冗余、层次和困境:锂矿开采的私人标准与公共法规比较

IF 3.6 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Teresa Kramarz , Maria Victoria Arias Mahiques , Tomas Allan , Melisa Escosteguy , Donald Kingsbury , Lucas Seghezzo
{"title":"冗余、层次和困境:锂矿开采的私人标准与公共法规比较","authors":"Teresa Kramarz ,&nbsp;Maria Victoria Arias Mahiques ,&nbsp;Tomas Allan ,&nbsp;Melisa Escosteguy ,&nbsp;Donald Kingsbury ,&nbsp;Lucas Seghezzo","doi":"10.1016/j.exis.2024.101479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>An expanding array of transnational Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards has emerged to mitigate harms across critical minerals supply chains. This proliferation of international, private governance standards is interacting with domestic, public regulations guiding mining activity in resource rich states. When private and public requirements duplicate, overlap, or diverge they can create inconsistent processes, administrative burden, and dilemmas through a patchwork of basic components in supply chain management (Cashore et al., 2021). Applying a typology of interactions between private authority and public policy to lithium mining in Argentina, we argue that private/public rules are loosely complementary in some respects and independently coexisting in others. Comparing a rigorous private standard, the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), to public regulations we find that both include similar provisions for environmental protection and public participation . IRMA provides better protections for indigenous peoples’ participation, though it lacks significant enforcement mechanisms. Questions remain over the private sector's ability to guarantee – in practice – the rights of indigenous and other affected communities, or to protect ecosystems in the rush for critical minerals. Resulting governance dilemmas illustrate an increasingly crowded regulatory space in lithium mining that indiscriminately presumes public regulatory gaps, while it privatizes accountability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47848,"journal":{"name":"Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal","volume":"18 ","pages":"Article 101479"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214790X24000777/pdfft?md5=86af3745734d84c450f611a5fc8ddc2f&pid=1-s2.0-S2214790X24000777-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redundancies, layers, and dilemmas: Comparing private standards and public regulations in lithium mining\",\"authors\":\"Teresa Kramarz ,&nbsp;Maria Victoria Arias Mahiques ,&nbsp;Tomas Allan ,&nbsp;Melisa Escosteguy ,&nbsp;Donald Kingsbury ,&nbsp;Lucas Seghezzo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.exis.2024.101479\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>An expanding array of transnational Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards has emerged to mitigate harms across critical minerals supply chains. This proliferation of international, private governance standards is interacting with domestic, public regulations guiding mining activity in resource rich states. When private and public requirements duplicate, overlap, or diverge they can create inconsistent processes, administrative burden, and dilemmas through a patchwork of basic components in supply chain management (Cashore et al., 2021). Applying a typology of interactions between private authority and public policy to lithium mining in Argentina, we argue that private/public rules are loosely complementary in some respects and independently coexisting in others. Comparing a rigorous private standard, the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), to public regulations we find that both include similar provisions for environmental protection and public participation . IRMA provides better protections for indigenous peoples’ participation, though it lacks significant enforcement mechanisms. Questions remain over the private sector's ability to guarantee – in practice – the rights of indigenous and other affected communities, or to protect ecosystems in the rush for critical minerals. Resulting governance dilemmas illustrate an increasingly crowded regulatory space in lithium mining that indiscriminately presumes public regulatory gaps, while it privatizes accountability.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101479\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214790X24000777/pdfft?md5=86af3745734d84c450f611a5fc8ddc2f&pid=1-s2.0-S2214790X24000777-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214790X24000777\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214790X24000777","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为减轻关键矿产供应链的危害,跨国环境、社会和治理(ESG)标准不断涌现。在资源丰富的国家,国际、私人治理标准与指导采矿活动的国内公共法规相互作用。当私人和公共要求重复、重叠或分歧时,它们会造成不一致的流程、行政负担,并通过供应链管理的基本组成部分的拼凑造成两难境地(Cashore 等人,2021 年)。通过对阿根廷锂矿开采中私人权力与公共政策之间互动的类型分析,我们认为私人/公共规则在某些方面是松散互补的,而在另一些方面则是独立共存的。将严格的私人标准--"负责任采矿保证倡议"(IRMA)与公共法规进行比较,我们发现两者都包含类似的环境保护和公众参与条款。尽管 IRMA 缺乏重要的执行机制,但它为原住民的参与提供了更好的保护。私营部门在实践中是否有能力保障原住民和其他受影响社区的权利,或在争夺重要矿产的过程中是否有能力保护生态系统,这些问题依然存在。由此产生的治理困境表明,锂矿开采的监管空间日益拥挤,不加区分地假定存在公共监管漏洞,同时将问责制私有化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Redundancies, layers, and dilemmas: Comparing private standards and public regulations in lithium mining

An expanding array of transnational Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards has emerged to mitigate harms across critical minerals supply chains. This proliferation of international, private governance standards is interacting with domestic, public regulations guiding mining activity in resource rich states. When private and public requirements duplicate, overlap, or diverge they can create inconsistent processes, administrative burden, and dilemmas through a patchwork of basic components in supply chain management (Cashore et al., 2021). Applying a typology of interactions between private authority and public policy to lithium mining in Argentina, we argue that private/public rules are loosely complementary in some respects and independently coexisting in others. Comparing a rigorous private standard, the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), to public regulations we find that both include similar provisions for environmental protection and public participation . IRMA provides better protections for indigenous peoples’ participation, though it lacks significant enforcement mechanisms. Questions remain over the private sector's ability to guarantee – in practice – the rights of indigenous and other affected communities, or to protect ecosystems in the rush for critical minerals. Resulting governance dilemmas illustrate an increasingly crowded regulatory space in lithium mining that indiscriminately presumes public regulatory gaps, while it privatizes accountability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
19.40%
发文量
135
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信