Looking Ahead - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 863

So what is the relevance of all this for mining? The answer quite simply is that mining
has always been a visible target for controversy, and hence, for activists of all types. Mines
are spatially i xed, physically obvious and highly visible. They attract interest, controversy
and strong opposition. The immediacy and global reach of the new global communication
phenomena give stakeholders and activists a presence that mining companies and inter-
national mining ventures must deal with. The reactionary and collective power of diverse
voices and the speed of information exchange by hostile or obstructive stakeholders will
before long take on an entirely new dimension. Conventional approaches to compliance
and accountability in all aspects of mining projects will not cope unless the mining indus-
try responds to this challenge.
Take something that all mining ventures must deal with - project impact assessment,
the primary subject matter of this text. While science is commonly used within impact
assessment, in itself impact assessment processes are not science. They are a political pro-
cess. At best, they are a systematic process for society to mediate acceptable levels of change
arising from human action. At worst, they are really a process of negotiating through
compliance trade-offs for what was intended anyway. The issues facing impact assessment
with the global voice of the internet are many. They range from such things as ethical par-
adoxes between individuals and organizations to preferred reading of issues by powerful
organizations with a privileged world purview.
Take something else that all mining ventures probably must deal with at least once dur-
ing mine life - environmental incidents. Until recently, the mining company involved was
among the i rst to be informed of an environmental incident. The response was immediately
directed at investigating the situation and implementing measures to minimize the damage,
including potential damage to the company image. Before the outside world became aware
of the incident, the company had assembled the facts and was well underway in its response,
including possibly the retention of public relations i rms to advise on appropriate responses.
The company remained in control. Now, the situation has changed completely. An employee
or even a passer-by, witnessing an incident, is able to take a digital photograph and transmit
it anywhere in the world, before the operating company is notii ed. Accordingly, the New
York investment community, not to mention NGOs opposed to a project, may become aware
of an environmental incident at the same time or even before local management is informed.
There may be no time to investigate the incident or to devise a considered response before
the world press starts demanding information. In this scenario, unlike previously, the com-
pany is not in control of the agenda. This means that, to be effective, the new breed of com-
pany managers must respond in different ways to their predecessors. An additional skill set
is required; that is to communicate and to respond correctly to a crisis scenario, under pres-
sure and with little if any lead time. Clearly, in this situation, transparency and honesty are
likely to be more effective than obfuscation, 'spin' or denial, and it is no coincidence that this
is the way in which company responses to adverse events are moving.
Another factor in this scenario is that employees of foreign companies operating in
developing countries may i nd that their primary allegiance is to their country rather than
their employer. This may mean - and there have already been instances of this - that an
employee witnessing an environmental incident such as violation of a statutory require-
ment, may transmit evidence of the violation, by email directly to the government regula-
tory authority, without even informing the operating company. Such situations, of course,
are not coni ned to developing countries. 'Whistle blowers' have also been active in the
developed world and in some cases have received legal protection from retaliatory action
from their employers. Clearly, such actions are much more likely in a situation where the
employee does not respect or trust his or her employer. Accordingly, the best protection for
an employer is to earn the trust of its employees through honest and transparent behaviour.

Conventional approaches to
compliance and accountability
in all aspects of mining projects
will not cope unless the mining
industry responds to this
challenge.

Transparency and honesty are
likely to be more effective than
obfuscation, 'spin' or denial.

The best protection for an
employer is to earn the trust of
its employees through honest
and transparent behaviour.