Australia possesses large volumes of valuable mineral and energy commodities. As a nation, we hold some of the world’s largest deposits of commodities like brown coal, zinc, iron ore, gold, silver, copper and lithium. Australia is in the top five producers of most of the world’s key mineral commodities and is the world’s largest exporter of alumina, metallurgical coal, iron ore, and lead2. Australia is also expected to be the world’s largest LNG exporter by 2019, reflecting the large growth in this industry. These volumes translate into a significant contribution to Australia’s economy. In 2011-12, exports by the mining industry accounted for 48.5% of Australia’s total exports, worth $147.4B. In the same period, mining represented 9.6% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), compared to 66.4% for the services sector, 7.4% for manufacturing and 2.4% for the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector. The mining sector directly employs around 158,000 people and is estimated to indirectly employ a further 505,600 people.
Mining has a broad and complex relationship with Australian society. It creates jobs and economic opportunities for many and is an important component of our national economy. Yet, mining also brings challenges for people living alongside the industry and for governments who are charged with managing Australia’s mineral and energy resources on behalf of all its citizens. For example, mining creates job opportunities in communities surrounding mining operations but the use of fly-in/fly-out workforce strategies by many mining companies means that a significant number of people that work in mining live in capital cities. To tease out some of this complexity, we asked participants about the distributive fairness of mining associated benefits, how fairly they felt they were treated in decision making processes regarding the industry, the level of faith they had in our legislative and regulatory frameworks for managing mining, and more broadly, the degree to which they trusted important players in the industry. A key finding was that the Australian public are more accepting of the mining industry in Australia when industry and governments work together to build trust in the industry – holding a social licence to operate is, therefore, the responsibility of governments and industry working together with communities to promote effective, constructive, and mutually beneficial relationships.
Development of Thessaloniki, Greece as a City Break Tourism Destination.Christos Patikas
A consulting report, part of MSc Sustainable Development of International Hellenic University, in collaboration with Municipality of Thessaloniki.
The report attempts to prove that Thessaloniki, Greece can succesfully develop as a city break tourism destination. Based on quantitative and qualitative research the report propose certain strategies towards this target.
Development of Thessaloniki, Greece as a City Break Tourism Destination.Christos Patikas
A consulting report, part of MSc Sustainable Development of International Hellenic University, in collaboration with Municipality of Thessaloniki.
The report attempts to prove that Thessaloniki, Greece can succesfully develop as a city break tourism destination. Based on quantitative and qualitative research the report propose certain strategies towards this target.
With this country presentation, you will be informed about South Africa's Government system, Geography, People, History, Economy, and Attractions. In addition, South Africa's flag meaning, Location, Bordering Countries, Comparisons, Provinces, Industries, Mines, Population, Languages, AIDS facts, Climate, Cousine etc.
Genocidio «High-Tech» en el Congo
Mas de 10 millones de personas han muerto en el Congo desde 1996 a consecuencia de las invasiones y guerras patrocinadas por las corporaciones que desean controlar su riqueza minera, en particular los metales coltan y niobio, utilizados en la producción de teléfonos celulares y electrónica de alta tecnología, además del cobalto, esencial para las industrias nuclear, química, aerospacial y de armas, sin dejar de lado a los tradicionales diamantes, estaño, cobre y oro.
The AODP Global Climate 500 is the world standard for assessing the world’s largest investors on climate-risk management. In a year that has seen carbon and fossil fuel risk become centre stage in the climate debate, the question of who owns and manages the carbon is critical. In addition to measuring and reporting their portfolio exposure, asset owners have come under new pressure to adjust their core investment processes to consistently reduce this exposure and manage third parties whose models and investment decisions drive that exposure. Some of the questions we answer include: how are asset owners rising to the unique challenge of climate change? Are the leaders accelerating? Who are the largest laggards? Which country’s asset owners are most pro-active? Have endowments or foundations improved as a result of the divestment movement? The AODP Global Climate 500 has been produced by assessing the world’s largest 500 asset owners including pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, foundations and endowments. Funds are rated from AAA through to D grade, with an extra X category being added for those funds at the bottom that appear to be doing absolutely nothing to manage this critical risk.
With this country presentation, you will be informed about South Africa's Government system, Geography, People, History, Economy, and Attractions. In addition, South Africa's flag meaning, Location, Bordering Countries, Comparisons, Provinces, Industries, Mines, Population, Languages, AIDS facts, Climate, Cousine etc.
Genocidio «High-Tech» en el Congo
Mas de 10 millones de personas han muerto en el Congo desde 1996 a consecuencia de las invasiones y guerras patrocinadas por las corporaciones que desean controlar su riqueza minera, en particular los metales coltan y niobio, utilizados en la producción de teléfonos celulares y electrónica de alta tecnología, además del cobalto, esencial para las industrias nuclear, química, aerospacial y de armas, sin dejar de lado a los tradicionales diamantes, estaño, cobre y oro.
The AODP Global Climate 500 is the world standard for assessing the world’s largest investors on climate-risk management. In a year that has seen carbon and fossil fuel risk become centre stage in the climate debate, the question of who owns and manages the carbon is critical. In addition to measuring and reporting their portfolio exposure, asset owners have come under new pressure to adjust their core investment processes to consistently reduce this exposure and manage third parties whose models and investment decisions drive that exposure. Some of the questions we answer include: how are asset owners rising to the unique challenge of climate change? Are the leaders accelerating? Who are the largest laggards? Which country’s asset owners are most pro-active? Have endowments or foundations improved as a result of the divestment movement? The AODP Global Climate 500 has been produced by assessing the world’s largest 500 asset owners including pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, foundations and endowments. Funds are rated from AAA through to D grade, with an extra X category being added for those funds at the bottom that appear to be doing absolutely nothing to manage this critical risk.
Mining is an energy-intensive industry, and energy is an
essential operational consideration. Energy access is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive in many regions of the world, with global energy prices leaping by 260% since 2000. Falling grades require more energy to extract each tonne of mineral. Miners are grappling with these increasing costs while commodity prices tighten, resulting in ever-narrowing operating margins.
The 2015 Climate Alliance Business Leadership Awards recognise Australian business leaders and organisations that have demonstrated leadership by addressing the opportunities or risks presented by a changing climate and operating in a carbon-constrained economy. In scope are Australia’s Boards, Directors, Executives, Company Secretaries and Companies themselves. Due Date: 21 August
(http://www.climatealliance.org.au/images/stories/2015_events/2015%20CAL%20Business%20Leadership%20Awards.pdf)
A UK-centric look at wellness and mental health in the workplace. Very similar to the themes common to the Australian context: capturing the costs of mental health, need for tackling the stigma issue, and the safety-infrastructure challenge of cycling commutes. In a nutshell, a long way to go to get a grip on this challenge for businesses.
Insights into doing business in China from the Financial Times now of particular interest as Australia draws near to negotiating an FTA with its largest trading partner.
Root causes of fluid spills from earthmoving plant and equipment: Implication...Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA
A study was undertaken of plant and equipment spills across an earthworks contractor’s operation on a construction project in Western Australia owned and operated by an oil and gas company. The spilt product was predominately hydrocarbons (specifically hydraulic oil). During the 14-month timeline for the spill study, 86 individual spill events were reported. Loaders and excavators were the most likely items of plant to be involved accounting for approximately 40% of all spills. Only 30% (27 spills) were 20 L in volume and greater. Hydraulic hoses, o-rings (within the hydraulic systems), and hydraulic hose couplings (including failed crimped ends) represented 50% of the specific spill sources on these machines. Of the 14 root cause descriptions, 4 of these could explain 60% of the spill incident causes. These were: ‘‘Equipment Parts Defective’’, ‘‘Incorrect Procedure Followed’’, ‘‘Impact With an Object’’ and ‘‘Design Did Not Anticipate Conditions’’. Based on these conclusions,
recommendations for reducing spills are to increase rigour of inspection of hydraulic hose fittings, increase the sharing of lessons learnt from spill events, and enhance the reward and recognition of operators actively preventing and reducing spills.
