Value-Adding in Australia – Strategic Issues and Opportunities
W Stange1
ABSTRACT
Downstream value-adding is a strategic issue for a country like Australia,
which has a resources-driven sector of a scale that has significant impact
on the national economy. The question of why producers are not doing
more to ‘value-add’ is often asked. In Australia this debate takes place
within the context of:
• an era of unprecedented growth in demand for resources driven by
the rapid urbanisation of China, India and others;
• impending legislation and uncertainty around carbon pricing;
• rapidly rising energy costs;
• significant supply-side shortages including infrastructure, skills and
manufacturing capacity; and
• significant industry consolidation of primary resource producers with
commensurate improvements in market power.
There are several examples of resource-based industries which have
developed their business along the complete value-chain; for example
large oil and gas producers successfully span upstream and downstream
operations including refining and petro-chemicals as well as retail
distribution of fuel and other products.
Relevant frameworks that provide insight and understanding into the
strategic issues around value-adding are reviewed and examples of the
application of these frameworks to companies and industries which have
successfully adopted a strategy of integrating along the value-chain, as
well as those players who have focused on parts of the value-chain are
presented.
The issues around value-adding in Australia are then reviewed with
reference to these frameworks and it is concluded that the issue is a
conflict between the objective companies who wish to maximise financial
value versus the desire of governments to increase economic benefits. An
approach to aligning these objectives is proposed.
INTRODUCTION
For countries like Australia which are significant producers of
primary commodities and raw materials, the debate around
‘downstream value-adding’ is one of strategic importance,
particularly where these activities are significant to the economy
overall.
The public debate is often subjective and superficial and runs
along the following lines:
• production and export of basic raw materials is a relatively
crude and ‘low-value’ activity;
• production of manufactured goods, like motor vehicles, is a
more sophisticated and value-adding activity; and
• why do we not convert more of our exported commodities –
like iron ore – into higher value products – like steel and
motor vehicles?
As an example this debate has become quite public and
emotional for BHP Billiton and the South Australian State
Government over the issue of whether copper concentrate should
be processed offshore or not for the Olympic Dam Expansion
project, illustrating just how high the stakes are. From The
Australian (2 June 2008):
Mr Rann reacted angrily last July to a leaked
proposal from the mining giant to export
uranium-infused copper to China, bypassing the
need for smelting and processing at the remote
site 570 km northwest of Adelaide.
1. MAusIMM, Silcar, Level 1, 173 Burke Road, Glen Iris Vic 3146.
Email: wayne.stange@silcar.com.au
The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008
He warned against the state being treated as a
‘giant quarry’, and said offshore processing,
which would also export several thousand jobs,
was ‘not on’.
It is important to clearly understand the context in which this
debate is being conducted:
• a record demand for commodities driven by the growth of
developing economies;
• an economy functioning close to full capacity with
significant supply side constraints creating an inflationary
climate;
• China, a major purchaser and ‘value-adder’ of our
commodities, an emerging superpower; and
• our economy is particularly exposed to the combined impact
of carbon emissions regulation and rapidly rising energy
consumption and costs in a ‘peak oil’ scenario.
This paper attempts to inform the debate by reviewing and
applying relevant frameworks of analysis from the strategy body
of knowledge. This includes examples of companies and
industries which have successfully adopted a strategy of
integrating along the value-chain, as well as those players who
have focused on parts of the value-chain.
The outcome of this analysis in the current context and the
implications for Australia will then be discussed. The essential
conflict that requires resolution is that of an ‘economic’ versus
‘value’ perspective:
• a state or national government is attempting to maximise the
economic benefits from the country’s resource base, and
• a particular company or industry is shaping activity across
the value-chain in a way that beneficially impacts their value
and risk profile.
This paper demonstrates that the balance between the
‘economic’ and ‘value’ perspective must be maintained in a
manner aligned with the basic sector cycles, eg growth versus
cost-dominated sector cycles. The paper concludes with
suggested approaches to bridging the gap between the value and
economic perspectives
A PERSPECTIVE ON ‘VALUE’
Shareholder value perspective
Over the last 20 years shareholders, particularly large institutional
investors, have increasingly expected senior management of
publicly listed companies to improve shareholder returns. This
has resulted in the development of the Value Based Management
(VBM) approach (Koller, Goedhart and Wessels, 2005;
Rappaport, 1998). There is ample evidence to demonstrate that
companies committed to VBM do indeed improve total
shareholder returns (TSR), often resulting in a significant
improvement in company share price (Koller, Goedhart and
Wessels, 2005; Rappaport, 1998).
Prior to the current resources boom basic materials companies
struggled to sustain high levels of shareholder value over longer
time periods, as summarised in Table 1 (Stange and Crundwell,
2005).
79
W STANGE

