The Extractive Industries and Society 6 (2019) 22–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Extractive Industries and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/exis

Original article

How do national mining industry associations compare on sustainable T

development?
Vlado Vivoda , Deanna Kemp
⁎

Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Sir James Foots Building (47A), St Lucia Campus, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study establishes new knowledge about country-level mining industry associations with respect to sus-
Industry associations tainable development. Industry associations present an opportunity for diffusion of leading practice norms and
Mining standards in this arena. We examined the emergence of mining industry associations, their public statements
Sustainability about sustainability, and the degree to which their general statements were translated into formal policies. Of 61
Sustainable development
mining industry associations with web presence, 20 (33%) had not made a public statement about sustainability.
Social performance, policy
Of the 41 associations that had made a public statement about sustainability, 13 (32%) did not have a sus-
tainable development policy, or a position that translated general statements into specific commitments. Only
half of the associations with a web presence mention the social aspects of mining. These findings highlight a
significant gap in the coverage of sustainable development and associated policy commitments among mining
industry associations. The study raises questions about the degree to which country-level mining industry as-
sociations are approaching sustainable development in a meaningful way, and what can be done to avoid
promulgating sustainability “spin”.

1. Introduction Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro

Sustainability is, arguably, one of the most powerful tenets of
modern life. From an environmental standpoint, society is increasingly
placing a value on sustainable technologies, processes and products that
either have zero impact on our ecosystem, or function within the limits
of its carrying capacity. From a social standpoint, society is being
sensitised to issues that affect human life, dignity and rights, such as
fair labour practices, social justice and gender equality. The application
of sustainability values is transforming the landscapes in which we live,
and the institutional logics that govern the ways in which society op-
erates. Businesses are being prompted to embrace sustainability in a
meaningful way (Delmas and Toffel, 2004, 2008; Short and Toffel,
2010).
The concept of sustainable business is relatively new. In 1987, the
Brundtland Commission coined the phrase “sustainable development”,
defined as development which “meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987:
24). The desired result is a society where living conditions and resource
use continue to meet human needs without undermining the integrity
and stability of natural systems, and the needs of future generations.
This concept was highlighted during the 1992 United Nations
prompting business organisations worldwide to begin to adopt sus-
tainable development policies (Gladwin et al., 1995; Stoughton and
Ludema, 2012). These policies converge around a concern for the en-
vironment, economic growth and poverty reduction (Stern, 2006).
Understanding the sustainability practices of businesses has become
a focal point in international business studies (Campbell et al., 2012;
Egri and Ralston, 2008; Husted and Allen, 2006; Kolk, 2016). This is
particularly the case in extractive industries where social and en-
vironmental issues are pronounced (Buchanan and Marques, 2018;
Dashwood, 2012). Mining can have adverse impacts on the health and
safety of mine workers, the natural environment, and on the commu-
nities in close proximity to mining activities, including land-connected
and indigenous peoples (Owen and Kemp, 2017). Mining also has the
opportunity to contribute to sustainable development (CCSI, 2016;
Scheyvens et al., 2016). The medium of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) provides incentives for business organisations to act in a socially
and environmentally responsible manner, which includes contributions
to the sustainable development agenda (Moon, 2007). Brammer et al.
(2012: 20) contend that CSR “must be understood within the wider
dynamics of business and industry associations, social networks and
state regulation”. In response to their call for an examination of a wider
range of actors capable of shaping business practices, we focus our

