to some degree in 2002, many of the issues have developed either in terms of new drivers, such as the resources boom, new evidence, such as research into agreement making, and/or new experiences, such as emerging forms of industry selfregulation. Perhaps in response to these, industry has recently embarked on discussions of developing formal accredited qualifications for practitioners in the community relations sector. More generally, the increasing importance of sustainable development ideas to the industry has provided a framework for raising the perceived importance of mining’s social dimensions. It is anticipated that the next 5 years will show as much change conceptually, and also in practice and performance, as the last five. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Dr. Julie Finlayson, Professor Daniela Stehlik, and Professor David Brereton for their contribution as members of the Steering Group to the research project. We also thank the presenters, participants and those who helped organise the workshops. References Altman, J., 2007. Mining, remote Indigenous communities and the state: contestations over development futures. Seminar presented 16 May 2007, CAEPR, ANU, Canberra. /http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/ Publications/topical/Altman_Mining.pdf-1333k-17May2007S. /http:// www.anu.edu.au/caepr/new.phpS. Ballard, C., Banks, G., 2003. Resource wars: the anthropology of mining. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 32, 297–313. Beach, R., Brereton, D., Cliff, D., 2003. Workforce Turnover in FIFO Mining Operations in Australia: An Exploratory Study. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Brereton, D., 2003. Self-regulation of environmental and social performance in the Australian minerals industry. Environ. Plan. Law J. 20 (1), 1–14. Brereton, D., 2006. Cumulative Impacts of Coal Mining—a Muswellbrook Focus. CSRM, Brisbane /http://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/index. html?page ¼ 37494&pid ¼ 5693S. Brundtland, G., 1987. Our Common Future. /http://www.ace.mmu. ac.uk/esd/Action/Brundtland_Report.htmlS. Cheney, H., Lovel, R., Solomon, F., 2001. I’m not anti-mining, buty: community perspectives of mining in Victoria. CSIRO Minerals Report DMR-1642, Melbourne. Cheney, H., Lovel, R., Solomon, F., 2002. People, power and participation: A Study of Mining-Community Relationships. MMSD Research Paper. /http://www.icmm.com/library_pub_detail.php?rcd=91S. CMEWA (Chamber of Minerals and Energy Western Australia), 2005. Fly-in Fly-out: A Sustainability Perspective. CMEWA, Perth. Colley, P., 2003. Mineworkers: partner or production factor? Paper presented at Minerals Council of Australia Sustainable Development Conference, November 10–14, 2003, Brisbane.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 148
F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
Colley, P., 2005. A career and a life in mining: what needs to be done. In: Proceedings of the Minerals Council of Australia Sustainable Development Conference, 31 October–4 November 2005, Alice Springs. Crooke, P., Harvey, B., Langton, M., 2006. Implementing and monitoring Indigenous land use agreements in the minerals industry: an Australian case study: the Western cape communities co-existence agreement. In: Langton, M., Mazel, O., Palmer, L., Shain, K., Tehan, M. (Eds.), Settling with Indigenous People: Case Studies in Land use Agreement Making in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Federation Press, Annandale, NSW. CSRM (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining) and Banarra Sustainability and Social Assurance, 2006. Voluntary Reporting and Accounting of Social Performance in the Mining Sector: State of Practice Voluntary Report Findings. CSRM, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Davis, L., 2001. The social responsibility of corporations. J. Corporate Citizenship 23 (8) Winter. Ellem, B., 2006. Scaling labour. Work Employ. Soc. 20 (2), 369–387. Gray, J., 2006. Minerals and energy: workplace human rights. Paper presented at the Minerals Council of Australia Sustainable Development Conference, October 23–27, Perth, Western Australia. Guerin, T., 2006. A survey of sustainable development initiatives in the Australian mining and minerals industry. Miner. Energy 20 (3–4), 11–44. Harvey, B., Nish, S., 2005. Rio Tinto and Indigenous community agreement making in Australia. J. Energy Natural Resource Law 23 (4), 490–510. Heiler, K., 2002. The Struggle for Time: A Review of Extended Shifts in the Tasmanian Mining Industry. Stage one of the Review of Safety in the Tasmanian Mining Industry. ACCIRT, University of Sydney /http://www.wst.tas.gov.au/node/wststrugglef.htmS. Heiler, K., Pickersgill, R., Briggs, C., 2000. Working time arrangements in the Australian mining industry. Report of International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous People. Routledge, London and New York. Hrouda, L., Pearce, D., 2005. An external perspective on mining and regional development: ensuring companies and governments live up to their obligations to partner sustainable regional development. Paper presented at Minerals Council of Australia Sustainable Development Conference, 31 October–4 November, Alice Springs. Hunter, B., Hawke, A., 2000. A comparative analysis of the industrial relations experiences of Indigenous and other Australian workers. Discussion Paper DU120.E2 D57 no. 201, CAEPR, Canberra. ICMI, 2002. International cyanide management code for the manufacture, transport and use of cyanide in the production of gold. International Cyanide Management Institute (ICMI). /http://www.cyanidecode. orgS. ICMM, 2004. Sustainable Development Framework. International Council on Mining and Metals, London. /http://www.icmm.com/sd_ framework.phpS. ICMM, 2006. Sustainable Development Framework. International Council on Mining and Metals, London. /http://www.icmm.com/sd_ framework.phpS. IRMA, 2006. Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, Vancouver, Canada. /http://www.responsiblemining.net/S. Joyce, S., Macfarlane, M., 2002. Social impact assessment in the mining industry: current situation and future directions. MMSD Report No. 46, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and World Business Council (WBC) for Sustainable Development, London. Kemp, D., 2005. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Community Relations Work in the Minerals Industry, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland. Langton, M., Palmer, L., 2003. Modern agreement making and Indigenous people in Australia: issues and trends. Aust. Indigenous Law Rep. 8 (1) /http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/2003S.