Mining in Australia has long been, and continues to be, a significant contributor to the Australian economy. Yet mining must also demonstrate that it has a ‘social licence to operate’ among those communities it operates alongside and society
more broadly. This report aims to bring the voice of Australia’s citizens, on whose behalf Australia’s mineral and energy resources are managed, into the centre of the national conversation about the role of the mining industry in our society.
Australia’s food and land use system faces
a storm of converging pressures. The world’s
population is growing, expected to reach close
to 10 billion by 2050, and will have growing and
changing demands for food and fibre. At the
same time, the accelerating impacts of climate
change present major risks for farming – without
adaptive action climate change could reduce
agricultural productivity and farmer profitability
by up to 40-60 per cent by 2060i.
Meanwhile, competing demands could reduce
the amount of land available for food production.
This includes demands for timber production,
bioenergy, and urban and industrial development.
Climate change will also have profound impacts
on natural systems2. There is an urgent need for
land management changes to reduce emissions,
sequester carbon in soils, trees and other
vegetation, and to protect, restore and build
resilience of natural systems. How will we
meet these competing demands on a limited
land resource?
Producers of food, fibre and timber manage more
than half of Australia’s landmass, and are therefore
critical to any future change in land use3.
Awareness and adoption of sustainable
practices is increasing in the face of climate
risks, unreliable weather patterns, competition
for water, consumer concerns about health,
environmental and animal welfare impacts of
farming, and increasing accountability
demands from governments. Indeed, some of
the most innovative and inspiring examples
of sustainable food production and land use
originate in Australia.
The finance sector is also beginning to shift, with
investment in sustainable land use increasing
eightfold globally in the decade to 20154, and
$4.5 trillion annual global business opportunities
from investment in sustainable food and land use
identified by 20305.
This momentum is positive. However, a barrier
to improving the sustainability of land use is
the immaturity of tools and systems to enable
adequate, consistent measurement of ‘natural
capital’. These tools are a way to value the
environment and integrate this value as part
of land management, financial and policy
decision-making.
The operation of mining companies in the province has generated various impacts on their host and surrounding communities. No wonder, mining companies consistently provide inputs and support to sustain their services for the welfare of the community. This paper reports the findings of a study undertaken to assess the socio-economic impact of mining companies to their host communities in the northern part of Surigao Del Sur Province. This paper also presents the perceptions of respondents based on their socio-economic background and identified possible ways on how to deal with its impacts. Purposive sampling was employed in the selection of the participants. Data were collected through the researcher-made questionnaire, which solicits the socio-economic impacts and how these impacts are perceived by the host community. Findings revealed that mining companies have brought positive impacts on the socio-economic status of the people. The resources were wisely shared to the community through offering various activities and programs. However, even if the companies have been helpful to their community, yet, they have not done much to please the other aspects. The increasing records on low-paid employment position stressed public and health services, occurring prevalent diseases and over population are few of the evident that require much attention from the companies. Hence, conscious effort with the assistance of the government and other concern agencies should be practiced to mitigate the increasing undesirable impacts.
this issue.
Climate Governance Initiative Australia
The AICD is the host of the Climate Governance
Initiative Australia which assists in supporting
our members in meeting the challenges and
opportunities of governing climate change risk.
As host of the Australian Chapter of the Climate
Governance Initiative, our members have
access to a global network of experts in risk
and resilience and to non-executive directors
who are leading their organisations’ governance
response to climate change.
The Climate Governance Initiative (CGI) is an
active and rapidly expanding network of over
20 bodies globally, whose Chapters promote the
World Economic Forum Climate Governance
Principles for boards and effective climate
governance within their jurisdictions. The
principles are set out in Appendix 2 of this guide.
The principles support directors to gain
awareness, embed climate considerations into
board decision making, and understand and act
upon the risks and opportunities that climate
change poses to their organisations.
CGI chapters have already been established
in many comparable countries, including the
UK, US (hosted by the National Association of
Corporate Directors), Canada (hosted by the
Institute of Corporate Directors) and France.
Australian Bushfire
and Climate Plan
Final report of the National Bushfire and Climate Summit 2020
The severity and scale of Australian bushfires
is escalating
Australia’s Black Summer fires over 2019 and 2020
were unprecedented in scale and levels of destruction.
Fuelled by climate change, the hottest and driest year
ever recorded resulted in fires that burned through land
two-and-a-half times the size of Tasmania (more than 17
million hectares), killed more than a billion animals, and
affected nearly 80 percent of Australians. This included
the tragic loss of over 450 lives from the fires and
smoke, more than 3,000 homes were destroyed, and
thousands of other buildings.
While unprecedented, this tragedy was not
unforeseen, nor unexpected. For decades climate
scientists have warned of an increase in climaterelated disasters, including longer and more
dangerous bushfire seasons, which have become
directly observable over the last 20 years. Extremely
hot, dry conditions, underpinned by years of reduced
rainfall and a severe drought, set the scene for the
Black Summer crisis.
Recommendations - The 3 Rs - Response,
Readiness and Recovery
There is no doubt that bushfires in Australia have
become more frequent, ferocious and unpredictable
with major losses in 2001/02 in NSW, 2003 in the
ACT, 2013 in Tasmania and NSW, 2018 in Queensland,
2009 Black Saturday Fires in Victoria and 2019/20 in
Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia. We are
now in a new era of supercharged bushfire risk, forcing
a fundamental rethink of how we prevent, prepare for,
respond to, and recover from bushfires.
This Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan report
provides a broad plan and practical ideas for
governments, fire and land management agencies
and communities to help us mitigate and adapt to
worsening fire conditions. The 165 recommendations
include many measures that can be implemented right
now, to ensure communities are better protected.
How to work with petroleum hydrocarbon suppliers to reduce and eliminate cont...Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA
Petroleum hydrocarbon suppliers affect a mine's goals for environmental performance because of the extensive reach of petroleum hydrocarbon products into the mining and minerals product life cycle, their impact on operational efficiencies, cost, and mine viability, and their potential for leaving negative environmental as well as safety legacies. The supplied petroleum hydrocarbon life cycle is a framework that enables structured engagement between supplier and customer on a range of environmental performance issues because it is an example of input into the mining industry that affects the entire mining and minerals processing an value chain. Engagement with suppliers in a proactive manner can be a risk management strategy. Questions for businesses to ask in relation to suppliers and their role in minimizing business risks and creating new value are offered (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rem.21669).
Governments would get bigger bang for taxpayer
buck by instead spending more on upgrading existing infrastructure,
and on social infrastructure such as aged care and mental health care.
Choosing net zero is
an economic necessity
Australia pays a high price of a global failure
to deliver new growth in recovery. Compared
to this dismal future, Deloitte Access Economics
estimates a new growth recovery could
grow Australia’s economy by $680 billion
(present value terms) and increase GDP
by 2.6% in 2070 – adding over 250,000 jobs
to the Australian economy by 2070.
The world of venture capital has seen huge changes over the past decade. Ten years ago there were fewer than
20 known unicorns in the US5
; there are now over 2006
. Annual investment of global venture capital has increased
more than fivefold over the same period, rising to $264 billion by 2019. This investment has been dominated by the
tech sector harnessing digital frontiers to disrupt traditional industries – including cloud computing, mobile apps,
marketplaces, data platforms, machine learning and deep tech.7
It is an ecosystem that acts as the birthplace for
innovation and brands that can shape the future of consumerism, sectors and markets.
As COVID-19 has taken hold of the
world, the question of whether venture
capital, and early stage investing more
broadly, is backing and scaling the
innovations our world really needs has
never been more pertinent. Life science
and biotech investing is an asset class
perhaps most resilient and relevant to
the short-term impact of COVID-19,
but there is another impact-critical
investment area that is emerging as
an increasingly important investment
frontier: climate tech.