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: v.vivoda@uq.edu.au (V. Vivoda), d.kemp@smi.uq.edu.au (D. Kemp).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.06.002
Received 23 April 2018; Received in revised form 4 June 2018; Accepted 4 June 2018
Available online 12 June 2018
2214-790X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V. Vivoda, D. Kemp
analysis on the role of national, or “country-level” industry associations
from within the mining industry.
While the number of country-level mining industry associations
appears to have grown in recent decades, little research exists on such
organisations, which has led to calls for research (e.g. Marques, 2017).
According to Grayson and Nelson (2013: xviii), industry associations
remain a “relatively unchronicled actor” with remarkably little written
about “their history, activities, governance, funding, impact, and role in
the future.” The purpose of the paper, therefore, is to advance under-
standing of country-level mining industry associations with respect to
sustainable development. The specific objectives are to analyse the
emergence and global spread of mining industry associations in re-
source-rich countries, and to compare their mandates and policy fra-
meworks with respect to sustainability development.
In order to meet these objectives, in Section 2 we survey the existing
literature on industry associations, with a focus on mining. In Section 3
we outline the methodology and limitations of our study. Results are
presented in Section 4, and in Section 5 we consider our findings in the
context of commitments made by the global mining industry to sus-
tainable development. The final section raises questions about whether
national mining industry associations are approaching sustainable de-
velopment in a meaningful way, or using it as an opportunity for public
relations spin. This section also proposes several avenues for further
research. This study advances research on the nature and role of mining
industry associations with respect to sustainability, and is significant
given their norm-setting potential.
2. Literature review
Industry associations are voluntary, member-based organisations
typically founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific
industry, whose interests they represent. Barnett defines them as “or-
ganisations through which a group of interdependent firms, typically in
the same industry, pool their resources and coordinate their efforts so
that they may ‘speak with one voice’ on matters of shared interest”
(Barnett, 2013: 214). Industry associations are also known as chambers,
trade associations, business associations, sector associations or industry
bodies. They are considered to be prominent institutional actors that
shape and influence their members’ business practices in general, with
potential to shape their sustainability practices (Buchanan and
Marques, 2018; Rajwani et al., 2015).
While industry associations are influential actors in both national
and international governance, surprisingly little research exists on these
organisations, including in the mining and extractive sector (Grayson
and Nelson, 2013; Marques, 2017). This has led to recent calls for re-
search on the topic (Barnett, 2013; Grayson and Nelson, 2013; Lux
et al., 2011; Marques, 2017; Rajwani et al., 2015). The literature review
by Marques (2017) suggests that collective action via industry asso-
ciations can serve multiple ends that fall along a continuum from
“highly malignant” to “greatly beneficial” to society. Theoretical and
empirical evidence suggests that under specific circumstances, industry
associations can play an important role in mitigating negative social
and environmental outcomes and contributing to positive change
(Brammer et al., 2012; Marques, 2017; Marques and Utting, 2010). This
constructive role is diametrically opposed to critical literature which
views them as “narrowly self-interested and detrimental to society”
(Marques, 2017: 734).
Industry associations are described as self-regulatory, in that they
develop and formalise industry norms; and representative, in that they
participate in the political process on behalf of their members (Cutler
et al.,1999). In the mining industry, for instance, there is a collective
preference for voluntary self-regulation over state regulation. This is
cited as a key driver of the proliferation of voluntary commitments and
standards in mining and sustainable development (Dashwood, 2007;
Lindsay, 2011). Mining industry associations also promote the macro-
economic benefits of mining to national and regional economies, co-
23
The Extractive Industries and Society 6 (2019) 22–28
ordinate responses to government policy and sector governance me-
chanisms that favour members (Dashwood, 2007; Elbra, 2017). Pro-
moting a sustainable development agenda can form a part of their
remit, particularly in jurisdictions where there are strong expectations
of the industry to do so, but this is not their raison d'être. In order to
advance academic debate on the role of industry associations and sus-
tainable development, we present new data about their commitments to
sustainable development.
Industry associations are important in mining since the industry is
characterised by high levels of reputational interdependence, with a
greater reliance on collective organisations than other sectors (Barnett
and Hoffman, 2008; Buchanan and Marques, 2018). There are two
prominent and powerful national mining industry associations with
sustainability frameworks designed to encourage member companies to
meet agreed standards across a range of operational activities and im-
pacts: the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) and the Mining Asso-
ciation of Canada (MAC). First, the MCA, established in 1995, has de-
veloped the Enduring Value: the Australian Minerals Industry Framework