TABLE 1 • the business’s cost of capital – WACC, and

Summary of materials sector performance. • net operating profit after tax – NOPAT.
3 years 5 years 10 years Equation 1 illustrates clearly that economic value is only
added when ROIC > WACC. This is a fundamental VBM
Materials sector rank #5 of 22 #9 of 22 #15 of 22
principle that must be achieved over the longer term if a
Materials sector TSR 12.4% 12.4% 7.0% company is to be financially sustainable. In particular for a
Best performer Consumer Consumer Transportation growing business, ie one in which the invested capital is growing
durables durables with time, value is only being created while the return on this
Best sector TSR 22.3% 26.4% 29.0% capital is greater than the cost of capital.
As most of the terms are dependent on future performance and
events they are inherently ‘uncertain’ and therefore an
Value-based management appropriate risk approach to the quantification of these quantities
must be adopted.
Although TSR data provides a historical perspective of value
Value stream analysis consists of two primary activities:
delivery performance, how do we improve future performance?
It is well demonstrated that, over the longer term, the market • The use of a rigid approach to quantify the key drivers which
value of a company is based on fundamentals rather than impact on these projected cash flows over time, ie to identify
emotions (Goedhart, Koller and Wessels, 2005). This implies that the key ‘value drivers’ for the business. We term this activity
improving value delivery to shareholders is equivalent to ‘value stream modelling’.
improving the projected future value of the company.
• The application of the insight and understanding developed
According to VBM principles (Goedhart, Koller and Wessels, from this ongoing analysis to ensure that the key levers of
2005) the long-term ‘intrinsic value’ of a company at any time
value are managed in the direction required.
can be calculated using a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis of
the future cash flows of the company: VSM consists of ‘linking’ the very fundamental financial
drivers in an accurate, coherent and structured manner to the
∞
operating levers that management has an ability to influence.
Value = Invested Capital0 + ∑
t=1
Dobbs and Koller (2005) present a performance measurement
(1)
Invested Capitalt − 1 × ( ROIC t − WACC t ) framework that illustrates these linkages (Figure 1).
Performance, or value delivered, is determined by the key
(1 + WACC t )t value drivers related to growth, ROIC and cost of capital. The
operational levers which impact on the value drivers in the short,
where: medium and long-term are viewed as health metrics. This is a
Value = projected business value useful framework to keep in mind when conducting a value
stream analysis.
Invested capitali = capital invested into the business in time
period i This framework also illustrates how the intangible assets
(Stewart, 1997; Sveiby, 1989) of a company underpin the ability
ROICi = return on invested capital achieved in time period i of an organisation to generate and sustain tangible value.
= NOPATi/invested capitali Intangible assets include capabilities such as:
WACCt = weighted average cost of capital, per cent, for period i • supplier and customer relationships;
NOPATi = net operating profit after tax for period i • management and computer systems; and
Equation 1 demonstrates that the fundamental financial drivers • employee attitudes, education, experience and skills.
of value are: Such ‘soft’ assets clearly underlie the ability of any company
• the level of capital invested in the business – invested capital, to impact on the health metrics illustrated in (Figure 1).

Performance Generic Health Metrics

Short Term Medium Long
Value Delivered
(8) Organisational Health

Growth (1) Sales (4) Commercial

Rate Productivity Health

(7) Strategic Health

(2) Operating (5) Cost • Core Business

Return on Cost Productivity Structure Health
Intrinsic
Value invested • Growth Options
capital
(3) Capital
(6) Asset Health
• Value of Productivity
Discounted Cash
Flow Cost of
capital
Source: McKinsey Quarterly, 2005 Special Edition on Value

FIG 1 - Drivers of company value.