This research represents a first-ofits-kind analysis of the state of global
climate tech investing. We define what
it is and show how this new frontier
of venture investing is becoming a
standout investing opportunity for the
2020s. Representing 6% of global
annual venture capital funding in 2019,
our analysis finds this segment has
grown over 3750% in absolute terms
since 2013. This is on the order of 3
times the growth rate of VC investment
into AI, during a time period renowned
for its uptick in AI investment.8
Looking forward can climate tech in the
2020s follow a similar journey to the
artificial intelligence (AI) investing boom
in the 2010s? The substantial rates of
growth seen in climate tech in the late
2010s, and the overarching need for
new transformational solutions across
multiple sectors of the economy,
suggests yes. The stage appears set
for an explosion of climate tech into the
mainstream investment and corporate
landscape in the decade ahead.
Nine shifts will radically change the way construction projects are delivered—and similar
industries have already undergone many of the shifts. A combination of sustainability
requirements, cost pressure, skills scarcity, new materials, industrial approaches, digitalization,
and a new breed of player looks set to transform the value chain. The shifts ahead include
productization and specialization, increased value-chain control, and greater customercentricity
and branding. Consolidation and internationalization will create the scale needed to
allow higher levels of investment in digitalization, R&D and equipment, and sustainability as well
as human capital.
Sustainable Finance Industry Guide
This industry guide provides information about sustainable finance in the built environment in Australia. It is designed to support investor understanding of Australia’s world-class rating tools and standards, and how these can be applied to direct more capital towards sustainable finance for our built environment. Included are insights that reflect lessons learnt when using a rating scheme to establish an investment framework, conduct
due diligence or report on an issuance.
Precincts to Support the Delivery of Zero Energy
This report frames the physical and organisational context for precinct action and identifies potential programs and government solutions that may be applied to better streamline the realisation of precinct-scale action to progress towards zero energy (and carbon) ready residential buildings within both new and existing precincts.
The report was developed based on a literature review and engagement with more than 80 stakeholders from industry, academia and government with the aim of identifying appropriate government action in the form of proposed solutions that may be applicable across Commonwealth, state and territory and/ or local governments.
The report has given focus to opportunities for precincts that are not already considered in the Trajectory to ensure that a wider system response is taken to considering the zero energy (and carbon) ready outcomes being sought.
When seeking funding, environmental and sustainability professionals must clarify how their role and the proposed project fit within the business' strategy.
This article provides a checklist for those seeking funding for sustainability and environmental projects.
The suggested questions will assist non-executive directors in evaluating sustainability-focused proposals.
As a business owner in Delaware, staying on top of your tax obligations is paramount, especially with the annual deadline for Delaware Franchise Tax looming on March 1. One such obligation is the annual Delaware Franchise Tax, which serves as a crucial requirement for maintaining your company’s legal standing within the state. While the prospect of handling tax matters may seem daunting, rest assured that the process can be straightforward with the right guidance. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll walk you through the steps of filing your Delaware Franchise Tax and provide insights to help you navigate the process effectively.
Accpac to QuickBooks Conversion Navigating the Transition with Online Account...PaulBryant58
This article provides a comprehensive guide on how to
effectively manage the convert Accpac to QuickBooks , with a particular focus on utilizing online accounting services to streamline the process.
Remote sensing and monitoring are changing the mining industry for the better. These are providing innovative solutions to long-standing challenges. Those related to exploration, extraction, and overall environmental management by mining technology companies Odisha. These technologies make use of satellite imaging, aerial photography and sensors to collect data that might be inaccessible or from hazardous locations. With the use of this technology, mining operations are becoming increasingly efficient. Let us gain more insight into the key aspects associated with remote sensing and monitoring when it comes to mining.
Improving profitability for small businessBen Wann
In this comprehensive presentation, we will explore strategies and practical tips for enhancing profitability in small businesses. Tailored to meet the unique challenges faced by small enterprises, this session covers various aspects that directly impact the bottom line. Attendees will learn how to optimize operational efficiency, manage expenses, and increase revenue through innovative marketing and customer engagement techniques.
3.0 Project 2_ Developing My Brand Identity Kit.pptxtanyjahb
A personal brand exploration presentation summarizes an individual's unique qualities and goals, covering strengths, values, passions, and target audience. It helps individuals understand what makes them stand out, their desired image, and how they aim to achieve it.
What are the main advantages of using HR recruiter services.pdfHumanResourceDimensi1
HR recruiter services offer top talents to companies according to their specific needs. They handle all recruitment tasks from job posting to onboarding and help companies concentrate on their business growth. With their expertise and years of experience, they streamline the hiring process and save time and resources for the company.
What is the TDS Return Filing Due Date for FY 2024-25.pdfseoforlegalpillers
It is crucial for the taxpayers to understand about the TDS Return Filing Due Date, so that they can fulfill your TDS obligations efficiently. Taxpayers can avoid penalties by sticking to the deadlines and by accurate filing of TDS. Timely filing of TDS will make sure about the availability of tax credits. You can also seek the professional guidance of experts like Legal Pillers for timely filing of the TDS Return.
Taurus Zodiac Sign_ Personality Traits and Sign Dates.pptxmy Pandit
Explore the world of the Taurus zodiac sign. Learn about their stability, determination, and appreciation for beauty. Discover how Taureans' grounded nature and hardworking mindset define their unique personality.
Personal Brand Statement:
As an Army veteran dedicated to lifelong learning, I bring a disciplined, strategic mindset to my pursuits. I am constantly expanding my knowledge to innovate and lead effectively. My journey is driven by a commitment to excellence, and to make a meaningful impact in the world.
[Note: This is a partial preview. To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations]
Sustainability has become an increasingly critical topic as the world recognizes the need to protect our planet and its resources for future generations. Sustainability means meeting our current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. It involves long-term planning and consideration of the consequences of our actions. The goal is to create strategies that ensure the long-term viability of People, Planet, and Profit.
Leading companies such as Nike, Toyota, and Siemens are prioritizing sustainable innovation in their business models, setting an example for others to follow. In this Sustainability training presentation, you will learn key concepts, principles, and practices of sustainability applicable across industries. This training aims to create awareness and educate employees, senior executives, consultants, and other key stakeholders, including investors, policymakers, and supply chain partners, on the importance and implementation of sustainability.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Develop a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental principles and concepts that form the foundation of sustainability within corporate environments.
2. Explore the sustainability implementation model, focusing on effective measures and reporting strategies to track and communicate sustainability efforts.
3. Identify and define best practices and critical success factors essential for achieving sustainability goals within organizations.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Key Concepts of Sustainability
2. Principles and Practices of Sustainability
3. Measures and Reporting in Sustainability
4. Sustainability Implementation & Best Practices
To download the complete presentation, visit: https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations
Falcon stands out as a top-tier P2P Invoice Discounting platform in India, bridging esteemed blue-chip companies and eager investors. Our goal is to transform the investment landscape in India by establishing a comprehensive destination for borrowers and investors with diverse profiles and needs, all while minimizing risk. What sets Falcon apart is the elimination of intermediaries such as commercial banks and depository institutions, allowing investors to enjoy higher yields.
Memorandum Of Association Constitution of Company.pptseri bangash
www.seribangash.com
A Memorandum of Association (MOA) is a legal document that outlines the fundamental principles and objectives upon which a company operates. It serves as the company's charter or constitution and defines the scope of its activities. Here's a detailed note on the MOA:
Contents of Memorandum of Association:
Name Clause: This clause states the name of the company, which should end with words like "Limited" or "Ltd." for a public limited company and "Private Limited" or "Pvt. Ltd." for a private limited company.
https://seribangash.com/article-of-association-is-legal-doc-of-company/
Registered Office Clause: It specifies the location where the company's registered office is situated. This office is where all official communications and notices are sent.