for Sustainable Development (EVF) (MCA (Minerals Council of Australia),
2005). The EVF is an articulation of the industry’s commitment to
sustainable development, designed to encourage member companies to
meet agreed standards across a range of operational activities and im-
pacts. In the 2015 update, the MCA claims to influence a range of other
spheres as “evident in a wide range of legislation, tools and guidance
materials applicable to extractive industries in Australia, and the re-
gion” (MCA (Minerals Council of Australia), 2015). Second, the MAC,
established in 1935 as the voice of the Canadian mining industry, has
developed the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) initiative. TSM was
launched in 2004 to enable member companies to meet society’s needs
for minerals, metals and energy products in the most socially, eco-
nomically and environmentally responsible way (MAC (Mining
Association of Canada), 2018). The MCA’s and MAC’s frameworks
provide potential platforms for diffusion of social and environmental
norms and standards to other mining jurisdictions.
The Australian and Canadian associations both reference the
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) and its Framework
for Sustainable Development (ICMM (International Council on Mining
and Metals), 2003, 2015). The ICMM is a member-driven organisation,
founded in 2001 to improve sustainable development performance in
the global mining and metals sector. Unlike national industry associa-
tions, the ICMM’s stated purpose is to contribute to sustainable devel-
opment. Member companies are required to commit to 10 Principles for
Sustainable Development, to implement them in full, and to transpar-
ently report on their performance (ICMM (International Council on
Mining and Metals), 2003, 2015). The ICMM has a number of industry
association members, including a number of country-level associations.
Associate members enable the council to “share our principles for sus-
tainable development and best practice guidelines beyond our member
companies” (ICMM (International Council on Mining and Metals),
2018).
Studies of sustainability and CSR practices in the global mining
industry have focused on the role and influence of international in-
dustry associations, such as the ICMM (Gifford et al., 2010; Helms et al.,
2012). However, there is little research about the influence of the ICMM
or country-level mining industry associations in promoting sustainable
development among other country-level mining industry associations.
A notable exception is recent work by Buchanan and Marques (2018),
which explores the nature of MAC’s influence on the practices of
member companies operating outside of Canada. Their findings suggest
that MAC leverages its position to influence its members’ international
practices through regulative and normative means. Buchanan and
Marques (2018) did not extend their analysis to MAC’s influence on
other national mining industry associations. This global comparative
review of sustainability commitments among country-level mining in-
dustry associations begins to bridge this gap.
V. Vivoda, D. Kemp
3. Methods
We focus our analysis on national jurisdictions that have mining
industry associations. An initial scan of mining jurisdictions identified
countries with established mining industry associations. The initial scan
focused on 104 national jurisdictions included in The Fraser Institute
Annual Survey of Mining Companies (Jackson and Green, 2017).1 Ob-
ligations for national mining industry associations to publicly report on
performance in sustainability, triple bottom line, or environmental or
social impact reports, are weaker than for mining companies. Conse-
quently, our research focused on the information available on national
mining industry association websites.2
Following the initial scan, the websites of national mining industry
associations were scrutinised to determine whether they had made
public statements about sustainability in their organisational mission,
vision, values, purpose statements, and/or organisational objectives or
goals. If a public statement was identified, the content of the associa-
tion’s policy position/s was examined to understand, more specifically,
the approach being taken to sustainable development across economic,
environmental, social and workforce dimensions. We took particular
interest in the social dimensions of sustainable development, or what
the industry has come to refer to as “social performance”.3 We also
identified instances where associations had referenced other national
frameworks such as those from MAC in Canada, and MCA in Australia.
Association membership of the ICMM is also noted.
The sample only includes those country-level industry associations
with words “mining”, “mines”, “minerals” and “metals” in the official
name. We excluded commodity specific associations (e.g. coal, copper,
diamond, gold, petroleum, etc.). Egypt and Papua New Guinea were the
only two jurisdictions with a single industry association that covered
both mining and petroleum sectors and they were both included in the
sample. Sub-national and regional associations were not included in the
sample.
4. Results
This section presents the results of the comparative review by fo-
cused on four major facets of mining industry association activity: (i)
decade of establishment; (ii) global spread and web presence; (iii)
public statement about sustainability; and (iv) policy positions that
promote sustainability. The section also briefly outlines key intra-re-
gional distinctions by focused on four major regional clusters of mining
industry association activity, which include Central and South America,
Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Europe.4
The comparative review found that of 104 national jurisdictions
scanned, 73 have a mining industry association, which represents 70%
of the jurisdictions scanned. Globally, 43 (59%) of the mining industry