80 Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008 The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference

 VALUE-ADDING IN AUSTRALIA – STRATEGIC ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

TABLE 2 The topic of the degree to which an organisation should

vertically integrate up and down the value stream has been
Intangible asset framework (Sveiby, 1989).
extensively studied by strategy practitioners and researchers
Visible equity/ Intangible assets (stock price premium) (Porter, 1980; Harrigan, 1985; Stuckey and White, 1993).
book value Made up of: Guidelines and ‘lessons learnt’ regarding vertical integration.
External Internal Individual
Vertical integration is typically a risky and complex strategy
structure structure competence and expensive and cumbersome to reverse if it fails. It should
therefore only be undertaken when absolutely necessary. Good
• Brands • Management • Education reasons for vertical integration include:
• Customer • Legal • Experience
Fixed assets relationships structure • Skills • The market between value-chain stages is overly risky or
minus visible • Supplier • Manual and inefficient.
debt relationships computer
systems
• Market, and pricing, power is higher in adjacent value-chain
• Attitudes stages is greater than the stages of the value-chain that
• R&D a particular organisation occupies. Successful vertical
• Software integration effectively increases market power.
• Integration creates or exploits market power by raising
barriers to entry or facilitating price differentiation across
THE COMPETITIVENESS OF VALUE-ADDING different market segments.

The key drivers for the competitiveness of potential value-adding

for a given industry within a given country or region are:
• vertical integration, and
• relative competitive advantage.
Vertical integration
Value-adding typically implies that a company vertically
integrates activities up and down the value-chain; for example
Alcoa has adopted a strategy of vertical integration through the
stages of:
• bauxite mining,
• converting bauxite into alumina by refining,
• The ultimate product market is immature and it is necessary
to integrate to ensure product delivery, or similarly a market
is mature and participants are withdrawing from particular
stages.
The dynamic interplay between vertical and horizontal
integration is illustrated in Figure 2; the ongoing mining industry
consolidation of the last five years is a good example of a
successful horizontal integration strategy. These dynamics are
the result of the observation that supply and demand forces are
not the only significant influencers of prices and volumes.
Market power – the balance of power between buyers and sellers
– is a key determinant of prices.
Poor reasons to pursue vertical integration as a strategy
include:

• converting alumina into aluminium by smelting, and

• converting primary aluminium into a range of shapes and
alloys.
Vertical integration allows a company to effectively coordinate
the various stages of a value chain itself without relying on
trading with others.
• Reducing volatility in earnings by assuming that vertical
integration creates a more integrated portfolio of assets. This
is rarely the case – adjacent stages of a value-chain rarely aid
diversification in that they are influenced by the same key
drivers.
• Guaranteeing supply or outlets. This may be justified in
situations of market failure but is not a good justification

Horizontal Integration /
Consolidation by
Buyers
# of Sellers

Balanced
Balanced
Buyers
Buyers Buyers
Buyers Horizontal
Many Market
Dominate Dominate Integration /
Power
Consolidation
By Sellers

Sellers
Few
... Dominate

Elevated
Trading
Risk
Sellers
One
Dominate

One Few Many

# of Buyers

FIG 2 - Vertical and horizontal integration dynamics.

The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008 81

W STANGE

for vertical integration when efficient markets exist. This
has significant implications for ‘security of supply’
considerations in both the energy and mineral commodity
areas.
Capturing more value. It is often mistakenly believed that
integrating along the value chain, particularly closer to the final
customer, will allow more value to be captured than if the
organisation was further away from the final customer. The key
driver is that of locating maximum economic surplus, which in
capital intensive industries like mining is determined by the
combination of capital intensity and relative operating margins of
a particular stage of the value-chain. This may obviously change
slowly as industry cycles evolve.
Integration should be focused on industry stages in which the
greatest economic surpluses (or value-added) are available. As
the competitive forces in an industry evolves so does the
likelihood that an organisation should re-evaluate its vertical
integration strategy. The current scenario of excessive demand,
supply side constraints, regulation and cost of emissions would
typically justify such a review by most mining organisations.
Figure 3 provides convincing evidence that industry
consolidation (horizontal integration) is a key determinant of
value creation for various mineral sectors. The key issue with a
consolidation strategy is merger and acquisition of assets at
prices that are not that high that the ability to create shareholder
value becomes unlikely.
Relative competitive advantage
Another issue which strongly impacts the ‘downstream added-
value’ debate within a particular country is that of national
competitive advantage, ie are there stages of an industry sector’s
value chain at which a particular country is inherently more or
less competitive?
Porter (1985) postulated that companies that survive and
prosper do so predominantly due to their success at innovating
and adapting to changing competitive forces. A country or region
has the following attributes that impact on the effectiveness of
innovation of companies operating in this country or region:
• factors of production – the nations’ factors of production
such as raw material, labour and infrastructure;
• demand conditions – the nature of home-market demand for
the industry’s product or service;
• related or supporting industries – the presence or absence of
supporting or related industries that are world-competitive;
and
• industry strategy and structure – the conditions in the
country that govern how firms are created, organised and
managed.
The Australian situation with respect to each attribute is
summarised in Table 3.