Langton, M., Mazel, O., Palmer, L., Shain, K., Tehan, M., 2004. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Langton, M., Mazel, O., Palmer, L., Shain, K., Tehan, M., 2006. Federation Press, Annandale, NSW. Lawrence, R., 2005. Governing Warlpiri subjects: Indigenous employment in the central Australian mining industry. Geograph. Res. 43 (1), 40–48. Lawson, W., Where have all the young people gone? Paper presented at Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) Sustainable Development Conference October 31–November 4, Alice Springs, Australia. Macintyre, M., 2004. Informed Consent and Mining Projects: Some Problems and a Few Tentative Solutions. Symposium Hosted by the School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies, the University of Melbourne. University of Melbourne. Maher, T., 2006. Cooperation is vital. In: Proceedings of NSW Minerals Industry Occupational Health and Safety Conference, Sydney. MCA, 2004a. Enduring Value—the Australian Minerals Industry Framework for Sustainable Development: Summary Booklet. Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Canberra /http://www.minerals.org. au/enduringvalue/resources/summary_bookletS. MCA, 2004b. Enduring Value—the Australian Minerals Industry Framework for Sustainable Development: Implementation Guidance. Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Canberra /http://www.minerals. org.au/enduringvalue/resources/implementation_guidanceS. MCA, 2006. /http://www.minerals.org.au/enduringvalueS. McAllister, J., 2006. The Central Queensland Sapphire Mining Community: A case of common property and cultural capital. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability. Hanoi, Vietnam. McCann, D., 2005. Working Time Laws: a Global Perspective: Findings From the ILO’s Conditions of Work and Employment Database. International Labour Organisation, Geneva. Me´lanie, J., Penney, K., Austin, A., Rumley, C., 2006. Minerals sector: sustainable development in the APEC region. ABARE Research Report 06.8. Prepared for the Australian Government Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR), Canberra. MMSD Project, 2002. Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development: the Report of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project. Earthscan for International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and World Business Council (WBC), London. NCAV, 2005. Prospecting For Skills: The Current and Future Skill Needs in the Minerals Industry. National Centre for Vocational Education (NCAV), Adelaide. Neate, G., 2004. Agreement making and the Native Title Act. In: Langton, M., Mazel, O., Palmer, L., Shain, K., Tehan, M. (Eds.), Honour Among Nations? Treaties and Agreements with Indigenous Peoples. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Neil, C., Tykkla¨inen, M., Bradbury, J., 1992. Coping with Closure: An International Comparison of Mine Town Experiences. Routledge, London. O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2004. Evaluating agreements between indigenous peoples and resource developers. In: Langton, M., Palmer, L., Tehan, M., Shain, K. (Eds.), Honour among Nations: Treaties and Agreements with Indigenous Peoples. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2006. Aborigines, mining companies and the state in contemporary Australia: a new political economy or business as Usual? Aust. J. Political Sci. 41 (1), 1–22. O’Faircheallaigh, C., Corbett, T., 2005. Indigenous participation in environmental management of mining projects: the role of negotiated agreements. Environ. Politics 14 (5), 629–647. Rhodes, L., 2003. Partners on the periphery: personal ambiguity and unpaid labour in the Australian mining industry. Paper in: McWilliam, K., Stephenson, P., Thompson, G. (Eds.), Voicing Dissent, [online] JAS, Australia’s Public Intellectual forum, 76, 2003, 149–158, 249–250. Rhodes, L., 2005. Two for the Price of One: The Lives of Mining Wives. API Network, Perth.
ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149 Rolfe, J., Ivanova, G. Lockie, S., 2006. Assessing the social and economic impacts of coal mining on communities in the Bowen Basin: summary and recommendations. Research Report No. 11, March 2006, ACARP and Central Queensland University. Schiavi, P., Solomon F.L., forthcoming Fall 2007. Voluntary initiatives in the mining industry: do they work? In: Ali, S., O’Faircheallaigh, C. (Eds.), Greener Management International, special edition on mining. Solomon, F., Schiavi, P., Horowitz, L., Rouse, A., Rae, M., 2006. The Mining Certification Evaluation Project (MCEP) Final Report. Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Australia, Melbourne. Stutsel, M., 2006. Women breaking through in the minerals industry. Address to the 18th Women, Management and Employment Relations Conference, Sydney, Australia, 27 July 2006. Taylor, J., 2006. Population and diversity: policy implications of emerging indigenous demographic trends. Discussion Paper 283, Centre Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Australian National University, Canberra.
149
Tiplady, T., Barclay, M.A., 2007. Indigenous Employment in the Australian Minerals Industry. CSRM, University of Queensland /http://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/docs/CSRM%20Report_FINAL%20TO% 20PRINT_singles.pdfS. Trebeck, K., 2004. Companies, complexity and CSR: community engagement in the mining industry. Australian Chief Executive, pp. 48–49. Trigger, D., 2003. Mining Projects in Remote Aboriginal Australia: Sites for the Articulation and Contesting of Economic and Cultural Futures. Proceedings of Mining Frontiers: Social Conflict, Property Relations and Cultural Change in Emerging Boom Regions. Max Planck Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Leipzig, Germany, 16–18 June, 2003. Yongvanich, K., Guthrie, J., 2004. The Australian mining industry’s sustainability reporting: an examination of legitimation strategies. Working Papers in Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management: NSW.
Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149 www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol
Social dimensions of mining: Research, policy and practice challenges for the minerals industry in Australia Fiona Solomon, Evie Katz, Roy Lovel School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Plenty Road, Bundoora 3086, Australia Received 21 September 2007; received in revised form 30 January 2008; accepted 31 January 2008
Abstract The social dimensions of the mining industry are increasingly acknowledged as critical to business success, yet remain the least understood aspect of the business concept of sustainable development—the ‘triple bottom line’ of economy, environment and society. In this paper we present our findings on the current state of the debate on, and research into, contemporary issues in the Australian minerals industry since the pivotal 2002 Mining and Minerals Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project. We identify current themes, the diversity of mining stakeholder views, and the different ways resource policy challenges are articulated based on values, drivers, and interpretations. In other words, we provide a social map or landscape of the industry in Australia. In the final section of the paper, we identify research policy and practice gaps and the emerging challenges faced by the industry and by society. In particular, we note that ‘the social’ is broader than the concept of ‘community’ allows. Understanding this will assist in meeting these challenges at local, national and international levels. Crown Copyright r 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. JEL classification: Q30 Keywords: Minerals and mining industry; Social issues; Resources policy; Community relations
Introduction Over the last decade or so, the minerals industry internationally has become progressively concerned with the expectations and implementation of sustainable development ideas. Within this, ‘the social’ is understood as critical—in both senses of the word—but also difficult. Conflict over the development of resources, and the distribution of impacts and benefits, can be significant in both political and economic terms. For mining companies within Australia, this has led to an increasing focus on reputation, anchored in the concept of a ‘social licence to operate’ that is understood as an essential complement to a regulatory licence to mine.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9479 2021, mobile: +400 552 390.
E-mail addresses: fi[email protected] (F. Solomon), [email protected], [email protected] (E. Katz), [email protected] (R. Lovel).
The 2002 Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project is widely seen to have served as an important policy spring-board for the industry globally. Both the international report Breaking New Ground along with numerous national reviews and individual research publications,1 and the formation of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) as a global industry representative body,2 drew attention to a range of policy and practice challenges. In this paper, we review the post-MMSD landscape and ask: what shifts in issues and priorities can be seen over the last 5 years? We focus particularly on Australia to take a national-scale look at contemporary issues and priorities. We begin by reviewing the current literature on the social dimensions of mining and identify key themes and areas of 1 MMSD Project publications are archived at: http://www.iied.org/ mmsd 2 More information on the ICMM can be found at: http://www. icmm.com
0301-4207/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright r 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2008.01.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
active research. We then examine the active stakeholders of the mining industry, and their various perspectives on ‘the social’. Drawing on the literature review and workshops with social researchers, industry specialists and other stakeholders, we discuss emerging research, practice and policy gaps. Finally, we consider the policy challenges that appear to lie ahead in Australia, and perhaps elsewhere. Framing the social dimensions—an overview of the literature The social sciences are a significant intellectual access point to understanding the social dimensions of any sector. They are also a broad church. Social science disciplines commonly engaged on relevant issues in the minerals industry in Australia include anthropology (e.g. Ballard and Banks, 2003), sociology (e.g. McAllister, 2006), demography (e.g. Taylor, 2006), economics (e.g. Me´lanie et al., 2006), psychology (e.g. Heiler et al., 2000), human geography (e.g. Lawrence, 2005) and studies of law, planning and development (e.g. Joyce and Macfarlane, 2002). Each of these disciplines entails a wide variety of theories, methods and techniques. This diversity can be confusing to non-specialists, particularly when conflicting interpretations result. Indeed, one of the key characteristics of the social sciences is that they are multi-paradigmatic, that is, there are competing paradigms for understanding social issues. Our review of literature published since 2000—during and since the MMSD Project—located more than 560 references which directly relate to the social dimensions of mining with a particular focus on, or relevance to, Australia.3 Even when restricting the discussion to Australia, it is difficult to generalise about the mining industry, which is highly diverse in terms of materials, processes, places and social contexts. Keeping in mind this diversity, our review identified the following broad categories of interest in the Australian literature: 1. Mining industry features, context and changes: including implications of the current commodities boom (National Centre for Vocational Education, 2005); the globalisation of major mining companies and consequent centralising of decision making (Maher, 2006; Heiler et al., 2000); the tendency to portray mining companies as homogenous, masking their internal complexity (Trebeck, 2004). 2. Governance and regulation: including the increasing influence of a range of stakeholders on the regulatory environment (Brereton, 2003); the emergence of new forms of regulation, including voluntary initiatives and certification schemes (e.g. ICMM, 2004; MCA, 2004a, b; Solomon et al., 2006; Schiavi and Solomon, 2007); and the increasing emphasis on public reporting of environmental, social and/or sustainability reporting (e.g. Yongvanich, 2004). 3
A complete bibliography is available from the authors on request.