associations were established since 1990. By decade, most were es-
tablished in the 1990s and 2010s (see Fig. 1). Sub-Saharan Africa ac-
counts for 59% of mining industry associations formed in the current
decade. Since 2012, new mining industry associations were established
1 of Mining and Metallurgical Enterprises, 2017). Similarly, the Chamber
The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies rates jurisdictions around the
world based on a combination of their geologic attractiveness for minerals and metals and
their policy attractiveness. It is the world’s most comprehensive annual assessment of
mining jurisdictions that is available in the public domain. All of the national jurisdictions
included in the latest survey (104 in total) were selected for the purposes of this study.
2
There would be much value in analysing the approach of mining industry associations
to sustainable development in practice. Such a resource intensive study is beyond the
scope of the current research.
3
Social performance includes topics as diverse as mining-induced displacement and
resettlement, land access and acquisition, cultural heritage, indigenous affairs, agreement
negotiation and implementation, community engagement and development, social in-
vestment, in-migration, local employment, local business development, livelihoods and
food security, conflict and grievance handling, and human rights.
4
Other non-focus regions include North America, North Africa and the Middle East,
and the Former Soviet Union.
24
The Extractive Industries and Society 6 (2019) 22–28
in 12 jurisdictions, of which one is located in South America (Uruguay),
six in Sub-Saharan Africa (Ethiopia, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Se-
negal and Sierra Leone), two in Asia (Afghanistan and Myanmar), one
in the Former Soviet Union (Kyrgyzstan) and two in Europe (France
[merger of two associations] and Serbia).
This pattern aligns with the rapid expansion of the global mining
industry in the 1990s. During this time, mining companies head-
quartered in advanced industrialised economies faced growing restric-
tions in their home state, while resource-rich host countries began to
incentivise foreign direct investment (FDI). High commodity prices fa-
cilitated exploration and project development into new mining fron-
tiers. The result was a significant geographic shift away from the United
States, Canada and Australia, and towards South America, post-
Communist Eastern Europe, the Asia-Pacific region and Africa
(Dashwood, 2014). During the 2000s, mineral-rich countries across
these regions enjoyed a mining boom as metal prices nearly tripled,
leading to the establishment of mining operations in numerous jur-
isdictions, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. The growing number of
companies operating in new mining jurisdictions prompted the need for
a collective industry voice, which appears to have led to the estab-
lishment of numerous new mining industry associations over the past
decade, with as many as 14 associations established in Sub-Saharan
Africa alone since the turn of the century.
Of the 73 jurisdictions with a mining industry associations, 61 as-
sociations maintain web presence, representing 85%. Of the 61 asso-
ciations that maintain a web presence, 12 are ICMM associate members,
representing 20% of those associations with a web presence, and 16%
of the 73 industry associations within the scanned jurisdictions.5 Five
country-level associations have adopted Canada’s TSM Initiative, in-
cluding those in Argentina, Botswana, Finland, the Philippines and
Spain. Of these five, the mining associations from Argentina and the
Philippines are ICMM associate members. It is apparent that the vast
majority of country-level mining industry associations included in the
sample are not ICMM members, and have not referenced or adopted
MAC’s TSM Initiative, or the MCA’s EVF. Table 1 and Fig. 2 provide a
summary of the sample, and the findings outlined in this section.
Of the 61 mining industry associations with a web presence, 41
(67%) had made a public statement about sustainability. These com-
mitments ranged from mention of sustainable development into the
organisation’s stated aims Sweden’s SveMin, for example, aims to
“promote sustainable development and efficient, balanced, long-term
management of energy and natural resources while showing due con-
sideration for people, the economy, the environment and the society in
general” (SveMin, 2017). Likewise, the vision statement of the Guinea
Chamber of Mines is to “promote Guinea's economic and social devel-
opment, in collaboration with other actors” (Chambre des Mines
Guinée, 2014). Other organisations provide more of a token embrace of
sustainability, while focussing on attracting investment, increasing
sector activity and lowering taxes. Kazakhstan’s Republican Association
of Mining and Metallurgical Enterprises, for example, “aims at con-
solidation of efforts for private entrepreneurship development in the
mining and metallurgical complex of Kazakhstan based on the socially
responsible business principles” (Kazakhstan’s Republican Association
of Mines of the Philippines is “an association advancing the interest of
mining, quarrying and mineral processing companies for the efficient
exploration, development and utilisation of minerals in consonance
with sound economic, environmental and social policies” (Chamber of
Mines of the Philippines, 2017).
Again, of the 61 mining industry associations with a web presence,
28 (46%) had formal policy positions that articulate general statements
5
ICMM associate membership includes mining industry associations in Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Ghana, India, Namibia, Japan, Peru, the Philippines,
South Africa and USA.
V. Vivoda, D. Kemp The Extractive Industries and Society 6 (2019) 22–28