Objective Clause: This clause delineates the main objectives for which the company is formed. It's important to define these objectives clearly, as the company cannot undertake activities beyond those mentioned in this clause.
www.seribangash.com
Liability Clause: It outlines the extent of liability of the company's members. In the case of companies limited by shares, the liability of members is limited to the amount unpaid on their shares. For companies limited by guarantee, members' liability is limited to the amount they undertake to contribute if the company is wound up.
https://seribangash.com/promotors-is-person-conceived-formation-company/
Capital Clause: This clause specifies the authorized capital of the company, i.e., the maximum amount of share capital the company is authorized to issue. It also mentions the division of this capital into shares and their respective nominal value.
Association Clause: It simply states that the subscribers wish to form a company and agree to become members of it, in accordance with the terms of the MOA.
Importance of Memorandum of Association:
Legal Requirement: The MOA is a legal requirement for the formation of a company. It must be filed with the Registrar of Companies during the incorporation process.
Constitutional Document: It serves as the company's constitutional document, defining its scope, powers, and limitations.
Protection of Members: It protects the interests of the company's members by clearly defining the objectives and limiting their liability.
External Communication: It provides clarity to external parties, such as investors, creditors, and regulatory authorities, regarding the company's objectives and powers.
https://seribangash.com/difference-public-and-private-company-law/
Binding Authority: The company and its members are bound by the provisions of the MOA. Any action taken beyond its scope may be considered ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the company and therefore void.
Amendment of MOA:
While the MOA lays down the company's fundamental principles, it is not entirely immutable. It can be amended, but only under specific circumstances and in compliance with legal procedures. Amendments typically require shareholder
RMD24 | Debunking the non-endemic revenue myth Marvin Vacquier Droop | First ...BBPMedia1
Marvin neemt je in deze presentatie mee in de voordelen van non-endemic advertising op retail media netwerken. Hij brengt ook de uitdagingen in beeld die de markt op dit moment heeft op het gebied van retail media voor niet-leveranciers.
Retail media wordt gezien als het nieuwe advertising-medium en ook mediabureaus richten massaal retail media-afdelingen op. Merken die niet in de betreffende winkel liggen staan ook nog niet in de rij om op de retail media netwerken te adverteren. Marvin belicht de uitdagingen die er zijn om echt aansluiting te vinden op die markt van non-endemic advertising.
3. Table of contents
Mining in Australia iii
Introduction 1
◆◆
Figure 1 Geographic representation of participant distribution and key demographic information about the sample.. . .1
What does mining mean to Australians? 2
◆◆
Table 1 Mean scores for items examining the position of mining in Australia overall, and by region.. . .2
◆◆
Figure 2 Mean levels of perceived national and community dependence on mining overall, and by region.. . .3
◆◆
Figure 3 Distribution of respondent acceptance scores for mining in Australia. . .3
The benefits of mining 4
◆◆
Table 2 Mean ratings of the perceived ‘community’ benefits of mining overall, and for each region sampled.. . .4
◆◆
Figure 4 Mean levels of perceived economic benefits from mining overall, and by region. . .5
The negative impacts of mining 6
◆◆
Table 3 Mean ratings of the negative impacts of mining overall, and for each region sampled.. . .7
Fairness, faith in governance and trust 8
◆◆
Figure 5 Mean levels of perceived distributional fairness of benefits from mining overall, and by region. . .8
◆◆
Figure 6 Mean levels of perceived procedural fairness related to mining overall, and by region. . .9
◆◆
Table 4 Mean ratings of governance capacity overall, and by region. . .10
◆◆
Table 5 Mean ratings of public efficacy, agency and need for consent overall, and by region.. . .10
◆◆
Figure 7 Mean level of respondent trust in mining industry actors. . .11
Going a little deeper… what leads to acceptance of mining? 12
◆◆
Figure 8 Regression model of benefits, impacts and balance measure predicting acceptance of mining.. . .12
◆◆
Figure 9 Relationship between perceived governance capacity, environmental impact from mining and acceptance
of mining. . .13
◆◆
Figure 10 Social acceptance of mining path model. . .15
ii
4. Mining in Australia
Mining in Australia has long been, and continues to be, a significant contributor
to the Australian economy1. Yet mining must also demonstrate that it has a ‘social licence to operate’ among those communities it operates alongside and society
more broadly. This report aims to bring the voice of Australia’s citizens, on whose behalf Australia’s mineral and energy resources are managed, into the centre of
the national conversation about the role of the mining industry in our society.
Mining is big business, but
not without its problems
Australia possesses large volumes of valuable mineral and energy commodities. As a nation, we hold some of the world’s largest deposits of commodities like brown coal, zinc, iron ore, gold, silver, copper and lithium. Australia is in the top five producers of most of the world’s key mineral commodities and is the world’s largest exporter of alumina, metallurgical coal, iron ore, and lead2. Australia is also expected to be the world’s largest LNG exporter by 2019, reflecting the large growth in this industry3.
These volumes translate into a significant contribution to Australia’s economy. In 2011-12, exports by the mining industry accounted for 48.5% of Australia’s total exports, worth $147.4B. In the same period, mining represented 9.6% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), compared to 66.4% for the services sector, 7.4% for manufacturing and 2.4% for the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector4. The mining sector directly employs around 158,000 people and is estimated to indirectly employ a further 505,600 people5.
Mining has also contributed to the development of regional and remote Australia in significant ways since the first mineral discoveries of the 1840s. Resource development has created towns, community facilities, transport and communications infrastructure which allowed large parts of mineral rich Australia to be developed. The last two decades, however, have seen mining companies move to fly-in, fly-out arrangements for workforces in many places around the country, which has led to lower levels of investment in large infrastructure that has broader public benefit, and tensions with local communities6.
The environmental impacts of the industry are also prominent among concerns about mining. While Australia has comprehensive legislative requirements at both state and Commonwealth levels, the environmental impacts of mining remain a significant concern among environmental and community groups. Recent years have also seen significant grass roots concerns within communities around resource developments regarding issues such as contamination and depletion of significant aquifers, land use competition, and
the strain of significant mining activity on regional and
remote communities.
Mining has also had a difficult relationship with Australia’s Indigenous peoples, with issues such as Native Title, land use access, impacts on areas of cultural significance, and the negotiation of benefit agreements all causing tension and conflict. The mining industry has worked to build more constructive relationships with Indigenous communities
in the last two decades, and is now, Australia’s largest
private sector employer of Indigenous people2.
Understanding the mining
industry’s social licence to operate
Mining is a big part of life in Australia, but the relationship between mining and society is not an easy one. As Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO is keen to understand more about what Australians think about mining.
Importantly, we want to understand how the impacts
and benefits of mining, and the relationship between the mining industry, government and society, affects the level
of acceptance of mining among Australia’s citizens – we
want to understand what constitutes a social licence to
operate for mining in Australia.
1
In this research, mining and the mining industry includes: coal mining, oil and gas extraction, metal ore mining,
non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying, exploration and other mining support services (i.e. mineral exploration).
2
Minerals Council of Australia, 2010. The Australian minerals industry and the Australian economy.
http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/publications/Aus_min_industry_fact_sheet_March_2010.pdf
3
ANZ Research, 2014. Australian economics: Phase III of Australia’s mining boom. Accessed 8th July 2014.
https://anzlive.secure.force.com/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=00PD000000Vg0mtMAB
4
Australian Government Department of Industry, 2013. Australian industry key facts. Australian government.
Available from: http://www.industry.gov.au/industry/ReportsandStudies/Pages/IndustryDataCard.aspx
5
Geoscience Australia, 2013. Australia’s Identified Mineral Resources 2012. Geoscience Australia, Canberra.
