58
5 What the Public Wants; Public Reactions
accidents (http://www.riskope.com/2016/12/06/geohazards-caused-human-activity/
#_blank).
As a matter of fact, in (Oboni et al. 2013) we wrote that the public distrust towards
the mining industry originated in the fact that consequences are oftentimes poorly
defined. We also wrote that we should take into account “indirect/life-changing”
effects on population and other social aspects. These can be grasped by modern
techniques using simplified method and considering the wide uncertainties that surrounds the driving parameters. Among these:
• human;
• fish, fauna and top-soil/vegetation consequences;
• long term economic and development consequences;
• social impacts.
From the Sendai Framework we infer that it is likely that peoples and communities
will recover confidence in institutions if there is clear evidence of the willingness of
States to guarantee the right to life. This means that States would have to enhance
the work for effective regulation and protection of people and that industry will have
to adapt and respect international agreements and covenants.
We can note here the similarity between the Sendai Framework and the
Aashukan Declaration (https://aashukandotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/theaashukan-declaration.pdf#_blank) of April 2017.
It seems again that preserving SLO and showing leadership in CSR require risk
assessments to become transparent, analyse the complexities of consequences and
allow transparent dialogue between stakeholders.
5.4 A Note on Communication and Transparency
5.4.1 Communication
As far as the public is concerned “Trust us” no longer works. As stated in the introduction, the social license to receive a permit to construct and operate (SLO) a tailings
facility depends nowadays on a company’s willingness to engage in meaningful communication with the public with the objective of gaining their trust (https://www.
riskope.com/2017/06/28/stakeholders-not-satisfied-probability-assessments/). This
view is supported by the Australian Government, which states:
A key challenge for mining companies is to earn the trust of the communities in which they
operate and to gain the support and approval of stakeholders to carry out the business of
mining. A ‘social license to operate’ can only be earned and preserved if mining projects are
planned, implemented and operated by incorporating meaningful consultation with stakeholders, in particular with the host communities. The decision-making process, including
where possible the technical design process, should involve relevant interest groups, from
the initial stages of project conceptualization right through the mine’s life and beyond. (AG
TMH 2016)
5 What the Public Wants; Public Reactions
accidents (http://www.riskope.com/2016/12/06/geohazards-caused-human-activity/
#_blank).
As a matter of fact, in (Oboni et al. 2013) we wrote that the public distrust towards
the mining industry originated in the fact that consequences are oftentimes poorly
defined. We also wrote that we should take into account “indirect/life-changing”
effects on population and other social aspects. These can be grasped by modern
techniques using simplified method and considering the wide uncertainties that surrounds the driving parameters. Among these:
• human;
• fish, fauna and top-soil/vegetation consequences;
• long term economic and development consequences;
• social impacts.
From the Sendai Framework we infer that it is likely that peoples and communities
will recover confidence in institutions if there is clear evidence of the willingness of
States to guarantee the right to life. This means that States would have to enhance
the work for effective regulation and protection of people and that industry will have
to adapt and respect international agreements and covenants.
We can note here the similarity between the Sendai Framework and the
Aashukan Declaration (https://aashukandotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/theaashukan-declaration.pdf#_blank) of April 2017.
It seems again that preserving SLO and showing leadership in CSR require risk
assessments to become transparent, analyse the complexities of consequences and
allow transparent dialogue between stakeholders.
5.4 A Note on Communication and Transparency
5.4.1 Communication
As far as the public is concerned “Trust us” no longer works. As stated in the introduction, the social license to receive a permit to construct and operate (SLO) a tailings
facility depends nowadays on a company’s willingness to engage in meaningful communication with the public with the objective of gaining their trust (https://www.
riskope.com/2017/06/28/stakeholders-not-satisfied-probability-assessments/). This
view is supported by the Australian Government, which states:
A key challenge for mining companies is to earn the trust of the communities in which they
operate and to gain the support and approval of stakeholders to carry out the business of
mining. A ‘social license to operate’ can only be earned and preserved if mining projects are
planned, implemented and operated by incorporating meaningful consultation with stakeholders, in particular with the host communities. The decision-making process, including
where possible the technical design process, should involve relevant interest groups, from
the initial stages of project conceptualization right through the mine’s life and beyond. (AG
TMH 2016)