绿色 "采掘标准化:关键矿产领域的中西方环境、社会和治理工具

IF 3.6 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal Pub Date : 2024-08-24 DOI:10.1016/j.exis.2024.101516
Raphael Deberdt , Jessica DiCarlo , Hyeyoon Park
{"title":"绿色 \"采掘标准化:关键矿产领域的中西方环境、社会和治理工具","authors":"Raphael Deberdt ,&nbsp;Jessica DiCarlo ,&nbsp;Hyeyoon Park","doi":"10.1016/j.exis.2024.101516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As societies attempt to transition to low-carbon energy and reduce fossil fuel dependencies, mineral extractivism is reaching new heights globally. This trend is accompanied by a surge of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) standards used to justify a perceived <em>just</em> transition. Through an analysis of 13 widely used international instruments and the ways mining companies adopt them, this article develops a comparative examination of Western and Chinese ESG practices, with a focus on guidelines and standards aimed at mitigating the socio-environmental impacts of extractivism. Despite conventional portrayals of Western and Chinese governance standards as disparate or in competition, we find their standards evolve in tandem and conversation in the context of the rush for critical minerals, underscoring the need to move beyond a Western-Chinese binary. This research also challenges the notion of China attempting to set global standards. Chinese companies increasingly embrace ESG principles due to reputational risks, national standardization efforts, and international partnerships. They, however, focus more on downstream stakeholders, while Western counterparts lean towards upstream considerations. Notably, guidelines are employed similarly by Western and Chinese companies, albeit influenced by geographical, material, and political considerations. We conclude with future directions for critical and social science research on climate-related extraction.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47848,"journal":{"name":"Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal","volume":"19 ","pages":"Article 101516"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standardizing “green” extractivism: Chinese & Western environmental, social, and governance instruments in the critical mineral sector\",\"authors\":\"Raphael Deberdt ,&nbsp;Jessica DiCarlo ,&nbsp;Hyeyoon Park\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.exis.2024.101516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>As societies attempt to transition to low-carbon energy and reduce fossil fuel dependencies, mineral extractivism is reaching new heights globally. This trend is accompanied by a surge of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) standards used to justify a perceived <em>just</em> transition. Through an analysis of 13 widely used international instruments and the ways mining companies adopt them, this article develops a comparative examination of Western and Chinese ESG practices, with a focus on guidelines and standards aimed at mitigating the socio-environmental impacts of extractivism. Despite conventional portrayals of Western and Chinese governance standards as disparate or in competition, we find their standards evolve in tandem and conversation in the context of the rush for critical minerals, underscoring the need to move beyond a Western-Chinese binary. This research also challenges the notion of China attempting to set global standards. Chinese companies increasingly embrace ESG principles due to reputational risks, national standardization efforts, and international partnerships. They, however, focus more on downstream stakeholders, while Western counterparts lean towards upstream considerations. Notably, guidelines are employed similarly by Western and Chinese companies, albeit influenced by geographical, material, and political considerations. We conclude with future directions for critical and social science research on climate-related extraction.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101516\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"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/S2214790X24001126\",\"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/S2214790X24001126","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

随着社会试图向低碳能源过渡并减少对化石燃料的依赖,全球范围内的矿产开采正在达到新的高度。伴随着这一趋势的是环境、社会和治理(ESG)标准的激增,这些标准被用来证明所谓的公正过渡是合理的。本文通过分析 13 项广泛使用的国际文书以及矿业公司采用这些文书的方式,对西方和中国的环境、社会和治理实践进行了比较研究,重点关注旨在减轻采掘业对社会环境影响的准则和标准。尽管传统观点认为中西方的治理标准存在差异或竞争,但我们发现,在争夺关键矿产的背景下,中西方的标准是同步发展和对话的,这强调了超越中西方二元论的必要性。这项研究还对中国试图制定全球标准的观点提出了质疑。由于声誉风险、国家标准化努力和国际合作伙伴关系,中国公司越来越多地接受环境、社会和公司治理原则。不过,它们更关注下游利益相关者,而西方同行则更倾向于上游考虑。值得注意的是,尽管受到地理、物质和政治因素的影响,但中西方公司对指导方针的采用情况类似。最后,我们提出了关于气候相关采掘的关键性社会科学研究的未来方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Standardizing “green” extractivism: Chinese & Western environmental, social, and governance instruments in the critical mineral sector

As societies attempt to transition to low-carbon energy and reduce fossil fuel dependencies, mineral extractivism is reaching new heights globally. This trend is accompanied by a surge of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) standards used to justify a perceived just transition. Through an analysis of 13 widely used international instruments and the ways mining companies adopt them, this article develops a comparative examination of Western and Chinese ESG practices, with a focus on guidelines and standards aimed at mitigating the socio-environmental impacts of extractivism. Despite conventional portrayals of Western and Chinese governance standards as disparate or in competition, we find their standards evolve in tandem and conversation in the context of the rush for critical minerals, underscoring the need to move beyond a Western-Chinese binary. This research also challenges the notion of China attempting to set global standards. Chinese companies increasingly embrace ESG principles due to reputational risks, national standardization efforts, and international partnerships. They, however, focus more on downstream stakeholders, while Western counterparts lean towards upstream considerations. Notably, guidelines are employed similarly by Western and Chinese companies, albeit influenced by geographical, material, and political considerations. We conclude with future directions for critical and social science research on climate-related extraction.

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
期刊最新文献
Child labor in artisanal and small-scale mining: Implications for health, development and poverty Evolving corporate social responsibility practices and their impact on social conflict Mining in Africa: Are local communities paying the price of the global energy transition? Power and community engagement: Developmental impact of community development agreement in Kono diamond mining areas, Sierra Leone Nationalist enclaves: Industrialising the critical mineral boom in Indonesia
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1