6
Roarty, M, 2010. The Australian resources sector – Its contribution to the nation, and a brief review of issues and impacts [online],
Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 23 September 2010. Available from:
http:// www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_ Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/ AustResources iii Australian attitudes toward mining
5. Introduction
This report summarises the key findings from a survey of 5,121 Australians about their attitudes toward the mining industry. The data was collected in two blocks, at the end of 2013 and in the first quarter of 2014. This survey forms part of a larger CSIRO program of work examining the relationship between mining and society at different scales in Australia and internationally. The data presented here was collected using an online survey.
We felt that it was really important to ensure the views of Australians who lived with and near mining or extractive operations were represented effectively. To do this we identified 11 regions that have a strong association with
the extractive industries – see Figure 1 below – and matched these against regional areas in Australia without an extractive industry presence. We also collected data from Australians in urban or metropolitan areas.
We used a broad definition of mining in this study, based
on the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian and
New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC; 20067). This definition of mining includes: coal mining, oil and gas extraction, metal ore mining, non-metallic mineral mining
and quarrying, exploration and other mining support services (i.e. mineral exploration).
7
ABS, 2006. Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC).
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/21eacf784b2252f14a2564e3001e3dc7!OpenDocument
Figure 1
Geographic representation of participant distribution (data points represent postcodes sampled not individuals) and key demographic information about the sample.
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
ABORIGINAL / TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
2.3%
SELF-REPORTED KNOWLEDGE
OF THE MINING INDUSTRY
AGE GROUP
GENDER
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
EDUCATION
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Did not complete year 12
Completed year 12
Postsecondary qualification
Undergraduate degree
Postgraduate
MINING
REGION (n = 1283)
NON-MINING
REGION (n = 1562)
METROPOLITAN
REGION (n = 2276)
Female
Male
1 (low)
10 (high)
1
6. What does mining mean to Australians?
To understand how Australians view mining in the broader national context, we
asked participants to rate their level of agreement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) with a number of statements about mining in Australia.
Mining is important for Australia
Overall, mining was viewed as a central and significant contributor to Australia’s economy and standard of living,
a ‘necessary’ industry for Australia, and being important
to Australia’s future prosperity (see Table 1).
Comparing the responses of those living in different parts of the country, we found that participants living in mining regions more strongly believed that mining was important to Australia’s economy, standard of living, and way of life, although those in metropolitan areas most strongly believed that mining would support Australia’s future prosperity8.
8
Only statistically significant results are reported as differences in this report. Predominantly these differences were calculated using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test, and are significant at the p<.001 level. Due to the large sample size, caution has been taken to use a conservative significance level for difference testing.
Table 1
Mean scores for items examining the position of mining in Australia overall, and by region.
ITEM
MEAN AGREEMENT (STANDARD DEVIATION)
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
Mining is central to Australia
5.08
(SD = 1.26)
5.14
(SD = 1.24)
5.00
(SD = 1.25)
5.10
(SD = 1.27)
Mining is not necessary for Australia
2.97
(SD = 1.47)
2.89
(SD = 1.44)
2.93
(SD = 1.43)
3.06
(SD = 1.50)
Mining is important to our way of life in Australia
4.99
(SD = 1.27)
5.06
(SD = 1.27)
4.93
(SD = 1.27)
5.00
(SD = 1.26)
Mining contributes to the standard of living in Australia
5.26
(SD = 1.22)
5.33
(SD = 1.23)
5.21
(SD = 1.21)
5.25
(SD = 1.22)
Mining will support Australia’s future prosperity
4.77
(SD = 1.27)
4.76
(SD = 1.28)
4.71
(SD = 1.27 )
4.81
(SD = 1.27)
Mining contributes significantly to Australia’s economy
5.38
(SD = 1.19)
5.46
(SD = 1.17)
5.36
(SD = 1.19)
5.36
(SD = 1.20)
Rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Mining contributes significantly to Australia’s economy
Mining is important for Australia’s future prosperity
Mining is not necessary for Australia
IMPORTANCE OF MINING IN AUSTRALIA
1
(strongly disagree)
1
(strongly disagree)
1
(strongly disagree)
7
(strongly agree)
7
(strongly agree)
7
(strongly agree)
2 Australian attitudes toward mining
7. To what extent do Australians accept mining?
We asked participants to respond to the statement, ‘to what extent do you accept mining in Australia’ on a scale from
1 (not at all) to 5 (very much so). Overall, the mean response
to this item was 3.62 (SD = .94), which is above the midpoint
of the scale used (i.e. 3), indicating a reasonably positive
response. This average score was highly consistent across mining, non-mining and metropolitan areas. A breakdown of the percentage of respondents in each of the response categories is presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Distribution of respondent acceptance scores for mining
in Australia.
Are we too dependent on mining?
While Australians felt mining was important for Australia,
they were also concerned that Australia as a country, and
their communities more specifically, were too dependent on mining. As shown in Figure 2, it is clear that respondents felt the country as a whole was more dependent on mining than the communities they lived in. This pattern was less exaggerated for those living in mining regions who reported significantly higher levels of community dependency than those in non-mining regions or metropolitan areas.
Figure 2
Mean levels of perceived national and community dependence on mining overall, and by region.
Level of agreement (1=not at all, 7=very much so)
Percentage of respondents
I am concerned that Australia
depends too much on mining
NON-MINING
I am concerned that the community
I live in depends too much on mining
2
3
4
5
6
1
0
5
10
NOT
AT ALL
2
3
4
VERY MUCH SO
15
20
25
30
35
40
7
Dependency on mining
METRO
MINING
OVERALL
Acceptance of mining
3
8. The benefits of mining
To examine the positive benefits that mining creates, we asked participants to respond to a range of benefits that are often understood to flow from mining for the country, regional communities and areas, and individuals. These included employment, general regional benefits and improvements to regional infrastructure. In general, the benefits of the industry for mining regions were rated most positively by those living in metropolitan areas.
Jobs, jobs, jobs
The creation of jobs for Australians was the most important perceived benefit amongst respondents (see Table 2). This included jobs for Australians, employment and training opportunities in regional areas and for Aboriginal Australians. This was largely consistent across mining, non-mining and metropolitan areas.
General regional benefits
General benefits for regional and Aboriginal communities were the next most important areas of benefit from mining. In particular, participants from metropolitan areas reported significantly higher levels of general benefit for regional communities than those from non-mining regions. However, there were no significant differences between the three regions regarding perceived benefits for Aboriginal communities.
Table 2
Mean ratings of the perceived ‘community’ benefits of mining overall, and for each region sampled.
ITEM
MEAN AGREEMENT (STANDARD DEVIATION)
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
Mining creates jobs for Australians
5.50
(SD = 1.16)
5.52
(SD = 1.16)
5.50
(SD = 1.21)
5.50
(SD = 1.14)
Mining provides opportunities for regional employment and training
5.30
(SD = 1.17)
5.36
(SD = 1.15)
5.23
(SD = 1.22)
5.31
(SD = 1.15)
Mining provides employment and training opportunities to Aboriginal Australians
5.06
(SD = 1.21)
5.07
(SD = 1.21)
5.07
(SD = 1.23)
5.06
(SD = 1.20)
Mining provides employment opportunities for women
5.01
(SD = 1.24)
5.08
(SD = 1.25)
5.05
(SD = 1.23)
4.94
(SD = 1.23)
The mining industry makes an important contribution to the development of young Australians
4.38
(SD = 1.34)
4.48
(SD = 1.37)
4.32
(SD = 1.32)
4.35
(SD = 1.33)
Mining has positive effects on regional communities in Australia
4.85
(SD = 1.29)
4.85
(SD = 1.34)
4.78
(SD = 1.33)
4.90
(SD = 1.24)
Mining has positive effects on Aboriginal communities in Australia
4.48
(SD = 1.30)
4.44
(SD = 1.32)
4.45
(SD = 1.33)
4.51
(SD = 1.27)
Mining has helped improve transport infrastructure such as roads and ports in regional Australia
4.69
(SD = 1.32)
4.57
(SD = 1.42)
4.63
(SD = 1.33)
4.80
(SD = 1.24)
Mining has helped improve communications
and IT infrastructure in regional Australia
4.62
(SD = 1.27)
4.51
(SD = 1.35)
4.56
(SD = 1.28)
4.73
(SD = 1.21)
Mining has helped improve social infrastructure such as community centres and sporting clubs in regional Australia
4.49
(SD = 1.31
4.46
(SD = 1.36)
4.38
(SD = 1.34)
4.58
(SD = 1.25)
Rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
PERCEIVED BENEFITS
Jobs and training
for Australians
Positive effects for regional Australian communities
Improvements in regional Australian infrastructure
4 Australian attitudes toward mining
9. Infrastructure improvements
The next strongest ratings around benefits related to improvements in infrastructure (transport, social, and communication and information technology) in regional Australia as a result of mining activity. In general, participants from metropolitan areas reported the highest level of benefits regarding regional infrastructure development, with lowest levels of agreement among those that live in mining regions.