Fig. 1. Mining industry associations by decade of establishment and region.

Table 1
Mining industry associations (summary).
SAMPLE FINDINGS

Jurisdictions Associations Web Public statement on Formal Formal policy includes ICMM associate Reference TSM
scanned presence sustainability sustainability policy social performance members Initiative

North America 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
South and Central 17 14 12 12 10 10 3 1
America
Sub-Saharan 33 22 16 11 7 6 2 1
Africa
Mid. East and N. 8 2 2 0 0 0 – –
Africa
Asia and the 20 16 13 8 3 3 5 1
Pacific
Former Soviet 6 3 2 1 0 0 – –
Union
Europe 17 14 14 7 6 5 – 2
TOTAL 104 73 61 41 28 26 12 5*

* excludes Canada.

Fig. 2. Geographic spread of mining industry associations, sustainability commitment and policy support for social performance.

25
V. Vivoda, D. Kemp The Extractive Industries and Society 6 (2019) 22–28

into formal commitments. Of those 41 associations that had made high- Table 2
level public statements about sustainability, this represents a 68% Coverage of social performance topics, with ICMM associate members and as-
conversion rate. In other words, of those associations that made a public sociations referencing the TSM Initiative highlighted in bold.
statement about sustainability, just over two-thirds had a formal policy
in place against which members could be formally held to account.
These commitments ranged from a comprehensive policy encouraging
environmental and social sustainability, as in Argentina, Bulgaria,
Guinea, Mexico, Peru or Tanzania, to policies supporting mining busi-
nesses to play a leading role in greening the economy, as in the case of
New Zealand’s Straterra.
In our analysis, we took an interest in examining the content of the
associations’ social performance policy positions. The relationship be-
tween three pillars of sustainable development (economic, environ-
mental and social) is generally assumed to be equal and mutually
supporting. In practice, however, the social pillar is increasingly noted
as the least advanced pillar of sustainable development, and difficult to
operationalise (Bostrom, 2012). While our aim is to evaluate the degree
to which the different policies reflected all the dimensions, we ex-
amined social performance to test the depth of commitment to this
pillar.
A total of 26 industry associations in our sample had policy posi-
tions that included social aspects of mining. As a percentage of the 61
associations with a web presence, 43% cover social aspects. As a per-
centage of the 41 associations that make a public statement about
sustainability, 63% have policy commitments that cover social aspects.
As a percentage of associations with sustainability policies, 92% in-
cluded reference to social aspects. The policies of Zimbabwe and France
did not reference the social aspects of mining. Guided by the European
Union’s circular economy approach, France’s Alliance des Minerais,
Minéraux et Métaux, for example, promoted recycling, renewable en-
ergy, high performance materials and eco-buildings, but makes no
mention of the social or community aspects of mining.
We also analysed the content of policy statements that included
social aspects. We identified the topics that were mentioned, and con-
ducted a frequency count. Community development and social invest-
ment, and community engagement were the most frequently mentioned
social performance topics in the 61 associations with a web presence.
Out of 26 mining industry associations that included elements of social
performance, 71% covered community development and social invest-
ment and 63% covered community engagement. Other social perfor-
mance topics were covered by less than one-quarter of mining industry
associations. Mexico and Papua New Guinea covered five of the listed
elements, followed by Chile and Tanzania, with four elements. Seven Europe (14). Only seven mining industry associations that formed part
non-ICMM association members mentioned three or more social per- of our sample are not located in these four regions. Within each of the
formance elements on their websites. These include mining industry regional samples, the highest occurrence of mining industry associa-
associations in Madagascar, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Papua tions as a share of the jurisdictions that were initially scanned was in
New Guinea, Sweden and Tanzania. (See Table 2).6 Central and South America and Europe (both 82% of jurisdiction
After completing the frequency count, we also considered social scanned), followed by the Asia-Pacific (78%). The lowest occurrence
performance topics that were not mentioned in public statements or was recorded in the Middle East (25%). Among the 61 mining industry
policy frameworks, but are prominent issues in mining and social per- associations with a web presence, all of the Central and South American
formance globally. These topics are frequent drivers of conflict, and and North American industry associations had made public statements
tend not to be part of mining regulations in most national jurisdictions. about sustainability, followed by the Sub-Saharan Africa (69%). None
They also represent some of the most significant or “material” social of the North Africa or Middle Eastern associations had made public
risks and impacts of mining. The three topics included: (i) displacement statements about sustainability.7 The highest prevalence of industry
and resettlement; (ii) human rights; and (iii) conflict and grievance associations with formal policy positions on sustainable development
handling. None of these topics were mentioned by any of the mining was in the North American (100%) and Central and South American
industry associations in our sample. (83%) samples. In all other regions, less than half of industry associa-
While the focus of the paper is on country-level mining associations, tions with web presence had formal policy positions.8
there are notable findings from a regional perspective. There are four We highlight three intra-regional distinctions. First, within Sub-
major regional clusters in the sample of 73 mining industry associa- Saharan Africa, the vast majority of national mining industry associa-
tions, which include Central and South America (14 mining industry tions with a public statement about sustainability (seven out of 11
associations), Sub-Saharan Africa (22), Asia and the Pacific (16), and
7
Note that regional samples for North America and North Africa and the Middle East
include only two associations with web presence.
8
6
Note that Australia’s MCA and Canada’s MAC were excluded from analysis as they The lowest prevalence was recorded in the Former Soviet Union and in North Africa
were set as benchmarks. and the Middle East (both zero), although both regional samples were relatively small.

26
V. Vivoda, D. Kemp
jurisdictions) and policy positions that included elements of social
performance (five out of six jurisdictions) were members of the Mining
Industry Association of Southern Africa (MIASA). In fact, Guinea was
the only Sub-Saharan African jurisdiction outside of MIASA’s mem-
bership with a public statement about sustainability and a policy that
included elements of social performance. This may be because there is a
longer history of large-scale mining in Southern Africa than elsewhere
on the continent, aside from a few exceptions, such as Ghana. The
second intra-regional distinction we highlight is situated within Europe.
Here, the prevalence of public statement and policy positions that in-
cluded elements of social performance was higher in Northern Europe
(Finland, Norway and Sweden) than in Western, Southern and Eastern
Europe, where only two of 11 jurisdictions (Bulgaria and Greece) ad-
dressed social performance. A plausible explanation is that there are
now few operating mines in these jurisdictions (e.g. in France, Spain or
the United Kingdom). Third, within Asia and the Pacific, associations
that had made public statements about sustainability and formalised a
policy position that included elements of social performance could only
be found in three Pacific/Australasian states (Australia, New Zealand
and Papua New Guinea).
5. Discussion
In this section we present three topics for discussion. Our first topic
relates to the coverage of sustainability in public statements and formal
policies on mining industry association websites. In the context of the
global mining industry, with its myriad norms and standards on sus-
tainable development, we would expect that industry associations en-
gage this agenda. We would further expect that if public statements are
made, they are translated – in some meaningful way – into policies that
encourage members to advance sustainable development agenda in
practice. Our findings suggest that these expectations hold to a limited
extent.
Of the 61 associations with web presence, 20 (33%) had not made a
public statement about sustainability. Numerous mining industry as-
sociations are concerned with a narrow set of activities. Of the 41 as-
sociations that had made a public statement about sustainability, 13
(32%) did not have a sustainable development policy, or a positions
that converted general statements into specific commitments. In other
words, of those associations that had made a public statement about
sustainability, just under one-third do not have a formal policy against
which they could be held to account, or an association could hold its
members to account. These findings highlight a significant gap in the
coverage of sustainable development and associated policy commit-
ments among mining industry associations. They also support the
general view in the literature that sustainable development is not the
raison d'être of a mining industry association. Only some mining in-
dustry associations have made sustainability principles and commit-
ments core to their organisational mandate and purpose. Many appear
to be making piecemeal statements to enhance their “green” credentials
as public relations “spin”.
While nascent mining industry associations may have good intent,
capacity constraints often limit their ability to promote good social and
environmental practice among member mining companies. In this
context, we ask: Is the mandate of the ICMM and leading country-level
mining industry associations, such as MAC and the MCA broad enough?
The low rate of conversion among ICMM association members suggests
that opportunities exist to support associate members to advance sus-
tainable development in a meaningful, rather than a superficial,
manner. As the ICMM is member driven, the obligation to engage this
question, in fact, rests with corporate members. Any decision to extend
the organisation’s reach will depend on whether members seek to po-
sition themselves as an “elite” group of principled companies, or whe-
ther members are prepared to engage lower capacity members in in-
novative ways, where the need is great.
Our second topic relates to the depth and coverage of social
27
The Extractive Industries and Society 6 (2019) 22–28
performance topics. Our findings highlight that only half of the asso-
ciations with a web presence mention the social aspects of mining as
part of their commitment to sustainable development. The majority of
these associations confine social performance to community develop-
ment and social investment, or how the industry can contribute and “do
good”. None of the industry associations in our sample engage issues
that drive social risk, impact, and company-community conflict. These
findings reflect an industry that is focused on giving, but not on un-
derstanding the social contexts in which it operates, or managing
mining-induced harm. This represents a major gap in sustainable de-
velopment coverage and commitment throughout mining industry as-
sociations, globally.
The third and final topic for discussion relates to the emergence and
global spread of country-level mining industry associations. Due to
paucity in the literature on mining industry associations we needed to
map where they existed, along with the pattern of their emergence. In
doing so, we discovered that several associations had existed for more
than a century. Chile’s Sociedad Nacional de Minería, was founded in
1883, for example, and Peru’s Sociedad Nacional de Minería, Petróleo y
Energía in 1896. Both of these associations, along with several others
that emerged at the turn of the century, still exist today. The 20th
century witnessed a slow but steady emergence of new associations,
and then, as our findings show, there was a surge from the 1990s. Some
of the more well-established associations have updated their organisa-
tional mandates and policy frameworks, and remained “current”,
whereas others have not. A similar level of variation exists within the
newer associations. One fruitful avenue for further research may be to
examine commitment to sustainable development relative to maturity.
Our findings also demonstrate that 30% of scanned jurisdictions –
which, according to the Fraser Institute, represent some of the most
geological and political attractive in the world – do not have a national
