Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0?

Publikationen: Beitrag in Buch/Bericht/KonferenzbandBeitrag in Konferenzband

Standard

Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0? / Tost, Michael; Chandurkar, Vighnesh; Hitch, Michael et al.
Mineral Exploitation and Sustainability - Proceedings of SDIMI 2017. Band Vol2 2017. S. 41-47 (Geo-Resources Environment and Engineering; Band Vol2).

Publikationen: Beitrag in Buch/Bericht/KonferenzbandBeitrag in Konferenzband

Harvard

Tost, M, Chandurkar, V, Hitch, M, Moser, P & Feiel, S 2017, Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0? in Mineral Exploitation and Sustainability - Proceedings of SDIMI 2017. Bd. Vol2, Geo-Resources Environment and Engineering, Bd. Vol2, S. 41-47, SDIMI 2017, Peking, China, 26/06/17. https://doi.org/10.15273/gree.2017.02.008

APA

Tost, M., Chandurkar, V., Hitch, M., Moser, P., & Feiel, S. (2017). Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0? In Mineral Exploitation and Sustainability - Proceedings of SDIMI 2017 (Band Vol2, S. 41-47). (Geo-Resources Environment and Engineering; Band Vol2). https://doi.org/10.15273/gree.2017.02.008

Vancouver

Tost M, Chandurkar V, Hitch M, Moser P, Feiel S. Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0? in Mineral Exploitation and Sustainability - Proceedings of SDIMI 2017. Band Vol2. 2017. S. 41-47. (Geo-Resources Environment and Engineering). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15273/gree.2017.02.008

Author

Tost, Michael ; Chandurkar, Vighnesh ; Hitch, Michael et al. / Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0?. Mineral Exploitation and Sustainability - Proceedings of SDIMI 2017. Band Vol2 2017. S. 41-47 (Geo-Resources Environment and Engineering).

Bibtex - Download

@inproceedings{b18223b78c2343bfa3dd71f2e2588668,
title = "Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0?",
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.",
keywords = "Bergbau, Nachhaltigkeit",
author = "Michael Tost and Vighnesh Chandurkar and Michael Hitch and Peter Moser and Susanne Feiel",
year = "2017",
month = jun,
day = "28",
doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.15273/gree.2017.02.008",
language = "English",
volume = "Vol2",
series = "Geo-Resources Environment and Engineering",
publisher = "Camdemia",
pages = "41--47",
booktitle = "Mineral Exploitation and Sustainability - Proceedings of SDIMI 2017",
note = "SDIMI 2017 ; Conference date: 26-06-2017 Through 28-06-2017",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - GEN

T1 - Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0?

AU - Tost, Michael

AU - Chandurkar, Vighnesh

AU - Hitch, Michael

AU - Moser, Peter

AU - Feiel, Susanne

PY - 2017/6/28

Y1 - 2017/6/28

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Bergbau

KW - Nachhaltigkeit

U2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.15273/gree.2017.02.008

DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.15273/gree.2017.02.008

M3 - Conference contribution

VL - Vol2

T3 - Geo-Resources Environment and Engineering

SP - 41

EP - 47

BT - Mineral Exploitation and Sustainability - Proceedings of SDIMI 2017

T2 - SDIMI 2017

Y2 - 26 June 2017 through 28 June 2017

ER -