Source: Citigroup Analysis

FIG 3 - Relationship between value creation and consolidation.

TABLE 3
Australia’s relative competitive advantage.

Attribute Key issues

Factors of production
Demand conditions
Related/supporting industries
Industry strategy and structure
Host to several large-scale orebodies, such as iron ore in the Pilbara, coal in the Bowen Basin and Hunter Valley,
nickel and gold in Western Australia, etc has allowed Australia to develop the capability of efficiently mining large
volumes of ore in a profitable manner, even if the inherent quality of the ore is not world class.
The remote locations of these orebodies has resulted in effective logistics systems as well as the ability to design,
construct and operate large mining operations in remote environments.
Relatively high Australian labour costs has ensured that these operations are run efficiently and leanly; a significant
advantage under a cyclical and traditionally cost-driven industry.
Due to Australia’s relatively small population the local demand for metals has resulted in relatively small local
industries based around finished metals such as stainless steel, aluminium and copper, even though Australia mines
significant quantities of feedstock for these metals.
As per Porter’s framework this has resulted in the development of a significant export market for raw materials, such
as iron ore and metallurgical coal, rather than export of finished products like stainless steel and secondary aluminium.
Construction and associated mining service industries in Australia, such as outsourced maintenance and mining
operations, are world class.
World-leading research and development capabilities in the form of AMIRA, CRC and institutions like JKMRC.
The fact that Australia has spawned several world-class and industry shaping mining organisations such as WMC,
MIM, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto results in the development of deep expertise, world-class management practices and
systems and career opportunities in the industry.

82 Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008 The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference

 VALUE-ADDING IN AUSTRALIA – STRATEGIC ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
In contrast to the view of many that government is there to do
everything possible to help the industry Porter (1985) sees the
role of government as catalysing and challenging its world-class
industries to become even more competitive and shaping policies
to achieve this. This typically is achieved by encouraging
competitive change, promoting domestic rivalry and stimulating
innovation.
CASE STUDY – CRUDE OIL REFINING
The evolution of the crude oil industry between 1966 and 1985
illustrated how evolving industry structures result in a
requirement to modify the industry’s approach to vertical
integration (Stuckey and White, 1993).
In the mid 1960s the crude oil refining industry consisted of a
highly concentrated number of buyers and sellers of refined
crude oil. To minimise the trading risk inherent in this structure
contracts between buyers and sellers were typically of ten year
duration. The high capital costs and consequent long lifetime of
refineries, as well as the fact that refineries were custom-built for
specific feeds further reinforced the need for contracting
certainty between buyers and sellers. This implied that spot and
short-term market did not exist at this stage, leading to a fairly
static combination of buyer and seller relationships.
This situation facilitated vertical integration between crude oil
production (E&P sector) and refining as an internal contracting
mechanism.
Over the 20 years from 1966 the crude oil refining industry
experienced several significant shifts:
• nationalisation of oil resources by OPEC producers,
• significant growth of non-OPEC producers, and
• technology advances in refining that facilitated much more
flexibility in terms of varying characteristics of crude feeds
that could be refined efficiently.
This resulted in a significant decrease in concentration of oil
refining and a subsequent efficient market for crude oil.
Development of efficient logistics and supply-chain planning and
optimisation capability has further enhanced the efficiency of the
E&P – refining market. This has resulted in declining vertical
integration and a significant rise in the number of independent
E&P and refining companies.
This decrease in concentration, and corresponding increase in
competition, resulted in the decrease of margins for some
players. The oil shock of the 1970s provided further momentum
35%
30%
Company A
Company B
25%
ROCE (%)
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FIG 4 - Comparison of financial performance.
The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008
to counteract price volatility by integrating downstream into
chemical production, eg olefin production and the resultant
development of large integrated petro-chemical complexes.
CASE STUDY – VERTICAL INTEGRATION AND
SHAREHOLDER VALUE
A comparison of two companies with significantly different
strategies with respect to approach to vertical integration was
reviewed. Both organisations are of similar scale and stature and
are seen as leading global organisations in their respective
market positions. Their differences with respect to vertical
integration and commodity focus are significant:
• Organisation A is vertically integrated around a single
commodity – aluminium. It has significant operations in the
mining, refining, smelting, rolling and fabrication stages of
the aluminium value chain.
• Organisation B is focused on discovering and developing
large orebodies with a strong focus on upstream stages such
as mining and primary beneficiation. It is active across a
wide range of commodities.
Figure 4 illustrates the ROCE performance of both
organisations. For capital intensive organisations ROCE is a
critical performance measure as it reflects the degree to which
the large capital investments required by the company are
providing adequate returns. Failure to meet hurdle rates, such as
the cost of capital, implies that shareholder value is negative, ie
value is being destroyed. Poor return on capital is traditionally a
significant challenge for mining and related companies.
It is evident from Figure 4 that Company B provides a better
return to its shareholders than Company A. The strong vertical
integration of Company B implies that it is exposed to declining
margins down its value chain due to the large capital
requirements of downstream operations.
It is also evident that Company A has not had the same benefit
from the resources boom that Company B has. This is due mostly
to the fact that the price increases for aluminium related
commodities has been significantly less than that for other
commodities (see Table 4). The latent capacity in the aluminium
value chain maintained the supply-demand balance as demand
rose strongly.
Although not directly a result of its vertically integrated
strategy achieving world-class scale across multiple commodities
as well as a deeply vertically integrated structure would be a
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
83
W STANGE