143
3. Indigenous and developer perspectives: including the relative power of developers and Indigenous people over resource development (O’Faircheallaigh, 2006); and the expanding emphasis on employment and training of Indigenous people for the mining industry (Trigger, 2003; Lawrence, 2005). 4. Native title and agreement making: a more specific focus on the legal context, including the increase in direct negotiation of agreements with native title holders or claimants (Harvey and Nish, 2005; Neate, 2004); the complexities of implementing agreements, particularly in terms of contribution to regional development (Crooke et al., 2006; Hrouda and Pearce, 2005); and the concept of free, prior and informed consent (Macintyre, 2004). 5. Communities, community engagement and community development: including the increasing emphasis on engagement as integrated with business planning (Kemp, 2005; Rolfe et al., 2006); the role of tools such as social impact assessment (Joyce and Macfarlane, 2002); and the lack of clarity concerning the roles and powers of communities in direct relationships with mining companies (Cheney et al., 2002). 6. Interpretations of sustainable development and social licence to operate: while definitions of sustainable development tend to converge on Brundtland (1987), interpretations of implementation differ among stakeholders (see for example, Guerin, 2006; Me`lanie et al., 2006; MCA, 2004a). 7. Labour relations, management, internal governance and industry culture: including the impacts of long working hours, shifts and rosters (Heiler, 2002; McCann, 2005; Colley, 2005; Rhodes, 2003, 2005); an increasing focus on fly-in fly-out (FIFO) practices (Beach et al., 2003, Davis, 2001; CMEWA, 2005); and struggles over the regulation of labour (Colley, 2003; Gray, 2006; Maher, 2006; Ellem, 2006). These thematic categories can be understood as a framing of the social dimensions of mining in Australia, at least in terms of active research and/or practical interest in publicly available material. Often ‘the social’ is interpreted to mean only issues relating to local communities, but it is important to recognise that the scope and range of issues that can be understood from a social perspective are far broader. Within each of these topics too, there are of course vigorous debates as to interpretation and implications of findings. Investigating social dimensions of the industry also highlights the fundamental importance of context and the difficulty of generalising from individual studies. Particular sites, commodities and/or mining practices have been controversial and have drawn criticism from some stakeholders, where relatively similar operations have not. Impacts are often context specific, which means that what is learnt at one operation may not necessarily apply to
ARTICLE IN PRESS 144
F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
another, even in the same district.4 There are relatively few studies in the Australian literature of the last 5 years or so that examine more than one case study or situation in depth. Comparative research is difficult to establish because of potential limits on access, the costs of fieldwork particularly in remote locations, cross-company confidentiality issues, and finding cases with sufficient factors in common to enable meaningful comparison. Nonetheless, there are interesting comparative or multisite studies on issues including Aboriginal employment and agreement making (Altman, 2007; Tiplady and Barclay, 2007; Langton et al., 2006; O’Faircheallaigh and Corbett, 2005; Langton and Palmer, 2003; Hunter and Hawke, 2000), experiences of mine closure on mining towns (Neil et al., 1992), methodologies for measurement of social, economic and environmental impacts (Brereton, 2006), experiences of mine site community relations work (Kemp, 2005), and community experiences of mining approval processes (Cheney et al., 2002). The majority of comparative studies have focused on Indigenous issues, enabling generalisable insights and recommendations to be developed. However, the relative scarcity of comparative studies—particularly on issues such as closure, community engagement, the measurement of impacts, and others— presents challenges for understanding key issues across contexts, and for policy making more generally. In evaluating shifts in issues within mining’s social dimensions since MMSD, uneven progress can be discerned. On issues such as local communities and mines, the Breaking New Ground report noted that ‘community demands for relevant, direct and sustained benefits from mineral wealth are a relatively recent phenomenon, so frequently neither government institutions, nor companies or communities themselves have been properly equipped to respond to them’ (MMSD, 2002, p. xx). Over the last 5 years, it is fair to say that companies and governments in Australia have increasingly invested in understanding community expectations, forming relationships and considering the distribution of impacts and benefits over the long term. In the governance area, too, a range of voluntary initiatives and schemes have been developed for the industry at varying stages of review or implementation (e.g. Solomon et al., 2006; IRMA, 2006). However, many associated practices are still emerging and there are as yet insufficient grounds for longitudinal, independent claims of progress in this area. There is active research, as discussed above, focusing in particular on outcomes of negotiated agreements for Indigenous communities. Other challenges identified in Breaking New Ground, such as evaluation and integration of social considerations in mine closure planning (MMSD, 2002, 4 See, for example, the case study of Axedale-Goornong in central Victoria, where the interviewed residents, familiar with the bluestone quarry operating in their locale, were far less prepared to consider the mining of gold which they described as a ‘‘useless commodity’’ (Cheney et al., 2001).
p. xxi) have had relatively little practical or intellectual attention. Overall, the literature suggests that shifts in conceptualisations of key issues have occurred. While most of the seven categories identified through the literature are present to some degree in the MMSD project, many of the issues have developed either in terms of new drivers (such as the resources boom), new evidence (such as research into agreement making) and/or new experiences (such as emerging forms of industry self-regulation). More generally, the increasing importance of sustainable development ideas to the industry has provided a framework for raising the perceived importance of mining’s social dimensions. Diverse perspectives—views of mining industry stakeholders Promotion of the need for a ‘social licence’ has certainly enhanced the attention paid to stakeholders. Over time, identification of stakeholders has broadened to include those whose voices may be strong, such as critical nongovernment organisations (NGOs), and those whose voices may be weak, such as those affected but who have little power over decision-making. Engaging with these stakeholders usually means articulating resource policy challenges in non-market terms. Broadly-based stakeholder dialogues must somehow encompass values that are not addressed by most economic or technical frameworks, such as social justice, ecological sustainability, economic equity and cultural diversity (Howitt, 2001). This has been one of the key challenges for multistakeholder processes designed to evaluate, establish or govern voluntary industry initiatives, such as the Mining Certification Evaluation Project (Solomon et al., 2006) or the Cyanide Code (ICMI, 2002).5 These initiatives provided forums for negotiating stakeholder expectations for standards and performance. Even for initiatives that are predominantly industry-driven, such as ICMM’s Sustainable Development Framework (ICMM, 2006) and the Minerals Council of Australia’s version ‘Enduring Value’ (MCA, 2006), consultation processes provided some opportunities for feedback in their development. In a more general sense, these quasi-regulatory instruments highlight the increasing importance companies place on corporate reputation as the key driver, while other stakeholders operate from different values and roles, such as social justice, environmental sustainability or Indigenous rights. As part of our investigation into the post-MMSD landscape, we conducted three workshops: one with industry, one with researchers, and a third, a colloquium that involved industry, researchers and a small number of other stakeholders active in this area. The purpose of these workshops was to gather contemporary perspectives on the social dimensions of the mining industry, and discuss current issues and challenges. Forty-three participants 5