Personal benefits and life satisfaction
Whilst mining associated benefits at a national and regional level were rated quite positively, responses to ‘personal’ benefits were not as positive. Benefits in terms of personal and family financial benefit from mining were both rated quite low, particularly when compared with the perceived benefits to the ‘average Australian’ (see Figure 4). Respondents living in non-mining regions felt the least personal and family financial benefit while those living in cities reported the greatest level
of personal benefit.
When asked about their level of satisfaction with living
in their community, participants from all regions responded quite positively (M = 5.43, SD = 1.33), however participants living in mining regions reported a significantly higher level
of satisfaction than those living in metropolitan areas.
Figure 4
Mean levels of perceived economic benefits from mining overall, and by region.
Economic benefits from mining
Level of agreement (1=not at all, 7=very much so)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
MINING
OVERALL
My family has benefited from mining
The average Australian is wealthier because of mining
I am better off financially because of mining
5
10. The negative impacts of mining
To examine the negative impacts of mining, we asked participants to respond to a range of issues including the environment, other industry sectors, cost of living, and the health of communities surrounding mining operations. In general, the negative impacts of mining were rated significantly more strongly by those living in mining regions, followed by those in non-mining regions, and then respondents in metropolitan areas.
The environment
Overall, statements regarding the negative impact of mining on the environment received the strongest level of agreement. This included impacts on water quality (both groundwater and surface water), the environment in general, and mining’s contribution to climate change (see Table 3). When asked to rate the extent to which ‘mine rehabilitation is important to me’, participants were very strongly in agreement (M = 5.40,
SD = 1.36), with those in mining regions even more so.
Other sectors
We also asked about the negative impacts of mining on other sectors and industries. In general, the impacts on the manufacturing sector and tourism and retail sectors were perceived to be low (below the midpoint of the scale),
but impacts on the agriculture sector was perceived to
be much higher.
Health and cost of living
There was also moderate agreement (above the midpoint of the scale, i.e. 4) that mining has a negative impact on the health of local communities, while the impacts on cost of
living and effects on housing costs were rated quite low overall. For those living in mining regions, however, these impacts were rated significantly more strongly than by those
in non-mining regions and metropolitan areas (see Table 3).
What do Australians think about FIFO/DIDO?
When asked specifically about fly-in, fly out and drive- in, drive-out (FIFO/DIDO) employment of mine workers, participants in mining regions were less supportive of FIFO/ DIDO as a “sensible workforce strategy” (M = 4.24, SD = 1.63) relative to those in non-mining regions (M = 4.45, SD = 1.54) and metropolitan areas (M = 4.47, SD = 1.43). In addition, participants from all areas equally believed that FIFO/DIDO
has somewhat negative impacts on local communities
(overall M = 4.36, SD = 1.42).
The environment
The agricultural sector
Health of communities
and cost of living
PERCEIVED NEGATIVES
IS IT WORTH IT
1 (strongly disagree)
7 (strongly agree)
Considering the benefits and costs associated with mining, it is worthwhile to pursue mining in Australia?
6 Australian attitudes toward mining
11. Table 3
Mean ratings of the negative impacts of mining overall, and for each region sampled.
ITEM
MEAN AGREEMENT (STANDARD DEVIATION)
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
Mining has negative impacts on the environment
4.70
(SD = 1.49)
4.72
(SD = 1.53)
4.70
(SD = 1.50)
4.69
(SD = 1.46)
Mining impacts negatively on water quality (groundwater and surface water)
4.76
(SD = 1.40)
4.78
(SD = 1.47)
4.75
(SD = 1.40)
4.75
(SD = 1.36)
Mining contributes to climate change
4.37
(SD = 1.51)
4.29
(SD = 1.61)
4.34
(SD = 1.55)
4.44
(SD = 1.51)
Mining has negative impacts on the agricultural sector
4.55
(SD = 1.42)
4.65
(SD = 1.49)
4.53
(SD = 1.42)
4.50
(SD = 1.39)
Mining has negative impacts on the manufacturing sector
3.70
(SD = 1.35)
3.67
(SD = 1.36)
3.64
(SD = 1.32)
3.76
(SD = 1.37)
Mining has negative impacts on the tourism and retail sectors
3.80
(SD = 1.43)
3.78
(SD = 1.47)
3.81
(SD = 1.41)
3.80
(SD = 1.43)
Mining has negative impacts on the health of local communities
4.28
(SD = 1.47)
4.39
(SD = 1.55)
4.22
(SD = 1.46)
4.26
(SD = 1.44)
Housing is more expensive in my area as a consequence of mining activity
3.19
(SD = 1.69)
3.65
(SD = 1.81)
2.97
(SD = 1.60)
3.08
(SD = 1.64)
The cost of living excluding housing increased in my area as a consequence of mining
3.19
(SD = 1.64)
3.55
(SD = 1.71)
3.01
(SD = 1.59)
3.10
(SD = 1.60)
Rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
It’s your data – get into it
You can also view and interact with some of the data from this study yourself at www.csiro.au/mining-attitudes. Examine key data state by state, explore correlations in the data, and see how response strength varies
across Australia.
12. Fairness, faith in governance and trust
Mining has a broad and complex relationship with Australian society. It creates jobs and economic opportunities for many and is an important component of our national economy. Yet, mining also brings challenges for people living alongside the industry and for governments who are charged with managing Australia’s mineral and energy resources on behalf of all its citizens. For example, mining creates job opportunities in communities surrounding mining operations but the use of fly-in/fly-out workforce strategies by many mining companies means that a significant number of people that work in mining live in capital cities.
To tease out some of this complexity, we asked participants about the distributive fairness of mining associated benefits, how fairly they felt they were treated in decision making processes regarding the industry, the level of faith they had in our legislative and regulatory frameworks for managing mining, and more broadly, the degree to which they trusted important players in the industry.
Figure 5
Mean levels of perceived distributional fairness of benefits from mining overall, and by region.
Level of agreement (1=not at all, 7=very much so)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mining communities receive a fair share of the benefits from mining
People like me receive a fair share of the benefits of mining
Generally speaking, the economic benefits of mining are distributed fairly
Distributional fairness of benefits
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
MINING
OVERALL
8 Australian attitudes toward mining
13. Distributional fairness
We asked respondents to rate the extent to which they believed the benefits associated with mining were distributed fairly, and the extent to which Australia received its fair share of tax from mining. Overall, participants were not strongly of the view that the economic benefits of mining are distributed fairly, with the average rating across the whole sample below the midpoint of the scale used (see Figure 5).
As is clear in Figure 5, respondents felt more strongly overall that mining communities received a fair share of the benefits of mining. This was particularly the case when compared to perceived personal benefit. Looking across all three items, participants in metropolitan areas believed that the benefits of mining were distributed more fairly than those who lived in mining regions and non-mining regions, consistent with earlier patterns in the data.