TABLE 4 • The growth of production is often reasonably well

Comparative commodity movements. The aluminium industry has represented by a simple CAGR curve with clearly discernible
reacted to the increase in demand quicker than other materials. periods of faster and slower growth during the last 100 years.
• The fact that real prices for all three commodities are
Unit 1998 2008 Change
experiencing levels rarely seen in the last 100 years.
Aluminum ($/Mt) 1380 2823 205%
The underlying driver for this has been postulated as due to the
Copper ($/Mt) 1674 7897 472% rapid urbanisation of developing economies, particularly those of
Lead ($/Mt) 533 2899 544% China and India, which significantly lifts the relative level of
commodity usage per capita (see Figure 9). Given the vast sizes
Zinc ($/Mt) 1047 2437 233%
of the population of China and India and the rapid rates of
Nickel ($/Mt) 4691 29 105 620% growth and urbanisation the net effect is to push commodity
Steel ($/st) 256 743 290% demand to significantly higher levels than we have ever
experienced. This is seen as at least a medium-term trend rather
Magnesium ($/Mt) 3042 7165 236%
than a ‘price spike’ which will disappear in months or a few
Oil ($/Bbl) 14 100 696% years.
Natural gas ($/mmBtu) 2.16 10.30 477%
Recommendations
Note: Demand side – basic commodity bull market. Source: Alcoa
analysis. As at 7 April 2008. Based on the analysis presented it can be concluded that for
Australian mining companies the best course of action is to
invest in primary commodity production. Given the current and
formidable undertaking of which there are no obvious examples.
medium-term context of high growth rates in the demand for
Deep vertical integration therefore practically locks out the primary commodities it is clear that the best financial returns, for
benefits associated with the benefits of diversification across a a given investment of capital, will be earned in the primary
number of minerals with common upstream characteristics, eg commodity sectors.
developing, mining and beneficiating ‘world-class’ deposits.
The most appropriate course of action for the public sector is
Figure 5 shows the combined result of these impacts in terms to assist Australian mining companies in overcoming the
of shareholder value over the last five years – it is clear that challenges associated with realisation of rapid growth, rather
Company B has returned significantly more value to its
than to promote strategies which will reduce the competitiveness
shareholders.
of the Australian industry.
The public sector can facilitate the acceleration of growth by:
VALUE-ADDING IN AUSTRALIA – CHALLENGES
AND OPPORTUNITIES • working closely with the industry to identify and relieve
infrastructure capacity constraints that limit the ability of the
Mining industry context industry to meet increased levels of demand (see Figure 10);

Figure 6 through Figure 8 illustrate the growth in production, real
price in 1998 terms and relative stock levels for three
commodities – nickel, iron ore and copper.
All three commodities illustrate:
• The cyclical nature of the mining industry is frequently
caused by an imbalance in supply and demand. New capacity
is often developed and brought on-stream when prices are
good, resulting in excess capacity and a consequent reduction
in price.
Co.
Co. B
B
• fast-tracking provision of a sufficient number of appropriately
skilled workers by a combination of training, development
and migration;
• develop and implement significantly improved permitting
processes to deal with environmental and land use issues;
• incentivising the industry to behave strategically in terms of
understanding and responding to the challenges it will have
in the next ten to 20 years if it is to make the most out of the
opportunities presented by the current resource boom; and

Co. A
Co. A

FIG 5 - Shareholder performance.