http://www.cyanidecode.org/pdf/thecode.pdf
ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
overall contributed to a researchers’ workshop, an industry workshop, and a colloquium which was open to all. Both the researchers and the industry workshops discussed the nature of social research in a mining context. Industry participants understood the social dimensions of mining mainly in terms of relationships between mines and local communities, and the economic impact of the industry as a provider of employment and regional and national prosperity. For research activities, they placed an emphasis on metrics, rigorous baselines, understanding the mine’s social impact and on research to inform company decision making. Industry representatives expressed the sense that management of social issues within companies was ‘10 years behind the environment’, in terms of being embedded within company systems and culture. In general, communities too were seen as something ‘to be managed’. In this context, then, they were concerned that social research—particularly at mine sites—would act as a vehicle for dissent, or interfere in the relationship between the mine and the local community/ies. Researchers in their workshop explored the diversity of approaches offered in the social sciences, experiences and challenges of interdisciplinarity, and more generally, the difficulties of taking a critical approach in a corporate setting where ‘critical’ is often understood as a critique. There was a belief from researchers that their work was not well understood and there were often expectations that they would or should ‘take sides’; social researchers on mine sites often found themselves in an ambiguous position and experienced hostility at times. Some saw a tendency, even among researchers, to see ‘mining’ and ‘community’ as monolithic, masking their internal and relative diversity. They identified a lack of consensus on what companies need from social research, how it is used and who owns it, and saw companies’ desire for toolbox or one-size-fits-all type solutions as problematic. Social researchers at the workshop identified a range of broad thematic issues that they saw as falling within the social dimensions of mining, including human rights, gender, power, trust, governance, class and capitalist enterprises. The third workshop, a colloquium open to a range of stakeholders, used briefs on recent and in-progress research to stimulate discussion of current and emerging issues. Key themes that emerged at the colloquium were gender and diversity, workplace culture and arrangements, the role of government in mining regions, and a lack of integration and/or long-term approach to the social dimensions of mining projects. Participants were alert to the effects of the current mining boom, which include rising housing prices in mining regions and commuter cities; ‘soaking up’ of labour from alternative industries; and a perception that government has abrogated its responsibilities for service provision in mining regions. Gender emerged as a strong theme in the colloquium, with industry representatives interested in attracting and retaining women employees, while social researchers focused on the impacts of workforce arrangements such as fly-in fly-out, remoteness and
145
isolation and work-life balance upon women as employees or as part of families with a mine worker. There was a concern that while good social research on issues such as community engagement has been carried out over the last decade, implementation on the ground is far less developed. There was also concern that the most prominent social research activity, Social Impact Assessment, takes place at the start of a project with little or no ongoing monitoring or evaluation of actual impacts and their management during the project’s operating life or closure. Overall, all three workshops noted that investment in social research and operational practice was below what may be necessary to meet the industry’s challenges. In a more general sense, participants confirmed a diversity of perspectives on the social dimensions of mining, in terms of conceptualisation of issues, understanding of research approaches and identification of priorities. The most difficult problems for enabling good social research seem to be a general suspicion from industry of the impact of researchers on sites, a lack of integration of the social dimensions with company decision-making, and the tendency to see social research as an up-front hurdle to development approval or only in terms of a ‘social licence to operate’. Emerging challenges—research, policy and practice gaps The mining industry is essentially built on exploitation of resources. Usually these are understood as physical entities, the extent and availability of which are established by scientific means. However resources are more completely understood in terms of functions and relationships. In this broader interpretation, resources are simultaneously physical, economic and cultural (Howitt, 2001, p. 4). When taking this perspective, it becomes clear that different groups and societies see ‘resources’ differently. In the Australian context, this is most notable at the interface between resource-based development and Indigenous peoples, but also communities for whom mineral resource extraction is not a priority activity. It is in these situations, where the relative values stakeholders place on resources, or perhaps more accurately overlapping ‘resources’—such as cultural heritage, ecological values, identified mineral resources, agricultural activities, social cohesion—are competing. Unfortunately, it appears that, at least to date, these situations where competing values lead to conflict have had the most difficulty attracting support for social research. While investment in social science research is generally low, certainly when compared to the investment in technology R&D, controversial or conflictual issues in particular have difficulty attracting research funding. A second issue is that the perception that a company’s social context is commercial-in-confidence has meant little collaboration between companies in regional studies, which might allow more generalisable conclusions. It has also meant that singlestudy or single-site research funded by companies is often
ARTICLE IN PRESS 146
F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
not made publicly available for the use of other companies, researchers and stakeholders such as regional government. Our analysis of the literature review and the workshop discussions highlighted specific topics, which represent research and practice gaps. These include: 1. Social performance: including independent monitoring on the actual performance and impacts relative to initial social impact assessments and policy commitments; the relationship, if any, between corporate social performance and company size and/or management approach; and the barriers, constraints and enabling features to company capacity to implement higher-order social policies, such as human rights and community development. 2. Mine site functional roles: including experiences, perspectives, work, and careers of community relations practitioners in mining companies (Kemp, 2005); the perspectives, capabilities and experiences of mine site managers in the social dimensions; and identification of industry needs for social competencies and future training and education (CSRM, 2006). 3. Industry work and working conditions: including labour supply and demand and impacts on other industries; the nature of shift-work and fly-in fly-out arrangements, and their impacts on occupational health and safety, family and community life, and recruitment and retention (Davis, 2001); the role of older workers in the industry in the context of an aging population demographic; and the convergence of ICT technologies and the mining industry. 4. Indigenous employment and agreement making: including the degree of divergence and convergence between Indigenous and developer perspectives (O’Faircheallaigh, 2004; Langton et al., 2004); more knowledge of environmental provisions of negotiated agreements, and their efficacy in enhancing Indigenous participation (O’Faircheallaigh and Corbett, 2005; Langton et al., 2006); and the demographic capacity for Aboriginal people to fulfil company-set Indigenous labour targets, as well as the implications of significant proportions of Aboriginal young people employed in the resources sector (Lawson, 2005). 5. Women and the mining industry: including women as employees, with issues such as recruitment and retention, perspectives and experiences, attitudes of coworkers, company structures, cultures and career paths, and work-life balance (Stutsel, 2006); and women as partners, with issues such as partnering a mine worker, family responsibilities, life in small and/or remote communities, and frequent relocation (Rhodes, 2003, 2005). 6. Public participatory processes: including greater clarity concerning the roles and power of participants in public engagement and decision making processes (Cheney et al., 2002); and the emerging issue of free, prior and informed consent—its relationship with emerging
human rights standards relating to Indigenous peoples, how to determine consent; how to maintain consent over long time frames and potentially generations (Macintyre, 2004). 7. Community and regional development: including the relative roles and responsibilities of government and mining companies in community and regional development; more generally, how to create a more integrated/ collaborative approach between government, industry, community and researchers; knowledge of specific regional development issues such as the impact of the resources boom on other activities in regions, on social cohesion, on infrastructure and the long-term legacy of mining activities and closure. In considering gaps from the workshops and literature as a whole, two important theoretical concepts emerged— the meanings and implications of time and place, particularly for the mining industry because of the geographically constrained and capital-intensive nature of its operations.6 Time concepts relate to society and culture. In capitalist societies, time is a commodity to be bought and sold. Speed, efficiency and reliability of production are part of what makes companies competitive and new technologies are sought and applied to these ends. The current boom in demand for mineral resources has generated further pressures to increase the pace, scale, and rate of development, or more precisely, to exploit resources before prices drop. ‘‘Time is money’’ is the constant pressure, and in the mining industry this is most readily evident in the management and arrangement of labour time such as long shifts and rostered time on site. Working arrangements such as FIFO, long rosters and working hours and roundthe-clock shifts are used to cover 24-h operation, and relatively high wages attempt to address the challenges of attracting and retaining labour under these conditions and often in remote locations. Meanwhile, the timeconsuming nature of approvals processes, negotiations with traditional owners and community engagement activities, sits uneasily within this ‘time-squeeze’. Increasingly, research is being carried out into the effects of time pressures for mining employees and their families and communities. Time and place are concepts highly relevant to Aboriginal social norms and values. Aboriginal Australians place great emphasis on the meaning of place and ‘country’ in their lives. Traditional concepts of place, which still operate, view land or country as a responsibility that requires care. Under capitalist logic, land and the concept of place have to do with exclusive proprietorship. Thus ‘ownership’ is understood as the right to do with the land as one pleases within the laws of the day—like time, it is a commodity, and can therefore be bought, sold, dug up, and 6
The authors are grateful to Bev Thiele, Murdoch University, for introducing the issue of time and ‘time-squeeze’ to the discussion at the Perth colloquium.
ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
generally capitalised on. In short, the value of place for capitalist enterprises such as mining companies is commercial, whereas for Aborigines the value may be both economic and cultural, and for some Aborigines it will be mainly the latter. Non-Aboriginal people, too, often hold non-economic values, such as environmental, cultural or historical significance, for particular places. Like time, these values can sit uneasily against an economic frame for place. As theoretical constructs, time and place are highly relevant backdrops to social research activities, in terms of understanding the divergent interpretations of these. In summary, a wide range of specific topics is likely to produce insights that would be of benefit to companies, communities and governments, and represents opportunities for further research. Labour themes—working conditions, functional roles, employment of women and Indigenous people—appear to be gathering increasing attention from industry and researchers, particularly in the context of a ‘skills shortage’ for the mining industry in Australia fuelled by the continuing resources boom. The gap analysis also highlighted some general concerns about support for and approaches to social sciences in the sector, in particular sites or studies that may be controversial or deemed commercial-in-confidence. There are certainly practical difficulties associated with developing and funding larger collaborative initiatives, managing multi-stakeholder processes, and creating genuine interdisciplinary approaches. However, the general underinvestment in social research could also be attributed to an environment that does not prioritise social issues until they directly impact the business in some negative way. By this time, the politicisation of issues makes the social research environment much more complex. The development of understanding of relative roles and expectations between social researchers and companies remains a significant challenge. Conclusions The breadth and complexity of the social dimensions of mining in Australia call for research, policy and practice approaches that are both integrated and interdisciplinary. However this is not an insignificant challenge. Working across and between disciplines has been difficult, and integrating social perspectives and considerations into areas and processes from which they have historically been excluded requires no less than broad cultural change across the industry. The review described in this paper illustrates the breadth of issues that can be understood as part of the social dimensions of mining in Australia, and show that the social is much more than the idea of ‘community’ (which is often used as shorthand or interchangeably). Research that focused on clearly defined groups, such as employees and employment, Aboriginal and local communities, was more active and sophisticated in terms of volume and of being able to build on a longer history of scholarship or practice. However, many of the case studies reviewed had a