And for those people living in mining communities specifically, the data indicates that the benefits of mining are perceived to have been distributed much more fairly at the community level than at the personal level9.
We also asked participants the extent to which they believe Australia as a nation receives its fair share of tax from the mining industry. Responses were around the midpoint of the scale used (M = 4.02, SD = 1.66), and there was no difference in responses between mining, non-mining or metropolitan areas.
Procedural fairness
Procedural fairness in the present research refers to whether individuals perceive that they have a reasonable voice in decision-making processes10,11. Therefore, the more people
feel that they can participate in decision-making processes about mining and feel respected by important decision makers
(e.g., governments and the extractive industries), the fairer they will regard procedures relating to mining in Australia.
We asked participants to rate the extent to which people in Australia have opportunities to participate in decisions about mining on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so). Responses overall were around the midpoint of the scale
(M = 4.10, SD = 1.57), with no significant differences between the three areas.
We also asked participants to rate the extent to which the mining industry, state and federal governments listen to and respect community opinions (see Figure 6). As with distributive fairness, responses to those items were at or below the midpoint of the scale. There are two patterns in this data. First, participants felt that the mining industry listened to and respected community opinions more than state and federal governments did. Second, those in metropolitan areas felt more heard and respected by industry and governments than those in mining and non-mining regions.
9
All of the differences noted here are statistically significant at the p<.001 level
10
Besley, J. C. (2010). Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 32(2) 256-280. doi:10.1177/1075547009358624
11
Tyler, T.R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology. 35,117–125. DOI: 10.1080/002075900399411
State government
Federal government
Mining industry
Level of agreement (1=not at all, 7=very much so)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Procedural fairness: feeling heard & respected
Figure 6
Mean levels of perceived procedural fairness related to mining overall, and by region.
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
MINING
OVERALL
9
14. Ensuring the mining industry
does the ‘right thing’
Feeling heard and respected is fundamental to a sense of procedural fairness. But whom or what can actually influence the way mining takes place? We asked participants to rate the extent to which they believe legislation and regulation, and state and federal governments, can hold the mining industry to account. In both of these areas, responses overall were below the midpoint of the scale, indicating a lack of faith that these formal institutions are sufficiently able to influence the way mining takes place (see Table 4). Again, participants in metropolitan areas were more positive about the influence of these formal mechanisms than those living in mining regions.
Table 4
Mean ratings of governance capacity overall, and by region
ITEM
MEAN AGREEMENT (STANDARD DEVIATION)
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
State and federal governments are able to hold the mining industry accountable
2.81
(SD = 1.05)
2.71
(SD = 1.06)
2.76
(SD = 1.03)
2.90
(SD = 1.04)
Legislation and regulation can be counted on to ensure mining companies do the right thing
2.85
(SD = 1.02)
2.74
(SD = 1.04)
2.80
(SD = 1.02)
2.94
(SD = 1.00)
Rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much so).
Mining communities and the Australian public more generally, also have the ability to influence the way mining takes place, either through directly influencing mining companies or through influencing government policy. Responses overall to items examining citizen agency (see Table 5) were all above the midpoint of the scale with respect to levels of agreement. In a trend that appears multiple times in this dataset, those that lived in metropolitan areas rated their agreement with this sentiment higher than those who were actually members of mining communities. Finally, there was a very strong sentiment regarding the need to gain the consent of local communities and Indigenous communities before mining development takes place.
Table 5
Mean ratings of public efficacy, agency and need for consent overall, and by region.
ITEM
MEAN AGREEMENT (STANDARD DEVIATION)
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
I think mining communities can successfully defend their local interests together
4.31
(SD = 1.33)
4.28
(SD = 1.37)
4.26
(SD = 1.31)
4.37
(SD = 1.31)
I think the Australian public can successfully defend its national interests together
4.43
(SD = 1.37)
4.38
(SD = 1.1.38)
4.37
(SD = 1.37)
4.49
(SD = 1.37)
I think the Australian public are capable of ensuring the mining industry do the right things for this country
4.06
(SD = 1.51)
3.95
(SD = 1.53)
4.03
(SD = 1.49)
4.14
(SD = 1.52)
I think mining communities are capable of ensuring the mining industry do the right things for local communities
4.12
(SD = 1.45)
4.04
(SD = 1.52)
4.05
(SD = 1.42)
4.21
(SD = 1.41)
I think the Australian public is able to influence governments’ mining related policies
4.04
(SD = 1.49)
3.93
(SD = 1.49)
3.98
(SD = 1.48)
4.16
(SD = 1.49)
I think mining communities are able to influence governments’ mining related policies
4.35
(SD = 1.42)
4.27
(SD = 1.47)
4.31
(SD = 1.41)
4.42
(SD = 1.39)
It is necessary to gain the consent of local communities before mining development takes place
5.41
(SD = 1.42)
5.46
(SD = 1.47)
5.42
(SD = 1.43)
5.38
(SD = 1.38)
It is necessary to gain the consent of Indigenous communities before mining development takes place
5.23
(SD = 1.52)
5.27
(SD = 1.56)
5.22
(SD = 1.52)
5.21
(SD = 1.50)
Rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
10 Australian attitudes toward mining
15. Moreover, when we asked participants the extent to which they agreed that the mining industry was socially responsible, responses were around the midpoint of the scale used
(M = 4.07, SD = 1.40) and consistent across mining, non-mining and metropolitan areas. However, participant responses were slightly below the midpoint of the scale regarding the extent to which they believe the mining industry is prepared to change its practices in response to community concerns (M = 3.85,
SD = 1.50), with those in metropolitan areas (M=3.93, SD = 1.46) more strongly in agreement than those in mining (M = 3.75,
SD = 1.54) and non-mining regions (M = 3.81, SD = 1.50).
Trust
We asked participants to rate their level of trust in a range
of important actors in the mining industry in Australia: the mining industry, state government, federal government, and non-government organisations (NGOs). We averaged responses to three items assessing trust in each of these groups: the extent each was trusted to act in the best interests of society, act responsibly, and do what is right. Two patterns are clear in the data (see Figure 7). First NGOs were most trusted, with industry second, followed by federal and state governments. Second, the levels of trust overall, for all groups, were low (below the midpoint of the scale).
Figure 7
Mean level of respondent trust in mining industry actors.
Level of trust (1=not at all, 5=very much)
1
2
3
4
5
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
STATE GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRY
NGOs
Level of trust
11
16. Going a little deeper… what leads to acceptance of mining?
Mining is a complex and important part of life in Australia, and the survey results in the previous sections provide a strong foundation for understanding this complexity a little better. However, if the mining industry is to be sustainable in Australia, it is important that we understand what underpins its ‘social licence to operate’, or its acceptance within society. We explored this question in the national survey data in two ways. First, we explored how Australians weigh up the benefits and impacts of mining in determining their level of acceptance of the industry. Second, we explored the role of Australia’s governance systems and behaviour of the mining industry in building trust and acceptance with Australia’s citizens.
Is it worth it? Weighing up the
benefits and impacts of mining
Using multiple regression analysis12, we examined how Australians’ perceptions of mining associated impacts and benefits relate to acceptance of mining. We included composite measures of the three main impact and benefit areas in this analysis, respectively:
◆◆
impacts on environment (including climate change),
cost of living, and other sectors (including manufacturing, agriculture and tourism and services);
◆◆
employment and other regional benefits, general economic benefits (personal, family and national wealth), and development of regional infrastructure (transport, communications and social).
All of these impacts and benefits were significant predictors
of acceptance, such that the more negative respondents felt the impacts were, the less they accepted the industry; and
the more positive respondents felt the benefits were, the
more they accepted the industry.