mining industry association.9 There are several plausible explanations
for why mining industry associations do not exist in as many as 31
jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have only recently opened the door to
mining investment and/or have few operators. Under these circum-
stances there is no logic or impetus for establishing an organisation that
would collectively represent the interests of one or very few operators.
This is pronounced in countries, such as Fiji, French Guiana, Greenland,
New Caledonia, Solomon Islands and Suriname. Another plausible
reason for why some jurisdictions do not have a mining industry as-
sociation is because the promotion of extractive industries falls within
the purview of general business chambers, rather than sector-specific
associations.
6. Conclusion
This study sought to establish new knowledge about country-level
mining industry associations with respect to sustainable development.
As important and relatively understudied organisations, industry asso-
ciations present an opportunity for diffusion of leading practice norms
and standards on social and environmental issues in mining. We were
interested in understanding the emergence of mining industry asso-
ciations, examining their public statements about sustainability, along
with formal sustainability policies. The study does not provide a defi-
nitive answer on whether these associations are either “malignant” or
“beneficial” to society (Marques, 2017). The study does, however, raise
questions about the degree to which national mining industry associa-
tions are approaching sustainable development in a meaningful way, or
using it as an opportunity for public relations spin.
Opportunities for extending this study are numerous, some of which
9
Albania, Angola, Armenia, Belarus, Burundi, Central African Republic, Eritrea, Fiji,
French Guiana, Gabon, Greenland, Guatemala, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lesotho, New
Caledonia, Niger, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Republic of Congo, Romania, Solomon Islands,
South Sudan, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey and Vietnam.
V. Vivoda, D. Kemp
were mentioned above. A priority area for further research is to analyse
the approach of mining industry associations to sustainable develop-
ment in practice, which was beyond our scope. Opportunities also exist
to examine the sustainability policy frameworks of sub-national in-
dustry associations in countries where they exist, such as Argentina,
Australia, Canada and the United States, and regional associations, such
as MIASA and Euromines, which are themselves ICMM associate
members. These regional organisations may provide useful inter-
locutors between global and country-level associations. Our analysis
could also be extended to the sustainability commitments of country-
level industry associations in other extractive sectors, such as oil and
gas. Finally, there is significant scope to examine mining industry as-
sociations as actors within their country context, including whether
they are distracting from, or driving towards, sustainable development.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the CSRM Advisory Board, including Adjunct
Professor Christine Charles, Adjust Professor Chris Anderson and
especially Industry Fellow, Ramanie Kunayanagam for her detailed
comments and encouragement. We also acknowledge the helpful
feedback received from Dr Terry O’Callaghan and Julia Keenan and the
journal’s three anonymous reviewers.
References
Barnett, M.L., 2013. One voice, but whose voice? Exploring what drives trade association
activity. Bus. Soc. 52 (2), 213–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650309350211.
Barnett, M.L., Hoffman, A.J., 2008. Beyond corporate reputation: managing reputational
interdependence. Corp. Reput. Rev. 11 (1), 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/crr.
2008.2.
Bostrom, M., 2012. A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sus-
tainability: introduction to the special issue. Sustain.: Sci. Pract. Policy 8 (1), 3–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908080.
Brammer, S., Jackson, G., Matten, D., 2012. Corporate social responsibility and institu-
tional theory: new perspectives on private governance. Soc.-Econ. Rev. 10 (1), 3–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr030.
Buchanan, S., Marques, J.C., 2018. How home country industry associations influence
MNE international CSR practices: evidence from the Canadian mining industry. J.
World Bus. 53 (1), 63–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.07.005.
Campbell, J.T., Eden, L., Miller, S., 2012. Multinationals and corporate social responsi-
bility in host countries: does distance matter? J. Int. Bus. Stud. 43 (1), 84–106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.45.
CCSI (Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment), UN Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the
World Economic Forum, 2016. Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Development
Goals: An Atlas. http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/mapping-mining-to-the-
sustainable-development-goals-an-atlas/ (Accessed 29 May 2018).
Chamber of Mines of the Philippines, 2017. About Our Association. (Accessed 17 April
2018). http://www.chamberofmines.com.ph/company-profile/.
Chambre des Mines Guinée, 2014. President’S Word. (Accessed 17 April 2018). http://
chambredesminesgn.com/la-chambre/mot-du-president/.
Cutler, A.C., Haufler, V., Porter, T. (Eds.), 1999. Private Authority and International
Affairs. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Dashwood, H.S., 2007. Canadian mining companies and corporate social responsibility:
weighing the impact of global norms. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 40 (1), 129–156. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1017/S0008423907070047.
Dashwood, H.S., 2012. The Rise of Global Corporate Social Responsibility: Mining and the
Spread of Global Norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Dashwood, H.S., 2014. Sustainable development and industry self-regulation: develop-
ments in the global mining sector. Bus. Soc. 53 (4), 551–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0007650313475997.
