Michael Tost, V. Chandurkar, M. Hitch, P. Moser, Susanne Feiel
{"title":"Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0","authors":"Michael Tost, V. Chandurkar, M. Hitch, P. Moser, Susanne Feiel","doi":"10.15273/GREE.2017.02.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From 1998-2002 the world's leading mining and metals companies developed the Global Mining Initiative (GMI) to understand their industry's role in the transition to sustainable development and to ensure its long-term contribution to sustainable development (SD). Since then, the industry has come a long way: For example, operational safety and health have improved significantly, environmental management systems and impact assessments have become the norm, community relations have been established, many mining companies report annually on their contributions to SD and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) has taken on the recommendations of the GMI as an industry association. However, since the GMI the concept of sustainable development has been evolving from a rather generic and loose definition (“weak sustainability”), to an absolute and strict definition of sustainability, based on the boundaries of our planet (“strong sustainability”). Similarly, other concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) have evolved and even deviated from their initial intentions. This paper presents results from a literature review looking at how far this transition has moved from a scientific debate towards becoming mainstream. Furthermore, it explores, by using qualitative comparison analysis, if the current efforts of the large mining companies are still sufficient or if the industry is again at risk of falling behind societal expectations and hence should once again come together - for a GMI 2.0 - in order to update its approach. We conclude that the mining industry, whilst in a “weak sustainability” position and behind the peer group on climate change and natural capital considerations, is aligned with current societal expectations, expressed through the Sustainable Development Goals, and therefore there is no need for a GMI 2.0 at present.","PeriodicalId":21067,"journal":{"name":"Resources Environment & Engineering","volume":"24 1","pages":"41-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Environment & Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1087","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15273/GREE.2017.02.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
From 1998-2002 the world's leading mining and metals companies developed the Global Mining Initiative (GMI) to understand their industry's role in the transition to sustainable development and to ensure its long-term contribution to sustainable development (SD). Since then, the industry has come a long way: For example, operational safety and health have improved significantly, environmental management systems and impact assessments have become the norm, community relations have been established, many mining companies report annually on their contributions to SD and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) has taken on the recommendations of the GMI as an industry association. However, since the GMI the concept of sustainable development has been evolving from a rather generic and loose definition (“weak sustainability”), to an absolute and strict definition of sustainability, based on the boundaries of our planet (“strong sustainability”). Similarly, other concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) have evolved and even deviated from their initial intentions. This paper presents results from a literature review looking at how far this transition has moved from a scientific debate towards becoming mainstream. Furthermore, it explores, by using qualitative comparison analysis, if the current efforts of the large mining companies are still sufficient or if the industry is again at risk of falling behind societal expectations and hence should once again come together - for a GMI 2.0 - in order to update its approach. We conclude that the mining industry, whilst in a “weak sustainability” position and behind the peer group on climate change and natural capital considerations, is aligned with current societal expectations, expressed through the Sustainable Development Goals, and therefore there is no need for a GMI 2.0 at present.