Because of the large sample size in this survey (5121 respondents), it is important to look at the strength of the relationships, and not just their statistical significance. To this end, the two strongest predictors of acceptance in the analysis were impacts on the environment and employment benefits that flow from mining (environmental impacts are explored
in more detail in the following section).
Beta weights (β) represent the relative strength of each relationship. Positive β-values indicate a positive relationship; negative β-values indicate a negative relationship. β-values in brackets represent the strength of these relationships before the balance of benefits and impacts measure was included in analyses. *** indicates relationship is significant at the p<.001 level
Figure 8
Regression model of benefits, impacts and balance measure predicting acceptance of mining.
12
A brief overview of multiple regression (MR) analysis may be found at the following link: http://www.uta.edu/faculty/sawasthi/Statistics/stmulreg.html
ACCEPTANCE OF MINING
Acceptance
of Mining
Cost of living impacts
General economic benefits
Impacts on other sectors
Regional infrastructure benefits
Environmental impacts
Employment & other regional benefits
Balance of benefits over impacts
β = .02
(.01)
β = .09***
(.13***)
β = -.06***
(-.12***)
β = .06***
(.12***)
β = -.18***
(-.21***)
β = .19***
(.34***)
β = .38***
12 Australian attitudes toward mining
17. Next, we were interested to understand whether Australians felt that the benefits of mining outweigh the perceived impacts of mining, and how that affected their level of acceptance of the industry. To do this, we included the following item into this regression analysis at the final step: “considering the benefits and costs associated with mining, it is worthwhile to pursue mining in Australia”.
The results from this analysis show that this item (i.e., asking Australians to weigh up the benefits and impacts of mining) was a strong positive predictor of acceptance over and above the other individual impact and benefit measures. In addition, participants from mining, non-mining and metropolitan areas were equally positive in their agreement with this item
(M = 4.97, SD = 1.32).
This means that Australians, in general, do consider it worthwhile to mine in Australia after weighing up the benefits and costs. It also indicates that Australians have a developed and considered understanding of what it means to have a significant mining industry, and that in general, in their minds, the benefits of mining currently outweigh its impacts. This data suggests that a stronger balance of benefits over the costs of mining is associated with a higher level of acceptance of mining. This relationship would also suggest that if this balance is perceived to move toward the negative impacts of mining over the benefits, that acceptance of mining will be eroded. (Figure 8 provides
a graphical representation of these relationships.)
The importance of strong governance
In Australia, governments are always trying to find a balance between supporting the growth of mining development and managing the interests and concerns of citizens regarding mining development. In some states around Australia, state governments are working to streamline the process for having a mine or extractive operation approved. But does this practice risk undermining public confidence in the legislation and regulation that governments apply to ensure the mining industry operates in an appropriate and acceptable way, particularly as this relates to environmental impacts?
We looked at this question by examining how perceptions
of governance capacity and environmental impact interact
to predict acceptance of mining. The relationship we found
is presented in Figure 9, below.
The highest level of acceptance was found among those Australians that felt mining had a low impact on the environment and had strong faith that our governments and legislation/ regulation can ensure mining companies do the right thing
(i.e., governance capacity). The opposite was also true. That is, the lowest levels of acceptance of mining were among those people who felt mining had a high impact on the environment and had low faith in Australia’s governance capacity.
Figure 9
Relationship between perceived governance capacity, environmental impact from mining and acceptance of mining. 2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
Low environmental impact High environmental impact
Acceptance of mining
Low governance capacity
High governance capacity
Importance of governance
13
18. Based on these findings, there is a risk that streamlining government approval processes may be perceived by the public as reducing the capacity of governments to hold the mining industry to account against its environmental impact commitments and conditions. Paradoxically, reducing the legislative and regulatory burden on industry may make it easier to get a mine approved and operating, but may simultaneously erode public confidence in legislative and regulatory power, which may reduce the acceptance of
mining more broadly and make it harder to operate a mine efficiently under conditions of increased social conflict.
Social licence is everyone’s business
While impacts and benefits of mining are important in shaping the level of acceptance of mining among Australia’s citizens, achieving a social licence is also about building trust between companies, governments, and society. There is a growing understanding that the way people are treated in decision- making processes, the way that benefits are distributed from mining, and the role of governance in setting the rules for mining, are important to developing this trust and acceptance.
We explored this in the data by examining the role of the following measures in predicting trust in industry and acceptance of the industry, in Australia:
◆◆
procedural fairness – the extent to which the industry
listens to and respects community opinions, and changes
its practices in response to community concerns;
◆◆
distributive fairness – the extent to which economic benefits from mining are distributed fairly, and each citizen receives
a fair share of the benefits of mining;
◆◆
governance capacity – the extent to which Australians feel that our state and federal governments, and legislation/ regulation, can ensure mining companies do the right thing.
To do this, we used path analysis13, a sophisticated statistical modelling technique that allows us to examine the relationships between these measures simultaneously. The results of this analysis can be seen in Figure 10, below. Higher numbers indicate stronger relationships; for example, higher levels
of trust lead to higher levels of acceptance.
The results suggest that:
◆◆
trust in the industry is a strong predictor of acceptance
of industry. Put another way, the industry’s social licence
is facilitated by the level of trust that the Australian public have in it
◆◆
procedural fairness in the way that industry engages the public is a strong positive predictor of trust in the industry
◆◆
the more that Australians feel the benefits of mining are distributed fairly, the higher their level of trust in the industry
◆◆
the more faith that people have in Australia’s governance capacity to ensure mining companies do the right thing,
the more they accept the industry
◆◆
but, perceptions of governance capacity is a stronger positive predictor of trust than it is of acceptance –
trust is a critical vehicle for achieving social licence
◆◆
procedural and distributive fairness, and governance capacity are all strongly positively related to each other
– more of one leads to more of the others
13
A brief overview of path analysis may be found at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_analysis_%28statistics%29
14 Australian attitudes toward mining
19. The values on each arrow are beta weights (β) and represent the relative strength of each relationship. Positive β-values indicate a positive relationship; negative β-values indicate a negative relationship.
Figure 10
Social acceptance of mining path model.
Together, these results indicate that building trust and acceptance of industry (i.e., a social licence) requires more
than just the actions of either industry or governments alone
– a social licence is dependent on these important parts of
the mining industry working together.
This conclusion is strengthened by the relatively stronger relationship observed between governance capacity and trust in industry compared to that observed between governance capacity and acceptance.
Australians trust and accept the industry more when they feel heard by the industry, when it is responsive to their concerns, when benefits from mining are shared equitably, and when
the legislative and regulatory frameworks we have in place
provide confidence that industry will do the right thing.
From this data then, we can see that the Australian public are more accepting of the mining industry in Australia when industry and governments work together to build trust in the industry – holding a social licence to operate is, therefore, the responsibility of governments and industry working together with communities to promote effective, constructive, and mutually beneficial relationships.
Have your say – get social
We want you to have your say on the big issues around mining. Tell us what you think the data means, tell us what we should do next, be part of a national conversation about mining in Australia.
Go to Twitter and use the #csiromining to comment
Go to CSIRO’s Facebook site to leave a message
A MODEL FOR SOCIAL LICENCE TO OPERATE
Procedural fairness
Distributional fairness
Acceptance of mining
Governance capacity
Trust in the mining industry
.64
.63
.44
.20
.44
.11
.24
.53
20. CONTACT US
t 1300 363 400
+61 3 9545 2176
e enquiries@csiro.au
w www.csiro.au
AT CSIRO WE SHAPE THE FUTURE.
We do this by using science to solve real
issues. Our research makes a difference to
industry, people and the planet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CSIRO Senior Research Scientist
Dr Kieren Moffat
e kieren.moffat@csiro.au
@kierenmoffat
CSIRO Postdoctoral Fellow
Dr Airong Zhang
CSIRO Research Projects
Ms Naomi Boughen
14-00604