147
unique context in terms of particular places, situations and/or groups, placing limitations and caveats on overgeneralising findings. Relatively few comparative studies have been carried out to date and more are needed in order to find commonalities and differences. The field is a dynamic one. While most of the categories identified through the literature were present to some degree in 2002, many of the issues have developed either in terms of new drivers, such as the resources boom, new evidence, such as research into agreement making, and/or new experiences, such as emerging forms of industry selfregulation. Perhaps in response to these, industry has recently embarked on discussions of developing formal accredited qualifications for practitioners in the community relations sector. More generally, the increasing importance of sustainable development ideas to the industry has provided a framework for raising the perceived importance of mining’s social dimensions. It is anticipated that the next 5 years will show as much change conceptually, and also in practice and performance, as the last five. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Dr. Julie Finlayson, Professor Daniela Stehlik, and Professor David Brereton for their contribution as members of the Steering Group to the research project. We also thank the presenters, participants and those who helped organise the workshops. References Altman, J., 2007. Mining, remote Indigenous communities and the state: contestations over development futures. Seminar presented 16 May 2007, CAEPR, ANU, Canberra. /http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/ Publications/topical/Altman_Mining.pdf-1333k-17May2007S. /http:// www.anu.edu.au/caepr/new.phpS. Ballard, C., Banks, G., 2003. Resource wars: the anthropology of mining. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 32, 297–313. Beach, R., Brereton, D., Cliff, D., 2003. Workforce Turnover in FIFO Mining Operations in Australia: An Exploratory Study. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Brereton, D., 2003. Self-regulation of environmental and social performance in the Australian minerals industry. Environ. Plan. Law J. 20 (1), 1–14. Brereton, D., 2006. Cumulative Impacts of Coal Mining—a Muswellbrook Focus. CSRM, Brisbane /http://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/index. html?page ¼ 37494&pid ¼ 5693S. Brundtland, G., 1987. Our Common Future. /http://www.ace.mmu. ac.uk/esd/Action/Brundtland_Report.htmlS. Cheney, H., Lovel, R., Solomon, F., 2001. I’m not anti-mining, buty: community perspectives of mining in Victoria. CSIRO Minerals Report DMR-1642, Melbourne. Cheney, H., Lovel, R., Solomon, F., 2002. People, power and participation: A Study of Mining-Community Relationships. MMSD Research Paper. /http://www.icmm.com/library_pub_detail.php?rcd=91S. CMEWA (Chamber of Minerals and Energy Western Australia), 2005. Fly-in Fly-out: A Sustainability Perspective. CMEWA, Perth. Colley, P., 2003. Mineworkers: partner or production factor? Paper presented at Minerals Council of Australia Sustainable Development Conference, November 10–14, 2003, Brisbane.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 148
F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149
Colley, P., 2005. A career and a life in mining: what needs to be done. In: Proceedings of the Minerals Council of Australia Sustainable Development Conference, 31 October–4 November 2005, Alice Springs. Crooke, P., Harvey, B., Langton, M., 2006. Implementing and monitoring Indigenous land use agreements in the minerals industry: an Australian case study: the Western cape communities co-existence agreement. In: Langton, M., Mazel, O., Palmer, L., Shain, K., Tehan, M. (Eds.), Settling with Indigenous People: Case Studies in Land use Agreement Making in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Federation Press, Annandale, NSW. CSRM (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining) and Banarra Sustainability and Social Assurance, 2006. Voluntary Reporting and Accounting of Social Performance in the Mining Sector: State of Practice Voluntary Report Findings. CSRM, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Davis, L., 2001. The social responsibility of corporations. J. Corporate Citizenship 23 (8) Winter. Ellem, B., 2006. Scaling labour. Work Employ. Soc. 20 (2), 369–387. Gray, J., 2006. Minerals and energy: workplace human rights. Paper presented at the Minerals Council of Australia Sustainable Development Conference, October 23–27, Perth, Western Australia. Guerin, T., 2006. A survey of sustainable development initiatives in the Australian mining and minerals industry. Miner. Energy 20 (3–4), 11–44. Harvey, B., Nish, S., 2005. Rio Tinto and Indigenous community agreement making in Australia. J. Energy Natural Resource Law 23 (4), 490–510. Heiler, K., 2002. The Struggle for Time: A Review of Extended Shifts in the Tasmanian Mining Industry. Stage one of the Review of Safety in the Tasmanian Mining Industry. ACCIRT, University of Sydney /http://www.wst.tas.gov.au/node/wststrugglef.htmS. Heiler, K., Pickersgill, R., Briggs, C., 2000. Working time arrangements in the Australian mining industry. Report of International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous People. Routledge, London and New York. Hrouda, L., Pearce, D., 2005. An external perspective on mining and regional development: ensuring companies and governments live up to their obligations to partner sustainable regional development. Paper presented at Minerals Council of Australia Sustainable Development Conference, 31 October–4 November, Alice Springs. Hunter, B., Hawke, A., 2000. A comparative analysis of the industrial relations experiences of Indigenous and other Australian workers. Discussion Paper DU120.E2 D57 no. 201, CAEPR, Canberra. ICMI, 2002. International cyanide management code for the manufacture, transport and use of cyanide in the production of gold. International Cyanide Management Institute (ICMI). /http://www.cyanidecode. orgS. ICMM, 2004. Sustainable Development Framework. International Council on Mining and Metals, London. /http://www.icmm.com/sd_ framework.phpS. ICMM, 2006. Sustainable Development Framework. International Council on Mining and Metals, London. /http://www.icmm.com/sd_ framework.phpS. IRMA, 2006. Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, Vancouver, Canada. /http://www.responsiblemining.net/S. Joyce, S., Macfarlane, M., 2002. Social impact assessment in the mining industry: current situation and future directions. MMSD Report No. 46, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and World Business Council (WBC) for Sustainable Development, London. Kemp, D., 2005. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Community Relations Work in the Minerals Industry, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland. Langton, M., Palmer, L., 2003. Modern agreement making and Indigenous people in Australia: issues and trends. Aust. Indigenous Law Rep. 8 (1) /http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/2003S.