84 Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008 The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference

 VALUE-ADDING IN AUSTRALIA – STRATEGIC ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Copper: 1900 – 2006 (Source US Geological Survey)

55% 10 000
Stocks/ Production
50% 9000
1998 USD /ton
45%
8000
40%
7000
Relative Stocks (%)

Price, 1998 US$/t

35%
6000
30%
5000
25%
4000
20%
3000
15%
2000
10%

5% 1000

0% 0
16
14
CAGR = 3.3% Annual Global Production
12
10
Millions

8
6
4
2
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year

FIG 6 - Copper (1900 - 2006).

Nickel: 1900 – 2006 (Source US Geological Survey)

22.5% 30 000

20.0% Stocks / Production

1998 USD/ton 25 000
17.5%

15.0% 20 000
Stocks/Production

Price, 1998 US$/t

12.5%
15 000
10.0%

7.5% 10 000

5.0%
5000
2.5%

0.0% 0
2.00
1.80 Annual Global Production
1.60 Predicted
1.40
Millions

1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
CAGR : 5.2%
0.20
0.00
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year

FIG 7 - Nickel (1900 - 2006).

The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008 85

W STANGE

Iron Ore: 1900 – 2006

35% 80

30% Stocks/ Production 70

1998 USD / ton
60
25%
Stocks/Production

50

Price, 1998 US$/t

20%

40

15%
30

10%
20

5% 10

0% 0
Annual Global Production, tons

2000
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1800
1600
Annual Global Production
1400
Millions

Predicted
1200
1000
800
600
CAGR: 2.7%
400
200
-
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year

FIG 8 - Iron ore (1900 - 2006).

FIG 9 - Relative steel consumption and urbanisation.

86 Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008 The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference

 VALUE-ADDING IN AUSTRALIA – STRATEGIC ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
FIG 10 - Infrastructure constraints.
• developing innovative approaches to minimise the effort
required to identify and develop prospective mineral
deposits, including seeding exploration and efficient
packaging of resource information.
REFERENCES
Dobbs, R and Koller, T, 2005. Measuring long-term performance,
McKinsey Quarterly 2005 Special Edition: Value and Performance,
pp 17-27.
The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008
Goedhart, M, Koller, T and Wessels, D, 2005. Do fundamentals – or
emotions – Drive the stock market? The McKinsey Quarterly 2005
Special Edition on Value and Performance.
Harrigan, K R, 1985. Vertical integration and corporate strategy, The
Academy of Management Journal, 28(2):397-425.
Kelly, T D and Matos, G R, 2008. Historical statistics for mineral and
material commodities in the United States, US Geological Survey
[online]. Available from: <http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/>.
Koller, T, Goedhart, M and Wessels, D, 2005. Valuation – Measuring and
Managing the Value of Companies, fourth edition (Wiley and Sons).
Porter, M E, 1980. Competitive Strategy (The Free Press).
Porter, M E, 1998. Competitive Advantage of Nations (The Free Press).
Rappaport, A, 1998. Creating Shareholder Value (The Free Press).
Stange, W and Crundwell, F, 2005. Enabling shareholder value delivery,
presented to Conference on Process Systems in the Metallurgical
Industry, Cape Town.
Stewart, T A, 1997. Intellectual Capital – The New Wealth of
Organizations (Nicholas Brealey Publishers: London).
Stuckey, J and White, D, 1993. When and when not to vertically
integrate, McKinsey Quarterly, August.
Sveiby, K E, 1989. The Invisible Balance Sheet – Key Indicators for
Accounting, Control and Valuation of Know-How Companies (ed:
K E Sveiby) (Ledarskap: Stockholm).
87
88 Wollongong, NSW, 15 - 16 July 2008 The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference