Mining and Sustainable Development II - DTIE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mining Environmental management and global reporting The Global Reporting Initiative – an opportunity for the mining industry Robert K Massie, Chair, GRI Steering Committee; and Executive Director of CERES Allen White, Transition Director, GRI; and Vice President, Tellus Institute Nancy Bennet, UNEP consultant to the Global Reporting Initiative, The Netherlands Abstract Business managers, investors, consumers, governments, and others are all asking versions of the same question: how do we obtain a clear picture of the human and ecological impact of business, so that we can make informed decisions about our investments, purchases, and partnerships? The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a long-term, multi-stakeholder, international undertaking to develop globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines for voluntary use by organizations reporting on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of their activities, products and services. The GRI raises sustainability reporting to the same level of acceptance and consistency as financial reporting. Résumé Les chefs d’entreprises, les investisseurs, les consommateurs, les gouvernements et bien d’autres groupes posent tous la même question sous des formes différentes : comment obtenir un tableau clair de l’impact humain et écologique des activités économiques, afin de prendre des décisions éclairées en matière d’investissements, d’achats et de partenariats ? La Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) est une entreprise internationale multipartite à long terme, qui se propose d’élaborer des lignes directrices universelles que les entreprises utiliseraient à titre volontaire pour produire des rapports sur les dimensions économiques, environnementales et sociales de leurs activités, produits et services. La GRI a pour ambition d’amener les rapports sur le développement durable au même niveau d’approbation et de cohérence que les bilans financiers. Resumen Los administradores de empresas, los inversores, los consumidores y los gobiernos están formulando versiones de la misma pregunta: ¿cómo obtener una visión clara del impacto humano y ecológico del comercio, de manera de tomar decisiones contando con información sobre nuestras inversiones, adquisiciones y asociaciones? La Iniciativa de Información Globalizada (GRI) es un emprendimiento internacional a largo plazo, de participación múltiple, para el desarrollo de pautas de información sobre sustentabilidad aplicables globalmente para ser usadas voluntariamente por las organizaciones que reportan sobre los aspectos económicos, ambientales y sociales de sus actividades, productos y servicios. La GRI eleva el informe de sustentabilidad al mismo nivel de aceptación y coherencia que los informes financieros “It has often been said that the resource companies missed the wave of the environmental movement in the 1970s, and have played catch-up ever since. The avalanche of non-financial reporting that is being produced is testament to the fact that the minerals industry is determined to stay ahead of the next wave.” Hugh Morgan, CEO of WMC Accountability, responsibility, transparency and reporting are no longer just ‘buzz words’ in the boardrooms of many transnational corporations. These trends are spreading to attract a broad range of companies including those that are transnational, medium sized, from a wide range of industry sectors, and from all over the globe. The reasons for this are complex. They include increasing social tensions resulting from globalization, the rising public expectations of corporate behaviour, the desire to meet the needs of the world’s poor, the communications revolution and the ‘CNN’ effect, the imperative to respect human rights, escalating environmental problems at both a global level and in our own neighbourhoods, and increasing, pressures from investors – to name but a few. Many civil society groups and commentators, including the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, point to the increasing economic power and influence exercised by large multinational companies and suggest that companies increasingly have the resources and capacity to 20 ◆ UNEP Industry and Environment – Special issue 2000
Mining address these issues where governments do not. Disagreements over how to mobilize this capacity have intensified in the press, in the halls of government, in the business community, and in a variety of international forums. Representatives from business, government, and civil society are searching for new approaches to better align corporate governance with the economic, social, and environmental realities of the 21st century. “We need help from the private sector. Transnational companies have been the first to benefit from globalization. They must take their share of the responsibility for coping with its effects.” Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations The mining industry is not immune to these pressures. While a mining company’s products are not easily associated with the companies that produce them, the public perception of the mining industry is generally negative. In both the developed and developing worlds, many people have the perception that the mining industry is concerned only with short term profits, collaborating with unjust regimes, raping virgin territory of its natural resources, destroying native customs and biological diversity, abandoning social and physical infrastructure in remote areas once an operation is finished and leaving permanent scars in once pristine landscapes . These perceptions cannot be ignored if the mining industry is to thrive in the 21 st century. These issues cause concern for many mining companies. Hugh Morgan, the CEO of WMC, referred to many of these issues in an article entitled “Sustainable development is an emerging part of our business strategy” available at http://www.wmc.com: “The worldwide minerals and metals sector is experiencing momentous changes: commodity prices tumbling; rapid currency movements; social and economic upheavals in the developing world; and a vigorous drive for greater public accountability and voluntary public reporting. The first three issues have been analysed extensively. The fourth has occurred virtually undetected by financial markets – until a few weeks ago. One of Australia’s most prestigious stockbrokers, J B Were & Son, recently (9 June 1998) issued a four-page mining research report on WMC, of which 75 per cent was about our environmental performance, specifically about our third annual Environment Progress Report. The following is an extract from the J B Were report; “The process of continuous monitoring and reporting of environmental progress is seen by J B Were as positive and necessary ... In the future, resource companies that do not respond to community standards and attitudes on environmental issues will have their growth potential severely limited.” The commentary from J B Were may not be all that surprising to some, but coming from a leading stockbroker, the J B Were report is, to the best of my knowledge, a first. If there was ever any doubt that financial markets viewed environmentalism as a mainstream issue – by which I mean an issue that has the capacity to directly affect shareholder value – then J B Were has dispelled that doubt” Collectively, the industry is working toward improving its image as well as its operations on the ground. The International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), an association of metals mining and smelting companies, has published a report on the changing attitudes and practices of member companies regarding community responsibilities and ethical behaviour. In addition, ICME has also recently added “community responsibility principles” to its environmental charter. 3 From words to action: From this maze of pressures and often-conflicting messages it is a formidable challenge for companies to address serious social and environmental issues on a day-to-day basis. Fortunately, one issue does resonate loudly and clearly. Business managers, investors, consumers, governments, and others are all asking versions of the same question: how do we obtain a clear picture of the human and ecological impact of business, so that we can make informed decisions about our investments, purchases, and partnerships? Achieving such clarity in measurement and reporting holds the promise of delivering value both to business— by providing a critical management tool—and to external stakeholders—by providing timely, relevant, and reliable information on the reporting organization. 4 In increasing numbers, businesses around the world are choosing to voluntarily publish environmental reports – already numbering at least 2000 – detailing their management systems and environmental performance. A recent study by the Institute for Environmental Management and KPMG found that over 35 of the world’s 250 largest companies are voluntarily publishing environmental reports. Of these reports, a higher level of reporting was noted in sectors with a perceived large environmental impact such as mining, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, chemicals & synthetics, and transport (airlines, rail, shipping) 5 . Recently, some leading companies have begun to enlarge the purview of their reporting to encompass social issues, indicating an incipient trend toward broader, environmental–social–economic sustainability reporting. For example, an excerpt in the ‘Message to Stakeholders’ of the 1999 Noranda Sustainability Report reads as follows: “In 1990, environment, safety and health were primarily about regulatory compliance, pollution and industrial hygiene. Increasingly, however, we are being called to account not only for what we do but also how we do it. Accordingly, we need to measure the extent to which our operations enhance economic development, ensure environmental protection and promote social equity”. A quick scan of the Internet demonstrates that some of the leading mining companies have issued some kind of environment report: BHP, Placer Dome, Rio Tinto, RGC, Noranda, North, and WMC have all published public environment reports, and some have also published community reports, safety reports and sustainable development reports. “Our 1999 Environment and Community Report is part of our commitment to being open and straightforward about our successes and failures. It shows that, in a year of tough decisions and dramatic change, we continued to