Langton, M., Mazel, O., Palmer, L., Shain, K., Tehan, M., 2004. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Langton, M., Mazel, O., Palmer, L., Shain, K., Tehan, M., 2006. Federation Press, Annandale, NSW. Lawrence, R., 2005. Governing Warlpiri subjects: Indigenous employment in the central Australian mining industry. Geograph. Res. 43 (1), 40–48. Lawson, W., Where have all the young people gone? Paper presented at Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) Sustainable Development Conference October 31–November 4, Alice Springs, Australia. Macintyre, M., 2004. Informed Consent and Mining Projects: Some Problems and a Few Tentative Solutions. Symposium Hosted by the School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies, the University of Melbourne. University of Melbourne. Maher, T., 2006. Cooperation is vital. In: Proceedings of NSW Minerals Industry Occupational Health and Safety Conference, Sydney. MCA, 2004a. Enduring Value—the Australian Minerals Industry Framework for Sustainable Development: Summary Booklet. Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Canberra /http://www.minerals.org. au/enduringvalue/resources/summary_bookletS. MCA, 2004b. Enduring Value—the Australian Minerals Industry Framework for Sustainable Development: Implementation Guidance. Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Canberra /http://www.minerals. org.au/enduringvalue/resources/implementation_guidanceS. MCA, 2006. /http://www.minerals.org.au/enduringvalueS. McAllister, J., 2006. The Central Queensland Sapphire Mining Community: A case of common property and cultural capital. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability. Hanoi, Vietnam. McCann, D., 2005. Working Time Laws: a Global Perspective: Findings From the ILO’s Conditions of Work and Employment Database. International Labour Organisation, Geneva. Me´lanie, J., Penney, K., Austin, A., Rumley, C., 2006. Minerals sector: sustainable development in the APEC region. ABARE Research Report 06.8. Prepared for the Australian Government Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR), Canberra. MMSD Project, 2002. Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development: the Report of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project. Earthscan for International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and World Business Council (WBC), London. NCAV, 2005. Prospecting For Skills: The Current and Future Skill Needs in the Minerals Industry. National Centre for Vocational Education (NCAV), Adelaide. Neate, G., 2004. Agreement making and the Native Title Act. In: Langton, M., Mazel, O., Palmer, L., Shain, K., Tehan, M. (Eds.), Honour Among Nations? Treaties and Agreements with Indigenous Peoples. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Neil, C., Tykkla¨inen, M., Bradbury, J., 1992. Coping with Closure: An International Comparison of Mine Town Experiences. Routledge, London. O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2004. Evaluating agreements between indigenous peoples and resource developers. In: Langton, M., Palmer, L., Tehan, M., Shain, K. (Eds.), Honour among Nations: Treaties and Agreements with Indigenous Peoples. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2006. Aborigines, mining companies and the state in contemporary Australia: a new political economy or business as Usual? Aust. J. Political Sci. 41 (1), 1–22. O’Faircheallaigh, C., Corbett, T., 2005. Indigenous participation in environmental management of mining projects: the role of negotiated agreements. Environ. Politics 14 (5), 629–647. Rhodes, L., 2003. Partners on the periphery: personal ambiguity and unpaid labour in the Australian mining industry. Paper in: McWilliam, K., Stephenson, P., Thompson, G. (Eds.), Voicing Dissent, [online] JAS, Australia’s Public Intellectual forum, 76, 2003, 149–158, 249–250. Rhodes, L., 2005. Two for the Price of One: The Lives of Mining Wives. API Network, Perth.
ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Solomon et al. / Resources Policy 33 (2008) 142–149 Rolfe, J., Ivanova, G. Lockie, S., 2006. Assessing the social and economic impacts of coal mining on communities in the Bowen Basin: summary and recommendations. Research Report No. 11, March 2006, ACARP and Central Queensland University. Schiavi, P., Solomon F.L., forthcoming Fall 2007. Voluntary initiatives in the mining industry: do they work? In: Ali, S., O’Faircheallaigh, C. (Eds.), Greener Management International, special edition on mining. Solomon, F., Schiavi, P., Horowitz, L., Rouse, A., Rae, M., 2006. The Mining Certification Evaluation Project (MCEP) Final Report. Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Australia, Melbourne. Stutsel, M., 2006. Women breaking through in the minerals industry. Address to the 18th Women, Management and Employment Relations Conference, Sydney, Australia, 27 July 2006. Taylor, J., 2006. Population and diversity: policy implications of emerging indigenous demographic trends. Discussion Paper 283, Centre Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Australian National University, Canberra.
149
Tiplady, T., Barclay, M.A., 2007. Indigenous Employment in the Australian Minerals Industry. CSRM, University of Queensland /http://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/docs/CSRM%20Report_FINAL%20TO% 20PRINT_singles.pdfS. Trebeck, K., 2004. Companies, complexity and CSR: community engagement in the mining industry. Australian Chief Executive, pp. 48–49. Trigger, D., 2003. Mining Projects in Remote Aboriginal Australia: Sites for the Articulation and Contesting of Economic and Cultural Futures. Proceedings of Mining Frontiers: Social Conflict, Property Relations and Cultural Change in Emerging Boom Regions. Max Planck Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Leipzig, Germany, 16–18 June, 2003. Yongvanich, K., Guthrie, J., 2004. The Australian mining industry’s sustainability reporting: an examination of legitimation strategies. Working Papers in Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management: NSW.