Delmas, M.A., Toffel, M.W., 2004. Stakeholders and environmental management prac-
tices: an institutional framework. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 13 (4), 209–222. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/bse.409.
Delmas, M.A., Toffel, M.W., 2008. Organizational responses to environmental demands:
opening the black box. Strateg. Manag. J. 29 (10), 1027–1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/smj.701.
Egri, C.P., Ralston, D.A., 2008. Corporate responsibility: a review of international man-
agement research from 1998 to 2007. J. Int. Manag. 14 (4), 319–339. http://dx.doi.
28
The Extractive Industries and Society 6 (2019) 22–28
org/10.1016/j.intman.2007.09.003.
Elbra, A., 2017. Governing African Gold Mining: Private Governance and the Resource
Curse. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Gifford, B., Kestler, A., Anand, S., 2010. Building local legitimacy into corporate social
responsibility: gold mining firms in developing nations. J. World Bus. 45 (3),
304–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.007.
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., Krause, T.-S., 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable
development: implications for management theory and research. Acad. Manag. Rev.
20 (4), 874–907. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258959.
Grayson, D., Nelson, J., 2013. Corporate Responsibility Coalitions: The Past, Present, and
Future of Alliances for Sustainable Capitalism. Stanford University Press, Redwood
City, CA.
Helms, W.S., Oliver, C., Webb, K., 2012. Antecedents of settlement on a new institutional
practice: negotiation of the ISO 26000 standard on social responsibility. Acad.
Manage. J. 55 (5), 1120–1145. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.1045.
Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the multinational en-
terprise: strategic and institutional approaches. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37 (6), 838–849.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400227.
ICMM (International Council on Mining and Metals), 2003. ICMM Sustainable
Development Framework. ICMM Principles (Accessed 17 April 2018). https://www.
iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/minicmmstat.pdf.
ICMM (International Council on Mining and Metals), 2015. Sustainable Development
Framework. Revised edition. ICMM Principles (Accessed 17 April 2018). https://
www.icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/commitments/revised-2015_icmm-
principles.pdf.
ICMM (International Council on Mining and Metals), 2018. Member Associations.
(Accessed 17 April 2018). https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/members/member-
associations.
Jackson, T., Green, K.P., 2017. The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies.
(Accessed 17 April 2018). https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/
survey-of-mining-companies-2016.pdf.
Kazakhstan’s Republican Association of Mining and Metallurgical Enterprises, 2017.
About AHMWP. (Accessed 17 April 2018). http://agmp.kz/korotko-ob-agmp/.
Kolk, A., 2016. The social responsibility of international business: from ethics and the
environment to CSR and sustainable development. J. World Bus. 51 (1), 23–34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.010.
Lindsay, N.M., 2011. Mining industry associations and CSR discourse: mapping the ter-
rain of sustainable development strategies. In: Sagebien, J., Lindsay, N.M. (Eds.),
Governance Ecosystems: CSR in the Latin American Mining Sector. Palgrave
Macmillan, London.
Lux, S., Crook, T.R., Woehr, D.J., 2011. Mixing business with politics: a meta-analysis of
the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. J. Manag. 37 (1),
223–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310392233.
MAC (Mining Association of Canada), 2018. Towards Sustainable Mining. (Accessed 17
April 2018). http://mining.ca/towards-sustainable-mining.
Marques, J.C., 2017. Industry business associations: self-interested or socially conscious?
J. Bus. Ethics 143, 733–751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3077-y.
Marques, J.C., Utting, P., 2010. Business, Politics and Public Policy: Implications for
Inclusive Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.
MCA (Minerals Council of Australia), 2005. Enduring Value: The Australian Minerals
Industry Framework for Sustainable Development. (Accessed 17 April 2018). http://
www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/resources/enduring_value/EV_
SummaryBooklet_June2005.pdf.
MCA (Minerals Council of Australia), 2015. Enduring Value: The Australian Minerals
Industry Framework for Sustainable Development. 2015 edition. (Accessed 17 April
2018). http://www.minerals.org.au/leading_practice/enduring_value.
Moon, J., 2007. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable devel-
opment. Sustain. Dev. 15 (5), 296–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.346.
Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., 2017. Extractive Relations: Countervailing Power and the Global
Mining Industry. Greenleaf Publishing/Routledge, Sheffield, UK.
Rajwani, T., Lawton, T., Phillips, N., 2015. The “voice of industry”: why management
researchers should pay more attention to trade associations. Strateg. Org. 13 (5),
224–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127015590963.
Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., Hughes, E., 2016. The private sector and the SDGs: the need to
move beyond ‘business as usual’. Sustain. Dev. 24 (6), 371–382. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/sd.1623.
Short, J.L., Toffel, M.W., 2010. Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: the
critical role of the legal environment. Admin. Sci. Q. 55 (3), 361–396. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.361.
Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Stoughton, A.M., Ludema, J., 2012. The driving forces of sustainability. J. Organ. Change
Manag. 25 (4), 501–517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534811211239191.
SveMin, 2017. We Think Swedish Mining Is a Key Player in the Transformation into
Sustainable Society. (Accessed 17 April 2018). https://www.svemin.se/vi-tycker/
hallbarhet/.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.