pursue our commitment to managing our activities in ways that integrate environmental, social and economic objectives.” Paul Anderson, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, BHP While these trends are encouraging, major obstacles remain before such reporting can reach its potential as a vehicle for higher standards of corporate accountability and before such reports can effectively be used to benchmark the performance of companies and monitor their compliance with external commitments. One key obstacle is the absence of a generally accepted reporting framework, which would greatly enhance the credibility, comparability and comprehensiveness of corporate sustainability reports. In the same way that financial reporting standards provide users with reliable and comparable financial information a common framework for sustainability reporting is essential to elevate the practice to this level. Without such a framework, stakeholders, and companies will have limited ability to compare, benchmark, rate, and utilize performance information. To meet this need for a common reporting framework, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has joined forces with a number of leading international organizations in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Since its inception in 1997, the GRI has worked to design and build acceptance of a common framework for reporting on the linked aspects of sustainability— the economic, the environmental, and the social. Although in the long term the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines are intended for all types of organizations, the GRI’s initial work has focused on reporting by business organizations. The GRI recognizes that reporting on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of organizationlevel activity – let alone a fully integrated sustainability assessment – is at the earliest stages of a journey that will continue for many years. 6 The UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics has for many years worked to stimulate individual companies – and industry associations through their membership – to report on their environmental performance and the implementation of their voluntary commitments in the form of codes of conduct and charters. Since 1994, UNEP and the London-based SustainAbility Ltd have produced ten reports on corporate sustainability reporting through its joint Engaging Stakeholders Programme. This programme has developed a strong reputation among a variety of stakeholders as a credible authority on corporate reporting. This programme helps meet the ever-increasing demand for corporate sustainability report benchmarking, and the further analysis of sustainability reporting at the sector- UNEP Industry and Environment – Special issue 2000 ◆ 21
Page 1 and 2: UNEP ISSN 0378-9993 Industry and En
Page 3 and 4: E d i t o r i a l Editorial Mining
Page 5 and 6: Mining Figure 2 Major metal product
Page 7 and 8: Mining Table 2 The world’s 50 lar
Page 9 and 10: Mining Activities Programme in the
Page 11 and 12: Mining Mined Output (% of total val
Page 13 and 14: Mining the Western economies (prima
Page 15 and 16: Mining centration levels between me
Page 17 and 18: Mining resources), human-made capit
Page 19: Mining does not easily incorporate
Page 23 and 24: Mining 2. Profile of Reporting Orga
Page 25 and 26: Mining Mining Industry Report Compa
Page 27 and 28: Mining • assist members in meetin
Page 29 and 30: Mining time-scales required to judg
Page 31 and 32: Mining 2. Evaluate the hazards and
Page 33 and 34: Mining States 1 ; the World Conserv
Page 35 and 36: Mining (AMEEF) Environmental Manage
Page 37 and 38: Mining mercury levels from the cont
Page 39 and 40: Mining Rehabilitation measures: wat
Page 41 and 42: Mining liques inorganiques en phase
Page 43 and 44: Mining in the context of mining as
Page 45 and 46: Mining most countries, but often on
Page 47 and 48: Mining Environmental impacts of tra
Page 49 and 50: Mining competing interests and need
Page 51 and 52: Mining ronment? Third, what lessons
Page 53 and 54: Mining miners are already at work.
Page 55 and 56: Mining funding life cycle of a mini
Page 57 and 58: Mining Social issues Mining and the
Page 59 and 60: Mining indigenous traditions and cu
Page 61 and 62: Mining ticipants in that workshop r
Page 63 and 64: Mining Mining and indigenous people
Page 65 and 66: Mining Key Recommendations from the
Page 67 and 68: Mining despite great improvements,
Page 69 and 70: Mining between NGOs and the public
Page 71 and 72:
Mining The case for auditing and ce
Page 73 and 74:
Mining of local relevant mining leg
Page 75 and 76:
Mining Tailings dams In order to re
Page 77 and 78:
Mining structures that are specific
Page 79 and 80:
Mining Il est difficile de ne pas f
Page 81 and 82:
Mining Cas où le coût de l’extr
Page 83 and 84:
Mining Voluntary non-regulatory and
Page 85 and 86:
Mining stances by the year 2000. Re
Page 87 and 88:
Mining Viewpoints on future challen
Page 89 and 90:
Mining Selection of World Heritage
Page 91 and 92:
Mining area agencies and managers h
Page 93 and 94:
Mining ◆ Aprovechar racionalmente
Page 95 and 96:
THE UNEP DIVISION OF TECHNOLOGY, IN
show all

Mining and Sustainable Development II - DTIE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?