是时候推出全球矿业倡议2.0了吗

Michael Tost, V. Chandurkar, M. Hitch, P. Moser, Susanne Feiel
{"title":"是时候推出全球矿业倡议2.0了吗","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

从1998年到2002年,世界领先的矿业和金属公司制定了全球矿业倡议(GMI),以了解其行业在向可持续发展过渡中的作用,并确保其对可持续发展(SD)的长期贡献。从那时起,该行业取得了长足的进步:例如,操作安全和健康得到了显著改善,环境管理系统和影响评估已成为规范,社区关系已建立,许多矿业公司每年报告其对可持续发展的贡献,国际矿业和金属理事会(ICMM)已采纳了GMI作为行业协会的建议。然而,自全球可持续发展指数以来,可持续发展的概念已经从一个相当笼统和松散的定义(“弱可持续性”)演变为一个基于地球边界的绝对和严格的可持续性定义(“强可持续性”)。同样,企业社会责任(CSR)等其他概念也在演变,甚至偏离了最初的意图。本文介绍了一篇文献综述的结果,该综述着眼于这种转变从科学辩论到成为主流的程度。此外,通过定性比较分析,它探讨了大型矿业公司目前的努力是否仍然足够,或者该行业是否再次面临落后于社会期望的风险,因此应该再次聚集在一起-为GMI 2.0 -以更新其方法。我们的结论是,采矿业虽然处于“弱可持续性”地位,在气候变化和自然资本考虑方面落后于同行群体,但与可持续发展目标所表达的当前社会期望保持一致,因此目前不需要GMI 2.0。
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
Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0
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.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is it time for a Global Mining Initiative 2.0 Production Scheduling of Open Pit Metal Mine with Ecological Cost Data Management Best Practices of Complex Socio-technical Systems: A Review of U.S. Mining Safety and Health Management An Expert System for Metal Resources Exploration and Mining Feasibility Evaluation Considerations Regarding Sustainable Development in the Vietnamese Coal Mining Industry
×
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